User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 6

You are amazing. It seems like you could make even someone disagreeing with you (which would have been an accurate description of myself a few years ago, although my opinions on the subject change constantly) see your point. Well said. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 05:05 9 October, 2009 (UTC)

I take it you mean the post where I mention the now deleted Adult-child sex article? Whichever post you mean, yeah, I am what people would call a debater...and my way/play with words has been a gift of mine since I was about age 8 (no bragging intended, really). It works better for me in person. Sure, it has worked for me sometimes here at Wikipedia, but not always (as evidenced in my recent report of another editor for what I felt/feel was talk page harassment); one past case it failed was on the Ephebophilia article when trying to make an editor see that a sexual attraction to a 7-year-old is very much not the same thing as a sexual attraction to a 17-year-old, though both chronophilias are about the preference anyway. The guy eventually insulted me plenty of times, including calling me and my fellow editors working on that article pedophiles. I cannot even begin to express how much that stung and angered me. He was eventually banned, but did show up again as an IP address for another quick insult. Yes, for various important reasons, I utterly hate when people equate pedophilia with an adult sexual attraction for mid to late teenagers...but that does not mean that I am some ephebophile or do not see the harm in adults trying to "get it on" with underage teenagers. There are exceptions, however. If we are talking late teenagers, as in 17 to 19-year-olds (though I often include 16-year-olds in the late teenager category as well), I have to state that I do not see how a 17-year-old is going to be any more damaged by having sex with an older adult than an 18-year-old would. It is something I have studied, and then debated with prominent psychologists, but we all have our opinions. I debate what I feel I must. It is nice that you appreciated something I had to state. So thanks for that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, I found your post on Talk:Pedophilia to be spectacularly underwhelming in it's noncritical support of a rather weak argument. I'm not intending to offend, but the post you wrote in support of was very subjective and under-researched, and subtextually conflated the appropriateness and legality of pedophilic behavior with the psychological state of the pedophile. In my view, regardless of the truthfulness of the poster's main point, this is simply confusing, illogical, and uninformed, and does not deserve the commendation you gave it. SilenceSoLoud (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the post the user complimented me on has long been archived, I am not sure which post you are talking about. Are you sure you are responding to the same post the user above you is? If you are not talking about that post or the recent post by Legitimus regarding whether or not pedophilia is a disease (and, yes, I applauded the comment by Legitimus on that one), then I do not know what you are talking about. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see that you are indeed talking about this response...in regards to the reply by Legitimus. Let's just say I disagree with you. Others have replied to your protests, so there is no need for me to state anything more on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Flyer - You're not likely to receive a reply, SilenceSoLoud has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I felt he would be blocked soon enough. It semed like pedophilia advocating to me. The same tired song -- comparing homosexuality to pedophilia; basically saying that since homosexuality used to be considered a disease and disorder and is now simply deemed a sexual orientation, pedophilia should not be/or has a good chance of not being considered a disease or disorder but rather a sexual orientation. Yep, I am utterly tired of hearing that rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks and sorry for the rather slapdash editing on my part. will do better in future. Marthiemoo (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for planning to make sure that you are better about it in the future. Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is on the main page today. Would you mind keeping an eye out for vandalism? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. And congratulations. I know that you have worked hard on that article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Janet...Thats my girl! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank for sending me that link. TheInformant09 (talk) 19:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoopi goldberg did try to do a cover-up of her statement, and of course she calls it clarification. It is opinated to call it clarification, if you think it is opiniated to call it cover-up. If you think these are extremes I would suggest the neutral word "statement". Again the 2nd line was addeded to indicate that the "statement" made was incorrect (or out of context) as well. Without that it seems like she gets away with the criminal act (in my opinion) of siding with a rapist. I am not sure if you want to do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.191.125 (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, you are wrong to have done what you did more than once on this matter, which is why you are currently blocked. You are calling it a cover-up; that is your opinion and is wording that attacks Goldberg. Unless she states that it was a cover-up, we should not and cannot put "cover-up." We do not have to put "statement"...because she says she was clarifying and reliable sources credit her as clarifying. The second line you put was/is not even needed; it is clear that Roman Polanksi was charged with rape and later statutory rape; it was not consensual sex. If that is not clear to the reader when they read it, they can simply click on the Roman Polanski article if they are unfamiliar with this case; most readers reading that part of Goldberg's article are likely to click on his article out of curiosity about all this, anyway. Your feeling that Goldberg was "siding with a rapist" is also your opinion. Now I suppose you are going to call all of us of who reverted your edits "supporters of Polanski" as well, but that would also be your opinion since you cannot prove it. For the record, though, there is no way I would support the rape of a 13-year-old girl or side with the rapist who did it. That applies to more than just 13-year-old girls. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't notice the new sub title in Serial killer when I reverted this. Thanks for correcting, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a new subtitle; it is just that Bwmcmaste rearranged that part a little in order to put his "additional references" tag. I did not like that change, for what I feel is clear (and as my edit summary states), and reverted it while keeping his tag intact. You need not apologize; it is not as though you missed vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at 75.69.0.58's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

75.69.0.58 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

well I'm not suggesting that Hugh Hefner is sexually interested in 12-year-olds, however the ephebophilic obsession with youth can slide even lower down the age groups. For instance, I've known men to claim the wish to date late teens-early 20s, but sexually fantasize about underage teens. And I've discovered this from talking to many an ephebophile... you'd be surprised what people admit to in private. I'm not well-researched on Hugh Hefner, but if he is so fixated on 18-19 year olds it could just be that he is attracted to adults but prefers them as young as possible -and with his money he can afford to indulge in his tastes. However, some do date that young because of the whole "barely legal" thing. It's like hebephilia-ephebophilia combined. If the 12-year-old looks somewhat developed an ephebophile might "admire" his/her beauty, but it really depends on the ephebophile. Like teleiophiles, their tastes do vary. Some might think "gross, too young", others might think "old enough to bleed old enough to breed". Overall, 9-21 is the extended age group that you will find youth-lovers fixated with, with preferences depending on the hebe/ephebophile. It is very disturbing, but ephebophiles are typically not pleasant to talk to. Chocopocky (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A man wishing to date late teenagers-early 20-somethings but also sexually fantasizing about underage teenagers is not unusual...unless the underage teenagers are often close to 13 years old. Plenty of men have sexually fantasized about underage female teenagers at one point or another; Britney Spears is an excellent example of that, given the number of men, including male celebrities, who admitted sexual attraction to her while she was still 17. It is not as though 16 to 18 are distinguishable age-wise (the only time I have seen it where a 16-year-old can be told apart from an 18-year-old age-wise is when one is significantly younger or older looking than the other). But men generally finding teenagers sexually attractive is best summed up by Dr. Frederick S. Berlin in this source, where he says, "Most men can find adolescents attractive sexually, although, of course, that doesn't mean they're going to act on it. Some men who become involved with teenagers may not have a particular disorder. Opportunity and other factors may have contributed to their behaving in the way they do." His definition of ephebophilia is somewhat different than the way we define it here at Wikipedia, but he is correct about a lot of other stuff.

I cannot just brush it off as a "dirty old man" thing when a man is sexually fantasizing about 9-year-old females; that type of sexual fantasy is bordering on pedophilia, and is pedophilia in a lot of cases. I cannot see too many genuine ephebophiles wanting to sexually be with 9 year olds. Hebephiles? Sure, if the girl has breasts. But not ephebophiles...unless they are ephebophiles who simply "take what they can get" as long as the target has some type of feature that signals adulthood. Whenever the 9 year olds are male, it is always considered pedophilia due to how boys physically mature slower than girls. But, still, except for a 9-year-old girl having breasts (not all girls of that age are that developed), I do not see it as that distinct from pedophilia for a man to be sexually fantasizing about 9 year old girls...given how very child-like 9 year olds look. 12 year olds? As I stated before, I also find people sexually fantasizing about 12 year olds to be abnormal in that sense. A passing "I'm so ashamed I just briefly found a girl this young sexually attractive" type of thing happens in some cases when the 12-year-old girl has adult features, but I would state that most normal men do not fantasize about 12 and 13-year-old girls on a regular basis. I would also state that, given societal conditioning, most normal men do not sexually fantasize about any underage teenagers on a regular basis...unless fixated on one or a few particular teenagers...such as any "dirty old man" who might have been sexually obsessed with a 17-year-old Britney Spears. Flyer22 (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that it's normal for adult men to be attracted to developed teenagers, as they aren't all that different physically from mature men/women... however it becomes a problem when the adult man is fixated with girls of 15 for example, or with girls or boys who look physically immature (small breasts, no body hair, no curves etc.). Or a paraphilia when they are only turned on by school uniforms or anything that signifies underage status. That is when it's ephebophilia. There are some adults who actively seek out young teenagers because they don't find legal women sexually appealing. A regular adult man would find most 21-year-olds sexually attractive. For some ephebophiles? No, too old. That's when it's a problem. They're also attracted by the teenager's emotional immaturity, and seek to mould or "corrupt" them. If you look at most consumers of barely legal pornography the majority will tell you that they're turned on by the whole "corrupting an innocent girl" concept. In some cases it's a harmless fantasy, in others the man does go on to seek a young girl to play with.

Well Britney Spears was nevertheless pretty developed-looking, I also found the t.A.T.u case interesting (the Russian pseudo-lesbian popstars who really appeared underage). Most likely plenty of the men who fantasized about Britney also fantasize about the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Scarlett Johansson. And then you get the ephebophiles who prefer Miley Cyrus, Britney in school uniform and Hermione from Harry Potter. There is an entire online world that caters to them (see teen model sites). Although I agree with Dr. Frederick, there are men or women who actively seek out much younger partners, and that's what distinguishes them from regular adults.

Well attraction to girls of 9 is in extreme cases. You could call it the Lolita syndrome... wasn't Humbert attracted to girls of 9-14? Though he was most likely a hebephile. I believe there are different types of ephebophile, there are those who veer towards the "adult" direction, and those who veer towards the "child" one. Some ephebophiles abhor pedophilia, while others have almost a hatred towards fully mature women, with their attraction towards girls getting lower and lower... with the ephebophile dropping a girl when she hits 18 or becomes too wise. Then you go on to question why they became that way, whether something happened at a certain point in their youth, or they had an overbearing mother etc. I remember reading something a man wrote, he said that he started off viewing Barely Legal teen websites, and then he found his attraction evolving - he started going after pictures of 14-17 year olds, and then preteens, and finally he realized that he was attracted to prepubescent girls. That's one more shocking example. I was also surprised about the whole attraction to 12-year-olds but in the seamy ephebophile world, 12-17 are the most desired ages. Almost ripe but not too much. Some ephebophiles even find 18 too old, what with it being legal and all.Chocopocky (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the ephebophile finds a 17-year-old who easily looks 21 sexually attractive, I do not get how that same ephebophile would turn down an actual 21-year-old for sex...unless they prefer their sexual partners to be underage due to the whole "forbidden fruit" thing. Though I have studied it for the longest now, ephebophilia has always confused me on that point; late teenagers and early 20-somethings are usually indistinguishable age-wise. Why is it so important to some of them to go after 17 or 18 year-olds, as opposed to 20 and 21-year-olds? Apparently, it is the whole "forbidden fruit" thing or the excitement they get with being with someone even further barely legal. Some ephebophiles almost hating fully mature women? It seems weird, given that girls have usually finished puberty by age 16; some by even age 15. But it is not weird when taking into account maturity. By "mature," it seems that they are not only focusing on the physical maturity but mental maturity as well.

The man you mentioned eventually realizing that he is attracted to prepubescent girls is very weird. That would need to be studied; I doubt he is a true pedophile (sexual preference for prepubescent children), but that is a case that would need to be studied if prepubescent children turn him "on" often. If often, I suppose I would have to classify him as a type of pedophile, though. I state "often" because, as the Pedophilia article mentions, there are men who are not pedophiles and yet still found prepubescent children sexually attractive; usually not true sexual attraction, though, but rather used the children as sexual substitutes for adults (in these cases, the men focus more on sexual pleasure than their true sexual attraction). We occasionally talk about those types of men on the Pedophilia talk page.

I am not convinced that 12 and 13-year-olds fall into the general attraction zone for ephebophiles; that is more a pedophile and a hebephile thing, depending on the development of the youths (I also mean boys, of course). But you did state "seamy ephebophile."

I thank you for the conversation. We can keep it going for as long as you want. You are always welcome at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the majority are turned on by the "forbidden fruit" aspect. It's ok if the young person looks 21, as long as they don't have the experience or maturity of a 21-year-old. I would conclude that it's a combination of being thrilled by the forbidden element (had a strict childhood = in adulthood enjoys doing "naughty" things like looking at upskirt photos or seducing underage girls) and also a power thing. Teenage girls can be extremely susceptible, and less likely to question a man's intent.

Well some might be attracted to the 20-21 year olds, but as you said it's more forbidden to date them younger, thus more exciting. Ephebophiles get off on doing things they "shouldn't do". Another ephebophile I spoke to said that he likes looking at pictures of teen girls, though he "knows he shouldn't look". The said ephebophile came from a strict catholic upbringing, and like most ephebophiles, was fond of "candid" shots or watching girls on webcam. Basically they tend to be voyeurs or peeping toms. They prefer girls in a natural environment ie. at home or school, as opposed to professional scenarios (studio etc.). This could be because they're doing something "wrong" and are given exclusive access into a young girl's private world, thus have a level of power over her. They're usually quite possessive, so they scour boys and girls in chatrooms etc. and coerce them to send over homemade pictures for their eyes only. They cherish self-taken pictures more so than even professionally photographed ones.

Yes but although girls of 16 and 17 are almost mature physically, they're still usually more naive and easily lovestruck than older women. Most women of say 25 won't fall for dreams of Prince Charming anymore. Ephebophiles like naive girls, freshly-scrubbed, hardly any makeup and they HATE piercings or tattoos... basically anything that signifies adult freedom. Again a power thing. It's funny actually, there's a song by a band called Ladytron called "17", and the lyrics go "They only want you when you're 17/When you're 21 you're no fun". That pretty much sums up ephebophilia.

Although pedophilia and ephebophilia are very different, they both tend to be about power and unresolved issues in childhood and youth. It is strange about that man who switched from an ephebophile to a pedophile, but I suppose it's possible for them to morph into one another. It could be that he was initially attracted to the pedomorphic Barely legal pornstars' hairlessness and "inexperience", the childlike symbols like pigtails and soft toys... but at the time, in his early stages of pedophilia, he thought it would be wrong to go any lower, thus denying his true attraction. But the Barely Legal girls eventually weren't forbidden enough, and it went downhill from there. I could see how that could have happened. Perhaps some pedophiles do go through phases or stages.

I'd say that the hardest thing is knowing whether there is a link between pedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia. I do think it's possible for them to interlink, as they're all about power, inexperience and youth. Though ephebophiles tend to be slightly less antisocial than pedophiles, and more stuck in adolescence than childhood.

Thank you also. It can be a creepy topic, but as you said it needs more coverage. Chocopocky (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have certainly studied this subject, and I must state that I am impressed with your wisdom. I even briefly forgot that you are only age 19, as witnessed in one part below in the blond section. Not to sound condescending, as though I am more of an expert because I am older, but you remind me of a younger version of myself in studying these matters. Where you say ephebophiles like naive girls, freshly-scrubbed, hardly any makeup and they HATE piercings or tattoos...I have to state that makeup does not seem to be a problem for a lot of them since plenty of teenage girls wear makeup; I am unsure about the piercings and tattoos matter, however. By "piercings," I take it you do not mean earrings. I also need to state that we need to be careful about personally diagnosing people as pedophiles, hebephiles or ephebophiles...though I pretty much diagnosed Mark Foley as an ephebophile. In actuality, it may have been more about opportunity for Foley; I am not blaming it on his being gay or conflating being gay with ephebophilia, but as a then closeted gay man, he probably felt he could keep the secret easier by manipulating naive or perceived naive young males on the verge of legal adulthood. After all, it is said that he would "court" them as they were 16 or 17, but not try to act on anything sexual with them until they were 18; at least he was stated to have only acted on something sexual with an 18-year-old male (though 16 is the age of consent in Washington, D.C.).

But, yeah, good discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have studied it a little but I've mostly gathered all this from listening to ephebophiles themselves... being their target age it's easier to get into their heads. I guess I've just noticed similar patterns between them all. People often say I sound older haha. Yes, ephebophiles can still be attracted to teenagers wearing makeup, but they can't stand heavy makeup as it "blemishes" and hides the girl's youth. I've even had potential ephebophiles lecturing me on makeup in the past. They don't mind ear piercings (actually some do) but they don't like lip rings etc., as it makes the girl look more independent and mature. It's hard to say with Mark Foley, but if he doesn't have a pattern of seducing teen boys then he may not be an ephebophile. Maybe he was into twinks? Maybe being into twinks (generally age 18-22) is a form of ephebophilia.Chocopocky (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting discussion; although I think it may be considered dubious in relation to article editing I suppose the latitude generally provided to user talkpages allows it - although it necessarily needs to be conducted as it has been so far; in a non salacious manner. Of which, I would like to include my own commentary on this and the "attraction" of ephebophilia:- The human animal is very competitive and given to exploiting new opportunities, and this aspect is especially prominent in the male of the species. One attraction of the recently post-pubescent female is that they are likely not be sexually active, thus there being a lack of competition for their reproductive capabilities (and in both sexes, the recently biologically sexually mature individual has the most perfect DNA templates). Taken to extremes - in early 21st Century western minded values, anyway - the pre-barely legal girl has its genetic attraction, and it should be remembered that "youth" has historically been considered part of adulthood rather than childhood (Juliet was 14 to Romeo's 16, remember). This doesn't mean that ephebophilia is appropriate, because society provides its own dynamics and what was permitted once (like bear baiting and burning witches) does not mean anyone now inclined to such activities are excused because it was once okay. However, it should be noted that some of the motives that drive these attractions are not always of social or other inadequacy but a biological impulse that has been (and sometimes is in other non western cultures) recognised and endorsed in culture. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the biological aspect, but to me that represents most regular men. I understand that biologically men are attracted to anyone past puberty but women are still biologically healthy at the age of 23, yet ephebophiles don't want them, they want them specifically under a certain age. That's what separates them from the mainstream. We don't have a life expectancy of 20 anymore (although in African countries it's lower, as with the age of marriage and maturity), therefore sexual attraction to 14-year-olds, with no aim of impregnating them, is not necessary. Chocopocky (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Chocopocky, twinks, you say? Hmm. It does sound somewhat like ephebophilia from the lead of the article we have on it here, doesn't it? But at least they are mostly going for legal adults.

LessHeard vanU, welcome. Yes, we moved this discussion here to my talk page, from the Ephebophilia talk page, because it is not really in the realm of improving that article and because talk page discussions generally allow stuff like this (discussions that are not about improving articles). I like that you have weighed in; I have often thought about that same thing myself and have sometimes commented on it; I linked to that quote above by Dr. Frederick Berlin above in thought of this. Yes, normal/regular men can find pubescent and post-pubescent teenage girls sexually attractive, but finding them attractive (as in "sometimes") is different than having a sexual preference for them or being willing to act on it (although not all men who have acted on it, such as in a one-time case are ephebophiles, but you know what I mean). Like Chocopocky stated, this is what separates the mainstream from ephebophiles. I will state that, yes, what we consider "not normal" may be normal in a few non-Western cultures, like you stated. Even in Western society, it used to not be bizarre for an older man to take a teenage bride; often, once girls of 13 had their "first monthly," they would be set up in a marriage with an older man...because they had now "become women." However, I still state that given how young-looking 13-year-olds typically are, it is "off" for men to desire them sexually, especially in favor of healthy-looking adult women of 18 or older. A passing attraction can happen, but intense sexual attraction to that age is usually "off." Especially, frequent sexual attraction to that age. If the 13-year-old can pull off looking 16, then I can understand that. But if she looks no older than 12 (as most do), it is something that I understand quite less. Yes, most 12 and 13-year-old girls have breasts and have started to develop the shape typically seen of older women, but they still typically look like children (for the most part).

Chocopocky, given your interest, bit of studying and personal analysis through observation of this subject, I suggest you traditionally study it through college by whatever class they have closest to it. Or, if you are going for a profession that will allow good study of it, through that then. I know that you feel well-versed in this subject already, but having studied it the way I suggest gives people more reason to listen to your findings and may even help with them in other ways (errors or new discoveries). Are you in college, or plan to go? Interested in psychology? Sexology? Sociology? Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the whole idea of twinks is that they look as young and illegal as possible, but they're adults. It's basically the homosexual term for barely legal. I have to agree. I don't understand why a man would pass by a young and healthy-looking 18+ woman for a physically immature 13-year-old. It's not emotionally or physically healthy for a girl that young to give birth.

Thanks, if I'm accepted I'm planning to study sociology next year. I think that field will dissect this topic most of all. Chocopocky (talk) 11:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

omg that's so funny;I can't believe anyone even saw that!!! Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahayou like the picture don't you :) Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course one looking at edits to that article would notice. The picture is fine. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine as in "man that's a fine ass" or fine as in it is appropriate for the article? I see you have had a brush with modeling your page said. I am with Mary Therese Friel who was miss usa in 1979 and has an agency right near me in Rochester. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, are you "coming on" to me? I meant "appropriate for the article." Whether I find any particular editor at Wikipedia physically attractive is something I would not express on Wikipedia, unless I were to simply state that they are good-looking in a friendly type of manner (like I did with acquaintance TAnthony). As for my "brush with modeling," as my user page also states, I turned it down. As a 5'3" female, I am too short anyway. Sure, there are short models, like Eva Marcille, but it is not the usual and usually does not equate to "really big bucks." Other than that, it was/is not my passion. I am still often complimented on being good-looking, but it never matters much to me. However, sometimes I wonder how much this physical perception some have of me affects their interaction with me online or in person; this is one reason I feel better about not putting pictures of myself up on my user page. Although...I am often told I look better in person.

As for yourself, yes, I can see how you have done modeling. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious; I have always been insecure to the max about my looks and everything. I am uncomfortable with myself. I even get short of breath around people at school and such. It is obvious looking at me that I am nervous and highly insecure. I really want to show you some other pictures where it's like wow; that cannot even be the same person; totally ugly. I put myself down way too much and incredibly far. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I get most depressed thinking about how much better I could have presented myself. Very depressed. Cry alone depressed. I used to be so afraid of something illusional that I did the SAME thing every day; in school I wore a headband strictly every day. I would never ever do something as bold as to try a ponytail or anything. So insecure. Uncomfortable walking down a hallway. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When you just mentioned school, I was about to ask how old are you. But I just checked your YouTube page, and I see that you are age 19. I was talking about teenagers above, and now I am talking to one. Kind of weird. Well, not that weird; Chocopocky (above) is also 19. You're not weird. It's just that I thought you were older. I am used to talking to people older than you here on Wikipedia. The only teenagers I mainly converse with are my siblings. I say cheer up, and stop being so hard on yourself. You should really be enjoying life at your age. Not that life cannot really be enjoyed at any age, but life seems so much more exciting the younger you are; as you get older, that is when all the really hard stuff comes into play. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

File:File name taken!.jpg

would this work better for the blond article?

Damn it's too bad I had my taped up headphones on; wouldn't this be good for the blond article? Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How about for andronygomy or whatever you call it lol Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I also do not want to make it seem as though I hardly ever interact or converse with teenagers, though, Daniel; I work with enough of them (18 and 19-year-olds) through screenwriting, for example. And, really, no one can be sure that the person they are conversing with on Wikipedia is not a teenager, unless it is clear from their user page and that user page is honest on that front or you know the person off Wikipedia.

As for the new picture you propose, I would say a picture that clearly shows the face is better. But, as I stated on your talk page, the picture you added as the lead image in the Blond article is definitely androgynous; if it were not in the Blond article, it would be perfect for the Androgyny article. It could go in both, but some Wikipedians would probably state that you are "self-promoting" in that way or something like that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the first one is perfect for the androgyny article at all; you can see facial hair and stuff. Damn. Just like the taped headphones why did I have to do that? Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

So because of the lack of face you think number 2 isn't good for androgymy; but what about for blond also; as I originally imposed; or for just this second one to be on blond; and maybe the first one on androgymy; even tho I don't think it works that great for it. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

PS- is that (number 2) flaxen blond? Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And for 19 here ya go: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/dchristensen1?ref=name

I am saying that it would not make a great lead picture for either article, due to lack of face being shown. It does not demonstrate androgyny that well, unless we are calling the fact that we cannot generally tell if someone is a male or female from that type of picture "androgynous." I see that you already added it as a second picture to the Blond article; I suggest you remove your name from its caption. You are not yet famous and so it only makes readers go "Who?" (no offense) and Wikipedians feel that it is self-promotion.

What is the Facebook link for? Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well; I am Scandanavian which sen names are very well known to be; it's in the nationality section; that's why I did it. idk because you said something about not really knowing if someone is 19, even though I could lie on that, too. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still not sure why you put your name. And I warned you that adding personal pictures in the way that you did could be seen as self-promotion; you have now been reverted two more times, as you know. One picture of you with dry hair for the lead of the Blond article would probably be allowed without any objections, but not two pictures of you in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed on ItsTheClimb17's talk page that you scolded him for removing foreign release dates, but here's the deal: they're irrelevant, at least in the infobox. Per WP:FILMRELEASE, dates should be limited to the first premiere, usually at a festival (only where applicable, of course), and the first release date of the countries that produced the film. And more specifically, if it is a limited release that later expanded into wide release, the limited date takes preference; the rest (UK, Australia, Canada, US-wide if applicable) should be factored into the intro paragraph(s)/section of the article.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not scold him (at least not in my definition of scolding). I simply agreed with others in the Talk:Zombieland#Release date section, and do not see the point of all the release dates being removed...which is why I gave the featured Transformers (film) article as an example. For all I know, the WP:FILMRELEASE guideline could have been recently changed toward what you state, given how many good or great film articles would list all the release dates not too long ago. Cluttering the infobox? That is opinion, in my view.

I also briefly replied to you on ItsTheClimb17's talk page. But I do understand what you mean, and about that being the guideline. I will follow it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chandler Enterprises. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandler Enterprises. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey could you take a look at this and tell me what you think its still a work in progress Take a Look your feed back would be great --Xsonxfanx (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool ill put it up later today--Xsonxfanx (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Before you go un-editing the info on Jesse Mccartney, is it too much to Google Billboard 200 and search Jesse McCartney? As a fan I think I know more than you do, so quit editing things you have no idea about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.218.190 (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not about being a fan. It is about following Wikipedia rules. Is it too much for you to provide sources for your changes, if it is so easy to Google what you state? Quit adding unsourced, likely to contested information into articles until you know how to edit in sources properly. Also, it is not just chart information you are adding in. We cannot simply go on your word here, fan or not. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And, oh...just so you know, it is not my job to back up anything you add. It is your job to back up your own additions, per WP:BURDEN. You were/are right to guess that I am no Jesse McCartney fan. But what if I was? So what? Oh, but you can guess that I am not simply because I do not keep up with how well he is doing on the charts? I do not keep up with any musical artist in that way, even the ones I listen to more than others. My only concern with the Jesse McCartney article is keeping it clean, because there are so many damn vandals, dishonest people, and fangirls attacking it consistently. In my view, it should always be locked from IP editors, seeing as they are the main problem (as with any article here). Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Chill. I should think there are very few of us who didn't start editing here as a fan or enthusiast of a subject - Even fewer created an account before making their first edit. It is all good(...ish) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do I need to "chill" because this person is a fan? I have no problem with this person being a fan. I do have a problem with IP addresses adding in likely to be contested information and feeling that they do not need to add sources to back it up simply because they are fans and know the information to be true. To me, it would have made more sense for you to revert the IP on that and also reply to the IP about that here instead of replying to me about "chilling out." This IP is obviously a newbie to editing Wikipedia. I responded on this IP's talk page, quickly explaining what not to do and what to do instead. I was not rude, and it was not much of a warning. And yet what do I get in return? This nasty little response (from the IP), with an air of superiority...all because this IP is a fan of McCartney's. It is very frustrating to see someone feel that they do not have to follow the guidelines or rules here...all because they are fans of or experts on the subjects they are editing. I meant it when I stated that IP editors are the main problem for the Jesse McCartney article, and for all other articles here at Wikipedia (after all, I have seen it); my stance about Wikipedia being better off if people had to register to edit here will never change (and I am not the only editor here who feels that way), but that is beside the point. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing? Dishonest? Excuse me? How are updating his chart records dishonest? There is a reference at the bottom of the page to Billboard 200. And on top of that his official Myspace and Facebook pages clearly explain many of the things I WRITE. And for one IM NOT a girl, I'm a guy. Two quit stereotyping, that's just pathetic.

You are the one who needs to chill. I did not call you a vandal or dishonest. It is also not like I would know if you were being honest or not, unless I were to go out of my way to check up on and back up your additions. Plenty of editors around here are dishonest about that stuff, mostly IP editors. I also did not call you a fangirl. It is not pathetic, however, to generalize about that; it is well-known that most of his fans are girls/women, something McCartney has even acknowledged. Something else I need to state is that I will not revert you on the chart information anymore. Why is that? Well...I simply am not interested in getting into an "edit war" with you (which would not be an edit war in the true Wikipedia sense) or reporting you over this. It is something I will check out later, even though it is not my job; it is your job to back up your edits. But I will revert your other additions, no matter if I can simply check up on them. If those other additions are consistently added without sources, I will report you. I am not sure why I also have to point out to you that there is no article at Wikipedia titled Departure: Recharged, and there should not be one, which is why I keep unlinking it; it is no different than Departure (Jesse McCartney album)...except for four songs. Departure: Recharged is discussed within that article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though there was no link to Deparature:Recharged, it was a re-release of Departure, and in fact counted as a new album for Jesse McCartney. I will admit I don't know how to reference as in making a word blue in color and linking it. BUT there is a reference list and external links at the BOTTOM of his page in which I got the information from.

That "article" should not be linked. But that is not the point. The point is your constant additions of likely to be contested, unsourced information. You are fighting me on Wikipedia guidelines and policies on that front. I already gave you your way in regards to the charts, but you will not get your way on the other stuff, without reliable sources backing you up. Why act as though you are in the right? Would you rather anything be added into McCartney's article about him? That would be the case if Wikipedia did not have its guidelines and policies in place. The External links section already lists IMDb, but Wikipedia does not consider that a reliable source for most biographical information. It may be okay for the chart information, but not for all that other stuff you are adding. Furthermore, a little of that other stuff you are adding surely is not at IMDb.

I am simply going to report you. Since you want to act as though you are in the right, even though I am going by Wikipedia standards, then I have no choice. In the meantime, I suggest you take the time to learn Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and how to format references. You are going to need to know all that stuff when editing here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You totally just didn't bother understanding my post did you now? Show me how to link and I'll prove who's right; I am insisting I'm right because I've actually taken the time to research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.218.190 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Here I go listing EVERYTHING I wrote according to "trusted" sources:

http://www.disneydreaming.com/2009/09/25/concert-for-hope-miley-cyrus-demi-lovato-jesse-mccartney/ http://www.cityofhope.org/giving/fundraising-support-groups/music/concert-for-hope/Pages/default.aspx

      -This here shows JMac performing at the Concert for Hope Oct.25 2009.

http://www.teenidols4you.com/bio/Actors/84/jesse_mccartney.html

      - Ginger and Scot McCartney as JMac's parents. I can also add countless amounts of Youtube Vidoes of him in interviews If you want further proof.

http://watch.muchmusic.com/punkd/season-1/episode-1/#clip82142

      -JMac Punk'd if you go down to Season 5 Ep 3

If you would so kindly fill in the "links" for me. If you need more proof I would be glad to get more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.218.190 (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

RE: Edit Adding one more

ttp://justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2009/10/27/jesse-mccartney-album-number-three/

     -Jesse McCartney's fourth album is to be released in 2010, during his interview before the Concert of Hope of 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.218.190 (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And you totally did not bother trying to understand anything I stated above. Because I was once a newbie here and subsequently quite a terrible Wikipedian editor in the past, instead of reporting you just yet, I will go ahead and explain to you anything you need to know about editing at Wikipedia.

Listen, because IMDb "can be edited by anyone," like Wikipedia, it is not considered a reliable source by most of our editors. It is rejected by most Wikipedians these days when it comes to biographical use, except for the occasional use of film and television information. Even if a source can be found in the External links section, information that is likely to be contested (such as a person's birth place and the name of that person's parents) should be sourced right there at that spot in the article it is placed instead of only in the External links section. The information should be able to be easily and readily verified. We should not have to go reading through all the external links to see if everything stated in an article is true. External links usually never have everything that is stated in an article anyway. The stuff you added needs to be sourced, reliably, per WP:Reliable sources. To learn how to cite sources, just look at how they are formatted within the Jesse McCartney article. There is the simple way (< ref ></ ref>), and then there is the more complicated way. Also, check out WP:Citing sources. I will give you a chance to properly cite what you have added (I am not speaking of the chart stuff, though that would be good as well). I will still unlink Departure: Recharged, though; we have no article on that.

Also, you need to always sign your comments when "talking" on Wikipedia talk pages. To sign your comments, all you have to do is type four tildes (~~~~) beside them.

You are clearly acting in good faith, and I did not mean to offend you. I am willing to help you out. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for being a stuck up bitch, but than again that's just who I am :).

LOL!! Thank you for helping out with vandalism on the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: IP, you need to be careful about making sure your sources pass Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Really pay attention to the WP:Reliable sources policy. I am thinking that most of, if not all of, the sources you put here on my talk page, are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. I need to check all of them. But at a glance, it looks like plenty of our editors would reject these sources, due to reliability, and they would be in the right. Which, of course, means you would be in the wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your choice about moving material down -- good edit. Thanx for the heads up.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for your coopearation and improvements on the article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, I simply changed it as I figured that there shouldn't be any unnecessary disambiguation and that I wanted the genre to match the one in the category. I didn't mean to change the quote as the dark comedy word was outside the quote, it didn't even seem to be in a quote for me, but I guess I should check better next time. Thanks for addressing the situation with me though. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You are right that it is not part of the quote (because I took it out of the quote). LOL, it is I who should check better next time. Thank you for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You 'undid' my removal of the purple/violet eye color section on the eye color article. I adamantly removed it again. Wikipedia attempts to be scientific and factually based, and the purple/violet eye color section is a violation of this attempt. It is genetically impossible to have a purple or violet iris, it has never been seen - ever - and all claims of its existence are due to colored contacts. The section mentioned Elizabeth Taylor as proof of having violet eyes, but that was a celebrity gimmick and her eyes are 100% blue. If purple/violet eyes are mentioned - which do not occur naturally - you may as well mention yellow, black, or white irises.

I removed the purple/violet eye color for a reason: so that people are not misled into thinking this is an actual genetic possibility. I was amazed and ashamed that someone even put it on there to begin with.

Let's help keep Wikipedia scientific and based on facts, especially the articles dealing with genetics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.11.242 (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I should have noticed what that section was saying before you did. I only just started looking after that article when I inserted information in about blue eyes. When I reverted you, it is because I thought you were removing information about the topic of purple/violet eye color more than the claim that it really exists. I merely glanced at it and right at the existence of a BBC source next to it. BBC is usually an excellent source, and I felt that if they had something to say about purple/violet eyes, then it must be worth mentioning. I just checked that source out, though, and saw no mention of purple/violet eyes. That tells me that the section you removed must have been a hoax. With all that in mind, I ask that you excuse me for not noticing earlier. I am glad that you did. And as mentioned above in the section right before this one, I need to pay better attention sometimes to things I revert. I am usually on-target in what I revert and pay close attention to those reverts, but I can also be lazy (though the laziness is rare, I promise).

Take care. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You just mindlessly undo everything, too many unnecessary pictures and you now have a section called 'surveys'. I suggest you read it. I might be new to editing, good that you gave me an intro. But, you also redo-ed a refined article Nether Animal (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not "just mindlessly undo everything." I usually check in detail what I have reverted. I did not only revert you when I made that edit; I reverted back to a version before reliably sourced content was removed and had to be restored by others. Either way, I advise you to take into account what I stated on your talk page. Edit summaries will go a long way here at Wikipedia. If you want to remove some of the images, go ahead. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And, oh...remember to remain civil, per WP:CIVIL. Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw you edited the lesbian kiss article and I must say that I'm surprised, considering you're an admitted soap fan, that All My Children is missing! Mike H. Fierce! 04:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I thought about it, Mike. But I could not see it as applying to the couple Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery; Lena did stay on the show for more than just a lesbian kiss episode...and got to kiss Bianca more than once onscreen (about three times, maybe four). The same goes for couple Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone. I suppose I could be called a soap opera fan, since I have watched more than one soap opera, but, with the soap opera genre, I am usually simply a fan of whichever story pulls me in and subsequently watch the other stories that may be going on with either show. I have not been watching much soap opera these days, though. You? Flyer22 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that the Lesbian kiss episode article is up for deletion. I am going to go see what is being said. Other than Lena and Bianca remaining a couple for some time, their 2003 kiss would fit that article in terms of being a ratings/media ploy. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm in...Control! ...just wanted gloat about my second FA... and cause I love Janet! :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. You have every right to gloat. Feel free to gloat to me any time. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou! The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a rather silly edit war with yet another of User:Randy Jaiyan's IPs and I'm feeling insanely annoyed. He's insisting on editing the infobox on Claudia Zacchara to say the "cause" of her leaving the show was "Corpse appeared during a photo-shoot taken by an unknown identity rather than the fact that she was killed. I'm sort of at the point where I just hate all General Hospital articles, but the little twerp just refuses to accept that he's banned. Could you keep an eye on the article? As far as soap articles go it isn't half bad. AniMate 19:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, AniMate. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, are the holidays here yet? I'd really like my paid vacation. AniMate 06:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendency is a statistical assessment, a probability. Fact is more solid, such as the presence of anatomical organs and what happens to them physiologically under certain circumstances.

A lot of people confuse statistical probability with fact and then get surprised when someone analyzes the same statistics differently, especially if the revision results in a change in consensus.

I think "observation" is a clearer word to suggest something verifiable by experience. I can go with "fact" if you present a citation. Rather than flag "citation needed", I just changed the wording. Martindo (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I know what tendency is, LOL. The same goes for a fact. My point is that people often state the two words together, such as..."It is a fact that women tend to wear dresses." I am not seeing why it is so wrong to state the word "fact and "tend" together in that type of way. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't sure why you were asking. To me, it's exaggeration and wasted words to say "it is a fact that" in front of a simple declarative statement "Women tend to wear dresses." Ask yourself how exactly the five-word phrase adds to the simple statement, and why you feel that way. Martindo (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you say say, "Women wear dresses," then it sounds like you are saying all women wear dresses if not saying it it some certain context. I feel that is why people put "tend" in things such as that, to be fair. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Done. 94 sources have been found from five different magazines (TIME, Life, People, Ebony and Jet).

Hey, honey! I'm dropping in to give you a link that may be helpful in your future sourcing endeavors: October 1979 issue of Ebony, with Ellen Holly and Arthur Burghardt of One Life to Live on the cover. Inside there's an interview with Ellen Holly and it details her time from 1968 to 1979 on the show, her background, specifically the name of the New York Times column that got Agnes Nixon's notice, and so on. Have a good day! Mike H. Fierce! 12:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more sources for you! I actually had a lot of fun searching these up:

A story on Darnell Williams in the February 1984 Ebony, page 61. Mike H. Fierce! 08:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Black characters on soaps (Y&R, Port Charles, As the World Turns, etc.) in the October 13, 1997 issue of Jet, starts on page 52. Mike H. Fierce! 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

An older story on blacks on soaps in February 1978 Ebony, starting on page 32. Mike H. Fierce! 08:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Summaries of the early soaps in LIFE, April 5, 1954, starting on page 119. Mike H. Fierce! 10:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A story on the aborted interracial romance on Days of our Lives in the June 9, 1977 issue of Jet, page 60. One interesting bit that may be of interest: The couple got so much hate mail, one of which stating "I hope you're not gonna let that nigger marry that white boy." Mike H. Fierce! 10:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

An article on the end of Peyton Place and a summary of the show and its impact in the April 25, 1969 issue of LIFE, starting on page 47. Mike H. Fierce! 10:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Another story chronicling the road blacks have had in soaps, from November 1988 Ebony, starting at page 94. Mike H. Fierce! 10:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The cast of Generations on the cover of the April 3, 1989 issue of Jet. Story starts on page 60 and goes to 62. Mike H. Fierce! 10:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A story on the ending of the radio soap The Romance of Helen Trent in the July 11, 1960 issue of LIFE, page 49. Mike H. Fierce! 10:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

25th anniversary story for Ma Perkins and Helen Trent in the September 9, 1957 issue of LIFE, starting on page 75. Mike H. Fierce! 10:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lots of significant information there. I wish we had more editors working on significantly improving soap opera articles with real-world, reliably sourced content than the few we do have. That way I would feel better about not doing much these days in regards to editing here. I have not been as enthusiastic about working here as I was two years ago...or even one year ago. You've been working here for even longer than I have, Mike, and have seemingly never lost your fire for working at this site. I know that there have been times where your editing slowed down or stopped for some time, but you have never gotten really tired of this site, right? Or have you? Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing another comb-through of LIFE magazine's archives for soap articles. I'll respond in full when I'm done.

A two page short story on radio soaps in the April 27, 1942 issue, pages 72 and 73. Mike H. Fierce! 19:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As early as 1948, soaps were considered "mindless"; Lever Brothers' president Charles Luckman wanted to take soap operas off radio as he felt "the cultural value was too low." July 12, 1948 issue, page 108. Mike H. Fierce! 19:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A story on the radio serial The Story of Mary Marlin (no article on WP as of yet) in the September 11, 1944 issue, starting on page 67. Mike H. Fierce! 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A light one-page story about fashions on the (then) new soap All My Children, with stars Karen Lynn Gorney and Ruth Warrick commenting on costume designer Hazel Roy's clothing choices. August 21, 1970 issue, page 27. Mike H. Fierce! 20:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Soaps in advertising: An ad in the April 8, 1966 issue. The ad copy says in part: "Now that they're back together again, can the lovers in "As the World Turns" find happiness? Will the young lawyer in "The Edge of Night" win the case of his life? Now with the Sony 9" TV you'll never have to miss an installment of your favorite show while doing the family laundry." Mike H. Fierce! 20:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

William S. Paley at CBS made an executive decision to preempt all their soap operas on February 4, 1966, instead airing coverage of Congressional testimony about the war in Vietnam. They lost $175,000 in advertising revenue as a result, a big amount for that time. March 17, 1967 issue, page 89. Mike H. Fierce! 20:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Baseball player Willie Mays was an avid soap opera fan, his favorites being Search for Tomorrow and The Guiding Light. May 15, 1964 issue, page 52. Mike H. Fierce! 20:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that was all of them in LIFE! I can scour one more time but I think I exhausted all of what can be used. As for your question, of course I got tired of editing sometimes. But then you search something up, see something's wrong, you fix it...it's like you can't resist. A couple of years ago I got very disenchanted with the whole Wikimedia group, around the time I lost my bid for Wikimania to Egypt. But it's done a lot for me...it's given me an internship, I've gotten good networking, and it's actually helped me in my real life. I think that's why I continue now, because it's a fun habit and it helped me, so why not help back? Mike H. Fierce! 20:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm moving on to TIME.

A story on Irna Phillips in the June 10, 1940 issue. Mike H. Fierce! 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How radio heroines are written out of their shows for a short time and return in the August 12, 1940 issue. Mike H. Fierce! 21:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A peculiar story twist on I Love Linda Dale (no WP article) in the November 18, 1940 issue. Mike H. Fierce! 21:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A popular soap on the air in 1941: Light of the World, a soap retelling of the Bible. March 31, 1941. Mike H. Fierce! 21:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Big Sister character gets his own spinoff: August 25, 1941. Mike H. Fierce! 21:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Poet Laureate takes part in the show Against the Storm. November 10, 1941. Mike H. Fierce! 21:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A psychologist does perhaps the first clinical study on soap operas. March 23, 1942. Mike H. Fierce! 21:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The soap operas all do a special week of episodes relating to the War and war life. October 19, 1942. Mike H. Fierce! 21:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

20 million women are addicted to soaps, a 13% increase from 1941. CBS announced a half-hour in primetime once a week to promote their daytime soaps with "classic episodes." November 30, 1942. Mike H. Fierce! 21:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

NBC Blue polls housewives to gauge listening habits re: soaps. June 7, 1943. Mike H. Fierce! 21:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Another listening survey. January 10, 1944. Mike H. Fierce! 21:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The first successful novelist starts writing a soap: April 9, 1945. Mike H. Fierce! 21:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Another story on Irna Phillips. June 11, 1945. Mike H. Fierce! 21:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

CBS renews four soaps: Ma Perkins, The Road of Life, Life Can Be Beautiful and Young Doctor Malone. January 21, 1946. Mike H. Fierce! 21:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bible soap Light of the World, which was canceled in March 1946 after six years, returns to the air after church groups complain. December 16, 1946. Mike H. Fierce! 21:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A not so glowing review of new serial Wendy Warren and the News. July 7, 1947. Mike H. Fierce! 21:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

An interview with Mona Kent, writer of Portia Faces Life. September 12, 1949. Mike H. Fierce! 21:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The number of soaps drops to 31 in 1950. Today's Children and Light of the World end on June 16. June 5, 1950. Mike H. Fierce! 21:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A review of The First Hundred Years, the first sustained TV soap, which premiered on December 4, 1950. December 11, 1950. Mike H. Fierce! 21:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Premiering this month: Search for Tomorrow, the first soap opera not to recap the previous episode before starting a new one. September 17, 1951. Mike H. Fierce! 21:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A summary of the most popular radio soaps of the day. May 19, 1952. Mike H. Fierce! 21:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Secret Storm creator Roy Winsor. March 8, 1954. Mike H. Fierce! 22:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Story on The Romance of Helen Trent and its history. August 6, 1956. Mike H. Fierce! 22:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Story on Ma Perkins. August 26, 1957. Mike H. Fierce! 22:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Road of Life, Backstage Wife and Nora Drake all end their runs on CBS Radio. January 12, 1959. Mike H. Fierce! 22:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The final seven radio soaps will end in November, such as Ma Perkins, The Second Mrs. Burton, and Young Doctor Malone. August 29, 1960. Mike H. Fierce! 22:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A story and summary of The Edge of Night. March 17, 1961. Mike H. Fierce! 22:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A story on Peyton Place moving to three episodes a week, audience estimated at 50 million. August 20, 1965. Mike H. Fierce! 22:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A paragraph about Joan Crawford filling in for Christina on The Secret Storm. November 1, 1968. Mike H. Fierce! 22:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A story on The Secret Storm and their controversial priest/widow romance. April 2, 1973. Mike H. Fierce! 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A profile on Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. September 1, 1975. Mike H. Fierce! 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

TIME rates the soaps by "0 to 4 teardrops." January 12, 1976. Mike H. Fierce! 23:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

TIME's first cover story on soaps: Sex and Suffering in the Afternoon. January 12, 1976. Mike H. Fierce! 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Another story on Mary Hartman. February 23, 1976. Mike H. Fierce! 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of Dallas. November 12, 1979. Mike H. Fierce! 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover story of the "Who Shot JR?" story on Dallas. August 11, 1980. Mike H. Fierce! 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A writer tries to dip into the General Hospital phenomenon for three days. September 28, 1981. Mike H. Fierce! 23:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Agnes Nixon on the eve of the premiere of Loving. August 15, 1983. Mike H. Fierce! 23:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Three of ABC's six soaps are pre-empted for the Olympics in Los Angeles. The other three are shortened to 40 minutes each. NBC premieres Santa Barbara with no competition from ABC. August 13, 1984. Mike H. Fierce! 23:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Search for Tomorrow canceled after 35 years. November 17, 1986. Mike H. Fierce! 00:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of the new soap Generations. March 27, 1989. Mike H. Fierce! 00:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Review and commentary on Melrose Place. March 28, 1994. Mike H. Fierce! 01:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Soaps struggle for ratings in the face of the OJ trial. May 29, 1995. Mike H. Fierce! 01:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A really bad review of Melrose Place. May 13, 1996. Mike H. Fierce! 01:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Short article on Another World ending. April 26, 1999. Mike H. Fierce! 01:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Story about the new show Passions and James E. Reilly. July 12, 1999. Mike H. Fierce! 01:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I got to about 2003 or so and didn't find anything else. I figure for the last six years you can find sources in other magazines or newspapers fairly easily. I could do another sweep search by show name but I think I got most of the important stories. Mike H. Fierce! 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm going through People. Here are some stories I've found:

An interview and story on Sally Sussman, the creator of Generations. April 17, 1989. Mike H. Fierce! 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Caitlin VanZandt from Guiding Light has gastric bypass surgery. May 26, 2008. Mike H. Fierce! 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Days of our Lives writer Dena Higley turns her real-life situation into a soap story: her son has autism. October 20, 2008. Mike H. Fierce! 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As the World Turns and The Edge of Night celebrate 25 years on the air. April 20, 1981. Mike H. Fierce! 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Story on Jennifer Landon from As the World Turns. June 18, 2007. Mike H. Fierce! 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Story about Benjamin Hendrickson's suicide. July 24, 2006. Mike H. Fierce! 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Story on As the World Turns 2002 college campus story. August 21, 2002. Mike H. Fierce! 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Meeting soap stars from As the World Turns, Love of Life, One Life to Live and All My Children. June 5, 1978. Mike H. Fierce! 16:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A visit at home with Robin Strasser, on the eve of her second departure from One Life to Live. December 20, 1999. Mike H. Fierce! 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One Life to Live goes live for a week in May. March 27, 2002. Mike H. Fierce! 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Marston reaches out to fans via his website after being arrested for assault. October 24, 2007. Mike H. Fierce! 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

20th anniversary article on Another World. May 21, 1984. Mike H. Fierce! 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Susan Lucci shocked about All My Children moving to Los Angeles. August 7, 2009. Mike H. Fierce! 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Obituary for Ruth Warrick. January 18, 2005. Mike H. Fierce! 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Article on Sarah Michelle Gellar from All My Children. May 23, 1994. Mike H. Fierce! 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Article on Eden Riegel from All My Children. October 15, 2001. Mike H. Fierce! 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"I've been on a diet since I was 12!" Interview with Genie Francis from General Hospital. June 11, 2007. Mike H. Fierce! 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vanessa Marcil shares her past troubles with alcoholism. June 17, 1996. Mike H. Fierce! 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Obituary for John Beradino. June 3, 1996. Mike H. Fierce! 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"From Menudo to Manhood," an interview with Ricky Martin from General Hospital. May 15, 1995. Mike H. Fierce! 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Shell Kepler. July 25, 1994. Mike H. Fierce! 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Luke and Laura return! June 14, 1993. Mike H. Fierce! 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony Geary tries a shocking club act in Atlantic City. May 17, 1982. Mike H. Fierce! 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Interview with Rick Springfield. August 17, 1981. Mike H. Fierce! 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Interview with John Beradino. June 1, 1981. Mike H. Fierce! 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

At home with Tony Geary. October 6, 1980. Mike H. Fierce! 16:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Young and the Restless star John Castellanos reunites with daughter he never knew he had. May 31, 2004. Mike H. Fierce! 16:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Rowell speaks about her life as a foster child and her own charitable giving. September 13, 2004. Mike H. Fierce! 16:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Meg Bennett of The Young and the Restless talks about acting and scriptwriting. June 6, 1983. Mike H. Fierce! 16:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael Zaslow of Guiding Light is put on leave for his "speech problem." September 1, 1997. Mike H. Fierce! 16:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And that's the comb-through of People! Hopefully you have more than enough stuff now to work with! You do really great work so that's why I'm giving all this to you; if anything, hopefully I've made your sourcing endeavors easier. Mike H. Fierce! 16:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It will make sourcing easier for a lot of things. Thank you again, Mike, and for believing in my editing abilities here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The reviewer at ComicBookBin maintains a distinction between 'mild' shonen-ai and 'explicit' yaoi. Andrea Wood reflects publishers' use of 'shonen-ai' and 'yaoi' in her Straight Women, Queer Texts, which quite goes over my head a lot of the time, but talks a lot about Gravitation. I enjoyed reading the articles about Bianca's romances, so I'm looking forward to seeing what you're planning with shonen-ai! --Malkinann (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Malkinann. Glad that you had fun reading the articles about Bianca's romances. There are still improvements I need to make to the Bianca and Maggie and Lena and Bianca articles (and additions, such as the studies done about the fan videos made for either couple), but the Reese and Bianca article (which I had significant help with, by editor Rocksey) is pretty much done. I could nominate that article for GA status any time soon, without worrying about further improvements to it. And, yeah, I am looking forward to recreating the Shōnen-ai article. Hopefully, I can create a good enough article on it. If not, then I will instead expand its section within the Yaoi article. Thank you for having faith in me on this. 17:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It's nice to hear from you again. Just like you, I wouldn't want to revert your work, knowing it was yours, and that whatever you'd said, you cared about.

In fact, I made the change before going to bed and it was provisional and not as careful as it could be. Belatedly I saw the Britannica definition was still in the text. So, I have no objection to both definitions being in the lead, in fact, they both ought to be.

The WHO definition is ideal to show a contemporary political definition of gender.

Regarding gender applying to non-humans though, that will need a reliable source. Linguistic gender is not "gender applied to non-humans", nor is the "gender" of connectors and fastners. Those are examples of the word gender being used to mean "different types" or to refer by analogy to human sexual characteristics.

The Britannica quote should precede the WHO quote, because the simplest, most objective and most basic definitions should precede definitions that expand on that core. What is common ground should precede what is held only by specific groups.

I'm a LOT busy in RL atm, so I'll get back to you on this one. I'll propose a change to the lead on the talk page and we can talk it through.

The main thing to imo "get right" is that gender is a human phenomenon. Take the sociological short-hand for a moment: were gender socially constructed, how could it exist without a society? To suggest gender applied to non-social animals and things would make nonsense of the WHO definition for a start.

In my absence, you might like to consider that angle, trawl around for sources, and generally have fun continuing to read up on a fascinating subject.

Very, very best to you Flyer22. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

PS the original word in middle English gendre from the French, most certainly did apply to absolutely everything (human or not, sex-related or not), it just meant genre or "differentiated types". The Oxford does say that meaning was obsolete 100 years ago though. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Alastair Haines. I appreciate the polite cooperation. Gender applying to non-humans? Well... As I stated before, that is what Darkfrog24 wants to make clear, due to some research suggesting that non-humans (as some are social) can have a gender. Personally, I do not feel that suggesting gender applies to non-social animals would make nonsense of the WHO definition. I state that because we can have the lead state that gender has more than one valid definition, as it did before. I usually apply gender only to human beings, though, and in the social context. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Even the relatively small group of professionals who restrict the use of the word gender to human social arrangements do not draw the conclusion Darkfrog24 wishes to draw. It is true that there is at least one researcher who has proposed that social animals might be considered to have gender templates by analogy with the (human) sociological use of that word. That proposal is an unproven hypothesis (although I think a valid one) and is not proposed, by the researcher as a definition of the word gender.

Wiki avoids making vague statements like "there are many definitions of ...", unless a sourced list follows. Normal practice, appropriate here, is stating the specific definitions that are common. Britannica and WHO are perfect and sufficient.

Ultimately, Darkfrog24 needs to find a reliable source, that does not represent UNDUE consideration of a vanishingly small minority, nor simply reflect his own original research interpretation of other material.

The meaning of gender is very well documented. It is also well documented that politically motivated writers, who wish to downplay or elimitate the known correlation between biological sex and higher-order sexual dimorphism, exclude that from discussion by defining it out of the terminology they use.

The political writers absolutely must be represented in the article, they are a minority, but not an UNDUE minority. A very good number of them know behaviour is correlated to biology. What matters is that is does not imply ought (the naturalistic fallacy). So, behaviour can be natural but immoral (there are biological cues to violence for example, it's precisely how many animals survive); also, things can be unnatural but moral (it is not entirely natural for humans to sacrifice their lives to benefit other humans).

This is a very good discussion to document on the talk page. In many ways, article pages are only ever as good as their talk pages. It is not a high priority for me at the moment to participate in this documentation. But should it remain undocumented, eventually I shall.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

When you state " politically motivated writers," do you mean all those within the social sciences? I would state that a lot of anthropologists, if not most, also only relate gender to the social rather than the biological...and a lot of them do so without a political agenda. I would also state we have more than a few anthropologists in this world.

Anyway, this discussion should be taken to the talk page. I will go ahead and invite Darkfrog24 to this discussion on my talk page, but I will ultimately copy and paste this to the Gender article talk page so that we can continue this talk there. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the replies here for the context of a one-on-one discussion. I'd prefer you didn't copy them to the talk page, because I'd speak differently in that forum. I'm not sure I'd trouble to remove them if you posted them, however.

When I said "politically motivated writers" I meant precisely what I said and no more, of course. Politics is essential, and frequently, political movements represent not only truth, but moral truth. I can't be a Christian and think differently to that.

Not only did I not imply anything pejorative, I certainly wouldn't imply the empirically false generalisation you suggest. But then, you asked whether I intended that, you didn't assert it. If you are an anthropologist of the school that uses gender in an exclusively social sense, good for you! There are theologians who use it just the same way. But perhaps you might not accept theology as a social science? It's odd you could think I'd classify myself as necessarily politically motivated.

But are you suggesting that there are no political motivated uses of the word gender? Between the lines, I think I can see that you are not. You know that there are. Indeed, there is a huge literature discussing precisely that. That literature would be perfectly worth citing in the lead as well, but that's the key issue here.

Although there are some who would want to use the Gender article as a coatrack, and really I don't think we should try to stop them, the encyclopedic and peaceable way to treat the entry is to deal with what is most objective and empirical first. Start with hard facts, then proceed to areas of commentary and/or doubt. If I'm not mistaken, there is a guideline suggesting that somewhere. The issue is not new and the solution is not really contentious.

There are "politically motivated" mathematicians (Imre Lakatos). There are decidedly a-political artists. Let me deny another false generalisation you might attribute to me without me actually asserting it. You should know how particular I am about being precise and neutral, though.

I hope I'm wrong, but I sense something "bristly" about your comments, as though it's a prelude to ensuring your prefered use of gender gets adquate prominence in the article. I wrote that usage into the article in various places myself. I'm hardly an opponent. Relax (if you need to), the bottom line is whatever we come up with in the end will be unstable if it depends on a "negotiated settlement" between involved parties at that point in time. Gender as restricted to social phenomena is a well-known usage, an ideological usage according to Money who coined most of the relevant terminology, and "inconsistently applied" according to someone who researched the very question we're discussing. All sources are documented. If there are writers who disagree, please bring them forward. I'll be the first to fight for them to retain a place side-by-side with the authorities I'm aware of.

If the quotes I've mentioned are not still in the current revision of the article (for some mysterious reason anonymous editors remove them from time to time), please save me time by restoring them. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll stick my neck out here. I like you, especially now I've read some of your comments in discussions above. Is there any chance you've been contemplating a relationship between virginity and ephebophilia? ... from an anthropological angle of course. :) There are other clues we might actually share, among our interests, some questions in related areas. this article and of course The Evolution of Desire by David M. Buss may be of interest to you. Also, there is this unbelievably unexpected but thought provoking material regarding a slightly wider range of issues.

But would we be the only two people interested in such things. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you would rather I not copy and paste this discussion to the Gender article talk page, I will not. As for your questions, I would rather not note what my specific expertise is in the sexual, scientific and mathematical fields. They are topics I was either heavily pushed toward or heavily pursued as a child and teenager (and I mostly avoid the scientific and mathematical topics on Wikipedia), but I am more of a screenwriter these days; it is something I will be heavily pursuing next year (as in aiming for big Hollywood opportunities).

No, I did not conclude that you classify yourself as politically motivated. No, I am not suggesting that there are no political motivated uses of the word "gender." No, there is no prelude to ensuring "my preferred" use of gender gets adquate prominence in the article. It is already presented well within the article, and I am not sure that I would call it my preference. It is simply the way I have "always" viewed the word, since about age 12 (the same time I became a vegetarian). When someone says the word "gender" in place of the word "sex" (as in biological sex), I always automatically view it as "off," but then I remember the different ways in which the word "gender" is used. No, I have not been contemplating a relationship between virginity and ephebophilia...from any angle.

I may have blushed when you said you like me (just kidding), but thank you. The links about sexuality you have provided are interesting. But what would you want me to use them for in regards to Wikipedia?

Also, I am willing to work with you on any article here, but know that I have not been that enthused to edit Wikipedia these days. Flyer22 (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I might have mentioned the idea that some researchers would apply "gender" as a social idea to certain types of social animals—I have heard as much in passing—but you guys may be overestimating my enthusiasm for the idea. My own take on gender is that 1. The fact that "gender" has more than one correct definition can confuse the crud out of people. 2. Social scientists are mistaken in believing that gender could be a social construct rather than a biological reality to which society has reacted. 3. Social scientists got this idea back in the sixties as a political reaction to previous notions that women were inferior to men and that while the idea of gender as a social construct did good things for feminism and would have seemed plausible at the time, the discoveries about the human body that we've made in past forty years have proved it wrong. 5. "Gender" has only been used to mean "social construct" since about the sixties, before which it just meant "state of being male or female" in general 6. Because "sex" has undergone a usage shift to mean "intercourse," it is a good thing that "gender" is undergoing a similar usage shift back to meaning "state of being male or female in general, sex." Naturally, not all of these points are appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia's article on gender, at least not as explained here.

Also, let me speak from experience when I say that all parties are better off if this conversation continues on the article's discussion page. I once got mistaken for edit warring because my and my so-called opponent's discussions had taken place on a user discussion page instead of on the article page where people could see that we were talking out our differences. You guys are having a spirited talk, but you're conducting yourself in a manner befitting Wikipedia editors and it would be a pity if you were unfairly penalized for it.

As for which definition of "gender" the article should use, the answer is that because it must explain all of them, it should use all of them. "State of being male or female, sex" is the common, colloquial meaning, so that is the definition that we should assume our readers know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not say that social scientists are mistaken in believing that gender could be a social construct. Even scientists who believe that biology plays a role in gender believe that society plays quite a large role in it as well. So much about gender is socially constructed, how a boy/man and girl/woman should act, etc., etc. Gender roles that are standard in most societies have even been observed as reversed in other societies. I just don't believe that the reason most men feel that men typically should not cry in public, for example, is due to biology. And let us not forget what Alastair Haines stated about gender being a human phenomenon. If it is more about biology than the social, would it not be related more so to non-human animals than it is?

I sometimes think of how some of the transgender community defines the term gender -- as not something to be confused with biological sex, that while they may have been assigned male or female at birth and that is seen as their biological sex, their gender is man or woman. Yes, I know what you state about brains also being a part of biology and that some transgender people are biologically the opposite of their assigned gender due to their brains, but I am speaking of how the terms are generally used in this regard. Flyer22 (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there's how people act and then there's what gender actually is. Back in the sixties and seventies, there were social scientists who actually believed that society was what made people male or female. Back then, it was plausible, but now we know more about body chemistry, genetics and brain structure. A woman who "feels like a man on the inside" and decides to undergo female to male gender reassignment surgery hasn't chosen to be male; he has discovered that he already was because of his male brain anatomy. Society tells us that, say, woman may wear skirts and that men may not, that women wear visible makeup and that men do not, but this is a reaction to the physical reality of gender, not gender itself. Society cannot affect the substance of gender, only the ways in which people play the hands they've been dealt.

As for how the term "gender" is generally used, it is generally used to mean "state of being male or female, sex." People who use "gender" in this way aren't confused or wrong about its meaning; they're just using the colloquial definition rather than the one used by social scientists. Many people don't even know that social scientists reserve "gender" for social constructs. This doesn't mean that social scientists are wrong, but because Wikipedia is a general audience publication, we should favor the colloquial meaning. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not see it exactly the same way you do, Darkfrog. Society does not make people male or female, biology does (in the strictest sense, discounting the complicated topic of intersex individuals), but I believe that society most definitely makes people a man or a woman for the most part. Of course, not everyone is going to follow their assigned gender; these people who do not follow their assigned gender and rather identify as the opposite gender are what we call transgender. Some are rather in between, such as tomboys, so-called sissy boys and transvestites (and, as we know, transvestites can also be considered a part of the transgender community). I am saying that just because a human male child grows up hating being a boy because "he" would rather wear dresses and makeup and do most other things largely or only regulated to girls/women does not mean that "his" brain is literally a "woman's brain." I state that "he" may very well be a she, yes (because "his" gender is quite literally that of a she). And her brain may have some parts typical of a genetic female's brain, as recent science has shown for some transwomen, but I do not believe that her brain is a woman's brain in the sense of believing that biology has created most of these "womanly traits." What is a woman? Everything a woman is...has been designed by society. The same thing in regards to man. Man and woman, masculine and feminine, are man-made concepts. How can someone know that they are a man or a woman, if not for the gender roles designed for men and women? And note that I am speaking of "man" and "woman," not "male" and "female." Every transman I know, for example, wanted to start wearing men's clothing, sounding like a man, acting like a man, etc. upon his transition (though this is typical of the transitional process, it is still largely due to what society has deemed "man behavior" and "man traits"); he wanted to start doing things largely associated with what being a man is. And what is a man? Largely what society has made him out to be. When I ask transmen how did they know they were supposed to be a boy when growing up, they almost always state because they hated "girly things" and loved the "boy things." Sometimes with the combination of sexual preference (sexually preferring girls/women), though sexual preference should typically be thought of as separate from gender identity. And if you think about it, what are "girly things"? I would say that they are things society deems girly. If we say that biology is largely responsible for us seeing things as girly or not, I again bring up how things seen as "girly" in one culture may not be seen as "girly" in another. Every transwoman I have asked about knowing they were a girl growing up has stated that they knew because of how they hated "boy things" and being "dressed up like a boy." Sometimes with the combination of sexual preference (sexually preferring boys/men), though (again) sexual preference should typically be thought of as separate from gender identity. But if you think about them describing "boy things," that is also a reflection of what society deems to be "boy things."

I often wonder what society would be like if we did not have gender roles. Just imagine if there was no such thing as masculine and feminine clothing or such ways to act. I wonder how most people would say they should be/should have been a boy or girl then. Would they say it based on the fact that it does/did not feel right when they look/looked at their bodies? That can still be the case for some, but that is not the initial answer I get from most transgender people. Most of them relate to knowing they should have been a boy or girl based on "boy or girl things." Because of this, and my own experience with gender confusion growing up and even still now (which I mentioned to you before), I believe that gender roles are often what makes us feel as though we should be men or women. I know plenty of transgender people who feel this way as well. But notice that I did not state that I feel it is the only thing that makes us feel this way. I also know some transgender people who feel that it is close to an equal mix of biology and society (like a lot of scientists, not just social scientists, tend to believe), and others who feel that it has more to do with biology. I will state that while I believe that biology plays a role in gender identity for some people, I do not believe that biology is the biggest role in gender identity. I believe that society is. Think about it. Does a human male child hating the male gender role and relating more to the female gender role have to mean that "he" is quite literally a "girl in a boy's body"? I would say no, it does not have to mean that, though "his" brain may very well reflect a genetic female's in areas typically associated with female-ness.

Basically, though I believe that men are generally inclined to act and think differently than women, I do not believe that this is mostly due to biology. What seems to biologically separate human males and females more than anything, in my view, other than physical appearance, are things such as violence and sexual intimacy. For example, most serial killers and pedophiles are men. I am led to believe that there is something very intricately different, as in biologically different, in regards to human males and females in these cases. I sometimes wonder that if a male brain can quite literally be trapped in a female's body (disregarding the topic of intersex individuals), wouldn't there be more "female" serial killers and pedophiles than there are? By that, I mean "women" who are really "men on the inside" but it is unknown to all others or even themselves. Despite this, however, let me make it clear that I do believe that a person's brain can have a similar makeup to the opposite sex of what they are; as stated above, this has been shown with some transwomen, and regarding intersex people this time...has been the case with some of them. I simply do not believe that a person is born a boy or a girl in the sense of the usual social traits associated with boys/men and girls/women.

As for how the term "gender" is generally used, I was speaking of how it is often separated from biological sex by the transgender community...and how it is still defined by most valid sources. If you Google "gender," it will mostly be defined as a social construct (how society feels men and women should act, with no reference to non-humans). I was not speaking of its common usage regarding the general society. I feel that if sex and gender were truly the same thing, they would not be defined as two separate things as often as they are. Yes, they can overlap, but they are not completely the same thing in my view. Flyer22 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dudes/dudettes, I think we're all on the same page (in more ways than one). Yes, yes. Two issues: confusion and transgender.

If a subject seems confusing, we need to sort through the options, and maybe it takes time. Two definitions is often enough to generate a lot of confusion, they can overlap, but contradict and scholars can be all over the place in what they say. Is gender like this though? I think, after years of discussion, there are actually enough good sources that sort it out.

I think Flyer is absolutely spot on to use transgender as a "litmus test". I think Darkfrog is really answering it with "gender identity" and "gender role". Gender identity is "how you feel on the inside" and is the basis of transgender. A male to female transexual often is sexually attracted to men. This is not considered a same-sex attraction, even prior to the change. Yikes, problem with sex and gender as words there! Gender role, what we chose to do because of our sex, is also significant, because such stereotypes are also considered by some people to be restrictive.

The Gender#Gender taxonomy helps people "mix-and-match" ideas and words to sort through the confusion and provide a systematic way of talking and thinking through the issues. But it's not just a system of words, it reflects things that science can also measure, just unfortunately rather imperfectly to date. Crusio will know heaps and heaps about it. Pump him for info and sources. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just answered above with more thoughts on this. But, yes, I was thinking of asking Crusio to weigh in on some (or all) of this. Flyer22 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think that I can contribute much to this debate beyond what I already stated on the Gender talk page. --Crusio (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it more a personal reason, Crusio, or rather because you feel everything is already covered here? I am okay if you would rather not answer. We mainly wanted your take due to it seeming that you prefer the term "gender" only being related to humans as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No special reason. I am not a native English speaker nor am I an expert in gender issues. My preference for limiting "gender" to humans and use "sex" in animals is completely based on Dunnett. That's why I originally only provided the rference without contributing anything else to the ongoing debate. --Crusio (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses @ 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Think this is good enough for that damn article? Look at the clarity and resolution.

pick one

I don't know which one's the best.

For androgyny maybe? Or blonde File:Blonde hair Daniel Christensen.JPG Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ARRRGGGGG??!?!!? Will answer later? Why so mad? Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not "mad." I was simply sleepy and felt that I would answer later, as in now: I would say that the second picture is the best, but you may still get rejected there by some editors for the same reasons you did last time. I would suggest you not using any of your images as the lead image for that article, until you have a clear, face shot of you with dry, blond hair. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The second one? And OlEnglish said he didn't mind image number one being on the article. And the last one; what about that one? Is it androgynous, too? 192.156.234.170 (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

/\ That is me Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that IP was you. Everything has worked out so far. No one has reverted your image. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much time to spend online today, but I thought I'd alert you to this conversation. A user has complained about Damiens.rf nomination of a group of images at the same time. Though I don't remember the specifics, I do remember that you went through something similar with him... possibly. I'm pretty scatterbrained today, so I could be making this all up. Anyway, if you want to comment at the thread, do so. You may want to let them know that I contacted you to avoid accusations of backroom canvassing, though I'm only alerting you because I don't remember the specifics and have no time to look them up. Actually, a better idea would be to stay as far away as possible from the dramafest known as WP:AN/I, but that's your call. AniMate 22:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not comment on this, because I'd rather not have Damiens.rf as some constant enemy here at Wikipedia. He will do what he wants to do, unless severely warned about it. I will likely disagree with him again in the future, but until that point... Avoid, avoid, avoid. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Man that is obnoxious! And it couldn't be more ironic, could it? Please report him and I will gladly vouch if needed.Legitimus (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I reported him. I have mentioned before to you how much I hated being called a pedophile by him (and obviously would hate being called such by anyone). It gets to me for the very fact of what I dealt with growing up, though I will not go into details. It just really stings. But, yeah, I reported him. Before I did, I even found out that he had requested to be unblocked this year. After I reported him today, he even requested to be unblocked again. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I again tried to explain the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia to him, while also pointing out that I have stated exactly the opposite of what he has accused me of stating. Hopefully, he will listen and understand what he is reading by me this time. But I doubt it. Flyer22 (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt there is anything to be gained by continuing to talk to this guy. His sockpuppetry and personal attacks have made it clear that he is a troll, and not here to actually try and contribute anything constructive. Continuing to try and talk to him on his talk page will probably only worsen the situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Beeblebrox. Thank you for your help. I appreciate it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Evil saltine's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ryan and Greenlee.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Greenlee Kidnapping Spike.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to be thrilled with me. I'm the one who removed the images from Greenlee Smythe before doing one of my trim jobs (about 20,000 bytes). The images aren't exactly necessary and I don't think they fit with our fair use guidelines. The one with Ryan you can barely see who the woman is, and I'm not sure the picture of a relatively unpopular recast (who only gained sympathy because of the way she was dismissed) is a good fit either. Sorry. If you feel strongly about them and reinsert them, I'll be irritated but won't remove them again. Take a look over the article. I'm not particularly familiar with AMC, but think I got everything right. AniMate 04:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind your removal of the images at all. My big image dispute with Damiens.rf months ago resulted in my seeing how a lot of the images I had uploaded to soap opera character articles were indeed decorative. Yes, he actually changed me during that dispute. I believe he changed Rocksey for the better as well. Though we are still not as stern as he is about non-free images, we are both now more cautious of how we incorporate these types of images.

Good job on trimming the Greenlee Smythe plot section; it needed it. As we know, non-soap opera editors would say it needs more trimming. But considering the complexity of soap opera plot line lengths, how there is a new episode every weekday (except for special days, such as holidays), you did a great job. I welcome any help from you with articles I have significantly worked on. I wish that I had known you were removing the Greenlee Smythe images beforehand, though, so that I could have deleted the images myself and stopped them from coming back to my talk page (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If it matters, I didn't actually look to see who uploaded the pictures. Glad you like the plot trim. AniMate 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Any comments you could add here would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Bovineboy. Flyer22 (talk)

I hope you don't mind me reverting your cross-posting at WT:FILM about Avatar (2009 film). It is not good practice to have the same discussion in two different places, and it's best to stay with where the discussion originated. As for discussions on WikiProject talk pages, the rule of thumb is to discuss topics that may affect a large number of articles. If there is an issue with a specific article, it's best to provide an unbiased notification so editors can come by and weigh in. Erik (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Erik, the reason I posted it there is because it does affect a large number of articles. I was not asking for WP:consensus for that film article alone, as I made clear in my comments. I also made it clear that the discussion should continue there at that WikiProject. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to be a significant issue unless DerechoReguerraz embarks on a mission to change all film articles citing Metacritic. Issues like these disappear into the past surprisingly fast; there are a dozen different ways to write the critics' consensus as reported by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, even with the word "mainstream" put aside. A single word is not worth attempting a general consensus. With or without the word, the meaning of the sentence is still clear. Erik (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I get your point. And thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) Did you get to see Avatar yet? I plan to see it tomorrow, but there's a snowstorm rolling in... Erik (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to see it today with my mom, but she changed her mind. Today is her sister's birthday. In addition to the money she will be spending today on my aunt, she apparently went grocery shopping, for a lot of food. I take it that she may be broke before today is over, and that is part of the reason she canceled (LOL). It's rainy here right now (in Pensacola, Florida), but I still wanted to see it today; it's more fun for me to see a film when a lot of people are in the theater, but I'm sure we'll go soon (and a lot of people will be there then as well). The tickets might have been sold out by the time we got there anyway; clearly, we did not get tickets in advance. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any interest in becoming an administrator. I haven't taken that close of a look at your edit history, but you have certainly been here long enough to be given serious consideration. I know all of my interactions with you have been quite positive. If you are interested, I can take a closer look and potentially nominate you. As a warning though, the process can be somewhat stressful, and the additional tools can be potentially addictive. You would need to have a week that you could "be on call" to answer the various RFA questions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration, Plastikspork, but I am not quite ready to be a Wikipedia administrator. I certainly was not ready two years ago when some other editor was interested in nominating me; at that time, I was still quite a newbie and needed to work on staying calm in heated and stressful situations in which I am (or seemingly am) being attacked. I have learned to stay calm in those kinds of situations since then (though I may still be angered by some of them, which is natural), but I still do not feel that I am quite ready for an administrative position. Not too long ago, I was involved in a very nasty debate on the Character (arts) article; though I was not the one being "very nasty," I was intentionally making that editor angrier and angrier at some points. That is not how an administrator is suppose to behave, or even just a regular editor.

I again thank you for the offer, but I must decline for now. Plus, I know that I will be too busy with life outside of Wikipedia in the new year. I do not even come on Wikipedia as much these days as I used to in the past. And believe me, I know how stressful the RFA environment can be; I do not need that stress right now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand. Other than the actual RFA, it's been relatively stressfree for me, but I have been careful to not spend too much time in the more drama heavy areas of WP. In any event, thanks for all your contributions, and let me know if you change your mind. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Ahodges7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ahodges7 ^talk 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Czarbender's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the repeated reverts by this user, at first I thought he was making an honest mistake. Looking through some of his other edits though he seems to be perpetrating subtle vandalism, such as adding page protection notices to non-protected pages and spamming: , , . Possibly worth keeping an eye on his edits to film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see. And I doubt that it is a different person in so short of a time span, for that first edit you have linked (seeing as an IP address may be shared by different people at different points). Thanks for the heads up. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. I wanted your opinion on the an issue that has arisen recently see here. The editor that keeps assisting does not seem to understand what i'm saying or just don't want the categories there at all. In my honest opinion the editor just seems to only want a dominance of African American categories. I don't object to any of them being there I believe they should be there but the other user feels that Native American categories don't belong when she is of partial heritage in which she applies to the categories.Mcelite (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be there to comment on it soon. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you were making revisions to the Critical Reception section at Avatar (2009 film). Good work with that and the other considerable helpful edits that you have made to the page. I was just asking for your opinion: Some movie series' have a box that compare the Score of Rotten Tomatoes, MetaCritic, and Yahoo Movies. Do you think it would be appropriate to add this to the Avatar page, or do you think it would be unneccasary?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I am thinking that it is not necessary, but you could try it and see how it goes over with other editors editing the Avatar (2009 film) article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'average' that you removed does not mean the movie was rated as 'average', it means that the rating was an 'average' (i.e. arithmetic mean) of several ratings. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that. But the rating is "average" (i.e. arithmetic mean) of several ratings for every film there. Thus, why exactly is it important to mention? Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To indicate that it is based on an average of several ratings, not a subjective rating. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The vibe it gives off is that the film has an "average" score of whatever, as if the score (whether very low or very high) is just average. It is not even remotely important to mention, in my view.

Let's continue this at the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't have time to pursue this. Feel free to make the changes you want. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you do not already know, this matter has already been resolved on the talk page (before you made this recent comment). Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Re your edit summary, "Bob, why does this need a source? If it's in the film, it does not need a source. The film is the source. Is there some reason you doubt that this is in the film?" -

Below is the sentence in question. I underlined the part that may not be in the film and the ^{[citation needed]} applies to,

The film begins in the year 2154 and focuses on an epic conflict on Pandora, an inhabited Earth-sized moon of Polyphemus, one of the three fictional gas giants orbiting Alpha Centauri A.

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Bob. I know which part you wanted/want a source for. But to be specific, is it solely the Polyphemus mention? Or that, and the "one of the three fictional gas giants orbiting Alpha Centauri A" part? From what I can tell, judging by no objections or removals of this information from/by all the experienced editors working on the Avatar (2009 film) article, this information is in the film. It is also partly repeated in the Plot section. Can you not find a source for this information? Maybe you should ask about it on the talk page? Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the reason for your resistance to have a routine placement of a CN template, especially since you don't know if any of that is in the movie. So I'll just cut off the discussion here. Enjoy the holidays and best regards,--Bob K31416 (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, I do not understand your insistence to add a citation needed tag. I trust that if it were not in the film, it would already have been removed by one of the editors who have seen the film. But enjoy the holidays as well. I wish you the best, and look forward to working with you further on the Avatar (2009 film) article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that wasn't my final reply : ) . I had the impression that most of the editors got interested in editing the article because they saw the film, like me. I don't recall anything about Polyphemus, red giants, or alpha Centauri mentioned in the film, and that's why I put up the CN template. I didn't remove those parts because there might have been something in the movie, like a display on a computer screen or some dialogue that I might have missed, or something else. Now I see that you took your position because you didn't see the film.

BTW, I think the source for the Polyphemus info was this wiki which got the info from a source at the bottom of webpage, which appears to be a companion book for the movie that contains details that didn't appear in the movie and is an extrapolation of the story.

With or without the CN, I think this matter will eventually be settled. I don't think something that appears in a companion book to the movie but not the movie, should appear so prominently in the lede, as if it was in the movie. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the film, Bob (loved it!), and now see how valid your concerns were/are regarding this matter. I also did not hear anything mentioned in the film about the part you have contested, though I think I might have seen it at one point. Like you, I feel like I might have missed something. My memory is usually pretty good, even often photographic with great detail for longs periods of time, but I am a little confused on this matter. You should deal with the lead accordingly; if what you contested is only mentioned in a companion book, perhaps it is best that it not be in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Since we both didn't recall it being in the movie, I removed it and if there was something we missed in the movie, an editor who noticed it in the movie will change it back.

Glad you enjoyed the movie. Also, I appreciated your comments on the Talk page regarding resisting the temptation to use it as a forum, and so far I haven't noticed anything on the Talk page in that regard by other editors either, although I've only recently been reading the talk page and not all of the recent comments.

Anyhow, I think all the editors on that article have to be careful to look for violations of NPOV on the article page, since there are underlying political issues in the movie, as confirmed by Cameron in interviews. Hopefully editors can work together to correct violations of NPOV. It's hard to do it alone. One thing to look out for is a possible upcoming suppression or spin of Cameron's comments about the underlying political themes that he put in the story. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean about looking out for NPOV violations, Bob. I already had to remove a section titled Calls of Plagiarism from the article (the new editor who added that tried to add it twice, but I warned that editor and pointed him or her to some Wikipedia policies and guidelines). And you already know that I have expressed concerns about the article possibly not maintaining a neutral point of view, regarding part of the Critical reception section (although I know editors are divided on that matter). But, yeah, I will help look out for such matters. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to confess that I haven't kept up on everything that has been happening at Avatar and Talk:Avatar. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I made those comments because I thought you would be an ally of those trying to enforce NPOV, and your comments confirmed that, and I hoped that others would work towards that end too. Now I'm optimistic about the article in that respect. I'll try to help where I can. The Avatar article is pretty active and I may not be able to keep up with much that is going on with it. If you need any help enforcing NPOV, feel free to bring it to my attention on my talk page, and I will give an independent opinion at the article where appropriate. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. And to clarify further about the Calls of Plagiarism section (which was wrongly formatted by having the P capitalized just like that), it was added by BloodRedthe1st. If it had contained "calls" of plagiarism backed up by a few reliable sources, then I would have let it stay (and would have tweaked it) or taken it to the talk page instead in order to decide how to incorporate it into the article, but this is what it looked like instead. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>I looked at the older version and it looks like the plagiarism-related part was taken mainly from this source which was a reference in the section at the time. Just to be sure we are on the "same page", so to speak, did you read that source? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I just read it now. Further, in making sure we are on the same page, are you saying you feel that this stuff should be in the article or not? Do you feel that the above source is reliable enough? I don't know much about that source. Or are you suggesting we include that information with better sources? Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the "same page" stuff was just because I recalled that our communication earlier in this discussion cleared up considerably when we found out about whether or not we saw the film. Thinking back, that was somewhat humorous because I thought you had seen the film and you thought that I hadn't, and the opposite was true. Regarding the plagiarism aspect, I think that WP:BLP needs to be followed and I think you were being sensitive to it as the policy suggested. When I come across a website that is being used as a source of controversial material (or any material that I'm unsure of), I try to find out about it. One way is to look for the "About" link at the site, which is at the top of the page that I linked to above. It looks like it can be considered a "reliable source" for the purposes of a Wikipedia article since it employs an editorial staff. Regarding the "P" it may simply be that the editor wasn't familiar with the Wikipedia style of capitalizing just the first word of a section title. I seem to recall that it took me awhile to get the hang of that myself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know about checking the About links on sites, but some sites that meet Wikipedia reliable site standards are still not considered reliable by some Wikipedians. One example is the Daily Mail, which is often considered unreliable due to what some editors view as its "trashy gossip nature." I asked you about the above site because I am not familiar with its reliability or if most editors would be okay with using that as a source. A lot of them would state that if this information is that important, it would be covered by more reliable sources. And, yeah, I know that editor is not familiar with Wikipedia's ways of formatting. It is pretty clear that he or she is new at editing here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know any more about that site than you do. There's been a lot of sources for this article to get a flavor for what would be acceptable. In that regard, I think that site would be acceptable, but it's only a vague impression. Although I wouldn't use the part about past plagiarism accusations against Cameron before Avatar because I think that would be a digression. That kind of info would be more appropriate for the article James Cameron, if it would be acceptable there. Also, with WP:BLP in mind, I don't think I would mention plagiarism unless it was a notable issue in the press, which so far it isn't. But I think the part about Call me Joe may be worth mentioning, as it is already, and it might be worth mentioning more about the book The Avatar if only we had some info about what was in the book, rather than just the title.

BTW I came across an interesting coincidence. Of the plots that it has been compared with, it seems that Avatar has the most in common with Dances with Wolves. Well, it just so happens that Cameron and Kevin Costner were both students at Cal State Fullerton at the same time. Although they may not have known each other then (Costner was a jock and Cameron was a physics major at one time) they might have gotten together at some alumni functions years after graduation when they were both in the movie business. Nothing more than speculation on my part for the fun of it. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

About not mentioning Avatar plagiarism unless it is a notable issue in the press, that is exactly what I was saying and is the main reason why I removed that section. I saw nothing of Cameron being accused of plagiarism by notable sources regarding Avatar. And I saw nothing about the creators of those fictional stories accusing him of plagiarism. If there had been, though, I feel that mentioning his past plagiarism matter would be relevant. But unless Cameron says he drew on this work, it does not belong in the Themes and inspirations section. And until or if notable accusations of plagiarism emerge, it does not belong in a Calls of plagiarism section. And as you already know, the Call me Joe and other similar works information is already in the Reception section, as only be similar; it is currently better left there like that.

Interesting about the Cameron and Costner bit. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! What do you mean nothing good is on? A Christmas Story is on for 24 hours. I've already watched it twice. I havne't seen Avatar. It isn't on my immediate-to-see list. It seems interesting, but I feel like from what I've seen in trailers there was a lot more hype than I feel is worthy. What I do want to see is the new Sherlock Holmes movie. I'm very curious to see Downey Jr. in another, "possible", franchise vehicle. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I retract my statement about nothing too good being on. A Christmas Story is always must-see. And, yeah, I felt that Avatar may be more hype than what it is being marketed as, but I am a fan of James Cameron...and the critical reviews have made me think that this may also very well be must-see.

I, too, am looking forward to the new Sherlock Holmes film. Robert Downey, Jr has really made a come-back, hasn't he? Iron Man was certainly better than I thought it would be; I still need to finish the end of that film, though. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saw Avatar, and it was/is spectacular. Love James Cameron. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't finished Iron Man?? lol. I think Iron Man proved that Marvel could have a hit outside of Spider-Man (as they were seriously lacking there), but I don't think any movie (as of late) has captured the quality of Spider-Man and Batman (referring to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and Spider-Man 1 & 2). Those movies have soul, whereas Iron Man (to me at least) is like a thrilling popcorn movie. You can watch it over and over again, but it doesn't have any real dramatic moments that make you care about the characters. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like the characters, but if Nolan and Raimi have managed to create empathy for their characters where Favreau hasn't (and I don't think he is trying to either...he just wants a fun popcorn movie).

I'll put Avatar on the list, but there is a good chance I'll wait till it comes out on DVD to see it. I love 3-D, but I hate the fact that it's becoming another gimmick lately, like when it became a gimmick back in the 80s. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about Iron Man not having any real soul. Making audiences care about the characters is usually essential to creating a great story. Cameron understands this. One of the reasons I had not been to the movies in years (yes, it had been years until Avatar) is because I feel that films these days mostly produce the same, unoriginal material with no heart. I usually feel like most of today's film are not worth my time and money to go to the theatres to see them and that I should just watch them online (usually bootleg versions) or buy them on DVD.

The film industry has either run out of ideas or they rewrite new material from up and coming screenwriters in "the usual" way too much. It is okay to have a similar film, as long as it is still original and fun enough to enjoy. But even then, the "joy aspect" is not all I look for when choosing a movie (unless I simply want to watch a popcorn movie); like you, I also want to feel "soul" in the films I see; things that are going to have a significant emotional impact on me. Avatar managed to do that (I saw it with my 12-year-old sister, by the way). I like popcorn movies as much as the next person, but I prefer films that truly "move" me. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I rarely go to the movies. These past two months I've been to the movies more than I've been in probably the last 5 years (or more). My g/f and I just wanted to get out and do something, so we'd just go "see what was playing" and watch it. Kind of like buying a plane ticket to the first available location, no matter where it is, at the terminal. Usually I just buy them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

At least you were getting out. That is sometimes better than just staying home, like I mostly do these days. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, yes I did miss your initial message. :( Thanks for bumping it. Hmm, to me; the first part of the sentence makes it clear:

On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from film critics, the film is considered to be "universal acclaim"

It's stating on Metacritic it's considered to be "universal acclaim". Or could it be to have a "universal acclaim" rating with a score of 83 based on 34 reviews' Or does that sound too chunky?

Hope you had a good Christmas. --Mike Allen 05:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to but in here, you shouldn't really say "universal acclaim" or anything of the such because it starts jumping into NPOV territory. We have to be neutral, so even if someone else thinks the movie has universal acclaim, unless there is a rich history behind the movie of it being noted as such (which we wouldn't be able to know for a long time) we have to keep it strictly objective. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike, "to have universal acclaim" still makes more sense to me than "to be universal acclaim." But out of the two options you presented, I would prefer the second one...but with a slight alteration. I would prefer the "considered" part be removed. It is simply "has" in this case. Thus, it should be: "...the film has a 'universal acclaim' rating..." Although, considering what Bignole has stated on this matter...

Bignole, even though we are making it clear that the rating is "Universal acclaim," it should still not be noted? Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's their terminology, not ours and it's placing undue weight on how metacritic identifies the reception of a film. The terminology can either mean very little, or far too much depending on what is being said. That's why I've always encouraged editors to just stick to objective information (e.g., percentages, number of reviews, etc.), because this allows a reader to make their own conclusion about the critical reception of a film, as opposed to us doing it for them or another aggregate website doing it. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

So you advise against relaying the Metacritic "Mixed or average" rating as well? Isn't it better to specify for readers what the score means in terms of these sites? Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If RT says "80%" and MetaCritic says "80 out of 100", then the average reader will understand that 80 is positive. Unless MetaCritic's scale is different than the basic understanding of grades (90-100 is an A, 80 - 89 is a B, etc.), then it doesn't need it. Anything else is just ancillary explanation of what the score means. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I was thinking something like that when I asked you. We do start off saying that the film received generally positive reviews. People are going to know that 83 is positive, of course, but I suppose the extra qualifier is stressing the matter. In other cases, it seems needed. For example, when a film has received 44 on Metacritic. Now 44 is pretty close to 50, as far as I can see, and I would classify that as mixed...but someone else might not. I came across an IP on the Jennifer's Body talk page who did not seem to believe that 47 equals mixed, which you might have read while there. It is common practice to stress these scores, but I am okay with removing "Universal acclaim" if Mike and others are. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't like using "Rotten" and "Fresh" terms and that is on the same basics as "mixed or average reviews" or "universal acclaim" — but I was just going by what editors agreed to on the Avartar talk page. Flyer also brought that we should change how the RT's "average rating" is written, to "rating average". So I've been using the Avartar copy as a guide on all the new films that have been released this week. Apparently, Bignole doesn't like how it's written because I changed the Halloween II critical reception to match, and he changed it back and said it was simpler the other way. So I'm confused and don't know what to do. I guess I get in a hurry and try and get these minor things out of the way, because most editors worry about the 'major' things. Well someone's got to make sure these 'minor' things are done. :) There's never time to do it right the first time, only time to do it over again. :( While I'm already here and talking about, Bignole why do you want the UK release date listed (and bolded) in the infobox? I thought only the county it was released in and the earliest release was supposed to be mentioned. See again, I'm confused. --Mike Allen 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Well, we should be stressing what the basic consensus is among the reception in general. We shouldn't have to use any extra qualifiers specifically for RT, or specifically for Metacritic, or even Yahoo Movies. Those numbers should speak for themselves, because they typically aren't used by themselves (i.e. We usually compare RT to Metacritic, and sometimes we throw in Yahoo Movies as well). As such, when summarizing the consensus of critics on a whole--based on all of the statistical data we've collected from various sites--you'll probably need to include qualifiers like "generally positive", "generally mixed", or "generally negative" so that you can effectively summarize the basic reception. That said, to say "universal acclaim" would suggest that basically everyone that reviewed the movie loved it, and we'd never actually be able to support that with any real evidence because you'd never find a source that listed every possible critic in the US. (P.S. All major releases should be listed in the infobox, that includes the UK release). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm late in replying, so you might already know that Mike removed "Universal acclaim." But do you mean that we cannot know if everyone who reviewed the film at Metacritic loved it? "Universal acclaim" relates to Metacritic, and I would think that most people would know that we are not suggesting that every critic loved the film simply because everyone or almost everyone who reviewed the film at Metacritic did/does. It is not as though the film was given a score of 100. It is pretty rare to get the "Universal acclaim" rating, though. And does seem that everyone or almost everyone who reviewed the film there loves it. Again, I am not saying that "Universal acclaim" is needed or should stay in the article. I am okay with the removal. I am just thinking further about its inclusion.

And, Mike, there is no need to try and have all film articles follow the same Reception section format (of course). They are going to be either significantly or slightly different sometimes. As I stated on the Avatar (2009 film) talk page, the Changeling (film) article is certainly doing its own thing (even with the "Generally favorable" rating mention from Metacritic). Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. But most of the articles I have changed are just start class, and most will probably never reach much higher. It's not like I have gone in and changed FA's, which of course have their own editors and 'things' going on. For example, if I was to add in the 'new' format on the Changeling article, you better bet it would be reverted in a heartbeat. No doubt at all. I would try it and show you, but that would be proving a point.. and I'm sure we already know what would happen. ;-) I've been changing the new films that's coming out now, as most of them say "Rotten", "Fresh" and is not very precise on the scoring. Also I (and I'm not the only one, I think you were the one that suggested the "rating average" part) like how the "new format" reads; it's very encyclopedic, it explains briefly how RT/MC does their ratings, and is too the point. Now of course if anyone can do more to the format, I will copy it into my personal notes and start using it. Like on the Halloween II article, how it explains RT Top Critics a little more, I have included that in my current revision. Also not to sound rude, but isn't that why we include refs, so readers can visit the particular site and read more?--Mike Allen 05:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you did not sound rude. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It should really never be necessary. Metacritic usually cites 34 critics. If they pick 34 particular critics that rate a film high (as opposed to 34 that might rate it lower), then them claiming it's "universally acclaimed" is pretty biased. That said, the critics listed at Metacritic are typically the ones listed in the "Cream of the Crop" section of Rotten Tomatoes. The fact that Metacritic characterizes a certain score as "universal acclaim" is irrelevant to Wikipedia because we don't character a score like that. If someone wants to know how Metacritic qualifies reception, then they can click the link that's in the EL section of the page and see for themselves. We shouldn't adopt Meta's terminology, even when just saying what Meta says. It's all about how the information is presented, and since Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes don't measure reception exactly the same way (nor do any individual critic for that matter), to use one over the other would be rather undue weight and npov issues. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your points. You are always pretty awesome at debating. For a "Mixed or average" Metacritic score, though, I cannot help thinking that it is necessary to make clear, due to what I stated above. People are going to know that 80 is positive and 20 is negative, but some of the stuff in the middle is trickier. Of course, they can click on the link like you state and find out for themselves, but that goes for some other things as well.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts about this. You always tell it like it is or rather should be. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope yours are going well. AniMate 17:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been okay. As stated above, I went to see Avatar and loved it. What did you do on Christmas? Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We did this. AniMate 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL, thanks for the video. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hee. Isn't that great. I don't know if you're an SNL fan, but you should watch the Taylor Swift episode on Hulu. Best episode of the year, and from a non-actor. AniMate 05:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out later. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work at Avatar (2009 film). Incredible job so far. Cirt (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Cirt. I am thinking of creating a Design section for the article. If no one else does it, I will. And I will probably do it sooner than later to go ahead and get it out of the way. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have gotten into a good rhythm. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Yeah, we seem to compromise well. And I am always open to talking over any wording you prefer. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re "But shouldn't we leave "Film critic" to specify for readers that we are now relaying what film critics think?"

I've been thinking about that. I was even thinking about adding an introductory sentence that mentions it, but that didn't seem good. I think that from the context, i.e. the paragraph before and the rest of the sentence after, the reader wouldn't hesitate to realize that Ebert is a film critic if they didn't already recognize his name. Having the most famous film critic of the group at the beginning helps too. And leaving out "Film critic" from in front of Ebert seems nicer because it is consistent with the way the other film critics are presented. So it seems better without "Film critic". After reading this, if you still would like to put it back in, I wouldn't object if you did that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I concluded the exact same thing you did, immediately after I made that comment in my edit summary. It is better not adding "Film critic" back. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

When things go so smoothly on Wikipedia, there can be only one explanation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Laughing out loud!!

		The Science Fiction Barnstar
		For your exemplary efforts on the Avatar (2009 film) article. You are a constant driving force in getting things accomplished, and the forward momentum that you have created despite the occasional opposition and garden-variety idiocy are a testament to how articles should be written. Good job. Trusilver 18:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you, Trusilver. This barnstar is a great honor. I am not sure I deserve such high words regarding this matter, but I thank you. I only do what I have learned on Wikipedia about creating decent, good or great articles. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this excellent article; it's rare to see such a well-developed one straight out of the box. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you a lot. I appreciate the compliment. I always make sure to have a full and well-sourced article before creating it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Krazycev13's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Flyer - sorry I missed your Christmas message when you first posted it, thank you for the good wishes, I appreciate your note and your Wikipedia work. Best Wishes for an excellent New Year. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw, thank you, Jack. You too. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I was just responding to your post. I only added the "universal acclaim" bit because that is what the film's score conveys on the site. The film, I believe, has an 84 on Metacritic, which constitutes "universal acclaim", at least, in their eyes. That's basically the reason why I added it. Thank you for your input, though. I greatly appreciate it. BalticPat22Patrick 04:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Your reasons for adding it are the same reasons I originally added it. But as I stated, this was also discussed above on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It was fun, and I believe, useful to the article.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Clarify? Our back and forth compromising? That, and the word fish being in the plural form? Flyer22 (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha! WP at its best! Fish like you are awesome! Fishes? What? Let me clarify. You are an animal! ;-) --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides, peddling fish is my trade...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you really feel that we need to specify that fishes and poultry are animals, though? We make it clear that semi-vegetarians use the word "meat" in a restrictive sense, and that vegetarian groups such as the Vegetarian Society do not consider semi-vegetarian diets to be vegetarian. That already makes it clear that they consider these creatures to be animals. It just seems as though we are undermining our readers' intelligence. As you know, I felt the same way about the addition of omnivorous. Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And, oh...I had checked the Fish article before I changed fishes to "fish," and I did not see the word "fishes" used much there. "Fishes" just sounds awkward to me, perhaps because I do not hear many people say "fishes." They usually just say "fish." Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, we're not specifying anything, we are presenting what the vegetarian groups specified, as per the referenced link. As for fish and fishes, I had always thought the difference was between when the animal was prepared as food and when it was in the sea. Your reverting me, caused me to look it up, and I see that it's rather a matter of species than food.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It was more a partial revert, LOL. Anyway, I know that we are presenting what the Vegetarian Society specified, but it is still us specifying what they specified. I still see it as unneeded, for the reasons I stated above. It just sounds so unnecessary and as though we are trying to stress to people, "Yeah, you are eating animals."

The fish or fishes section you pointed to in the Fish article notes that those words are often used interchangeably. And that is what I mean. People generally do not state "fishes," and I do not feel that they are wrong for not doing so. While "fishes" may be technically correct, "fish" typically covers different species of fish. Or is it that you feel "fishes" should be used in order to cover sharks and seafood? Most people do not think "shark" when they hear or see the word fish. But they also do not think "shark" when they hear or see the word "fishes." I am okay with leaving it as "fishes" as you have, and it is not as awkward to me now that I have looked at it more, but still... We should probably simply state "...and has led vegetarian groups, such as the Vegetarian Society, to note that such fish/seafood or poultry-based diets are not vegetarian." and leave it at that. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is getting into valuable stuff for the article's talk page.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You want to copy and paste this discussion there so that others can weigh in on it? I felt that it was just something that could be worked out between us, since we were the ones altering that part of the lead to clarify and read better. I am not hard-pressed on making that tiny change, but I just wanted to state my reasons for feeling differently. I am okay with taking it to the Vegetarianism talk page. I am just not sure that anyone else will weigh in on the matter, other than Sinneed. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want to cut and paste this discussion. I just wanted to say that I enjoyed what turned into our joint editing session. I found it to be a unique experience of passing the article back and forth, while watching it improve, every time. It was a refinery we had going there. As far as discussing further how the last line of the lede should read, I'm thinking over there (Vegetarianism talk page) would be nicer. My reason being that there are always silent editors, and future editors to consider.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of copy and pasting this discussion there, only the relevant parts, because it is easier than having to state this all over again. I do not like repeating the same thing all over again, though I often have to. For me, it is better to present the current discussion and see what people have to state about it. I will go ahead and do that now. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I'll keep that in mind, Bob. Flyer22 (talk)

Hello Flyer22, thank you for your message (23:41, 4 January 2010) - you reminded me that when I update the box office gross in the infobox, like I did for the Avatar (2009 film) article, I should make sure that I also update the box office gross in the Box office section. - Let me apologise to you for my omission (negligence) but I was in good faith that the day to day updated sum of gross revenue is reported only in "infobox" of the article and not also in "Box office section" where I believed are only reported the significant revenue achievements for certain time intervals such as first midnight screenings, opening weekend, first month, the time to hit the $1 billion mark, etc. I also believed that the worldwide total gross revenue sum will be placed in "Box office section" only after the movie is ceased to be screened in cinemas and the final (conclusive) revenue sum is known. But my negligence is rather irrelevant because in these days Wikipedia editors constantly keep an eye out for BoxOfficeMojo.com results of such fresh blockbuster as is Avatar to be ready to make instant update of the revenue sum not only in "Infobox" (as I did) but also in "Box office section" as you reminded me to do. Anyway thank you for your attention. I wish you all the best in 2010. (P.S.: Forgive me my very poor English as I must completely rely on the Google on-line language translator as my native language is Czech, hope the translator works properly without serious blunders) Cheers --Bluewind (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. And thank you for the compliments about the article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that they're still eligible. According to the 'additional rules', "Five days old" really means about eight days in Swahili :) . That is, if your article was created or expanded after the last day listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations, it is likely to be approved". If you want a definitive answer, you should confirm this with someone else. Thanks! JulieSpaulding (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In the paragraph about star crossed love in the Themes and inspirations section, could you give the video in the source another look and possibly rewrite the paragraph? It looks like the connection with Jack and Rose was more the interviewer's idea than an inspiration for Cameron in making the film. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I wrote the paragraph does not suggest that Jack and Rose were an inspiration for creating couple Jake and Neytiri. It simply notes that Cameron applied a star-crossed lovers theme and compared the couples. What specific problem do you have with the wording, and how do you suggest I reword it? Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick reply: The paragraph seems to suggest that there is more of a connection in Cameron's mind than there actually is, as I see it in the video of the interview. Viewing what Cameron actually said in the video, he just seems to politely go along with the interviewer's idea for a few seconds at the beginning of his response but then ignores the comparison and talks only about Jake an Neytiri and the actors that portrayed them. What do you think of the video of the actual interview? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I'm doing two things at once, and this particular computer I am using at this moment has been acting up. I am not seeing the problem with the way I worded that paragraph, Bob. I watched the video, and it is relaying the same thing the MTV article relays. I included that one bit of how the article compares the couples, for further explanation. If you would rather that be removed, we can, but I feel that the entry will be lacking without it. Basically, even Cameron going along with the idea for a few seconds is him acknowledging the star-crossed love theme between the two couples. Does it bother you because you feel that star-crossed lovers always have a tragic or otherwise sad ending? I only ask because some people feel that way (initially, anyway). Or is it because we have mentioned Titanic enough in the article, LOL? Or rather just because Cameron does not compare the couples thoroughly enough? Or all of the above? The way I put that piece in does not compare the couples extensively either, though. And, really, this is not the first time Cameron has acknowledged what he feels is the importance of the love story in both films; he has compared them, in that sense, before. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I'm concerned about is that the article of the interviewer is misrepresenting Cameron's response, and the Wikipedia paragraph seems to do so even more. The interviewer seems to be pushing his own idea, which I don't think Cameron really supports much, and near the beginning of his response he notes a difference. Oh well. I guess that's enough about it for me, for now. I might give a rewrite a go later. But it would be hard to do using that source. Cheers, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I still do not get it, or how I have presented the information as even more biased towards the interviewer's feelings. DrNegative seems to be okay with what the source has reported as well. Cameron agreed that Jake and Neytiri are a star-crossed couple, like Jack and Rose. He never agrees with anything just for the sake of agreeing. So I would prefer the star-crossed love theme mention stay. I suppose I could compromise with you on completely removing mention of Titanic there. But still...like I stated, he has mentioned the importance of the love stories within both films before. Interviewers have often asked him about the love story in Titanic and the love story in Avatar, how they are alike or different. And in the MTV interview, he did very briefly go back to the mention of Titanic when he noted "the difference" between the couples (I personally disagree with that "difference," however, since, as the interviewer noted, Jack and Rose do not immediately fall for each other either. Well, Jack does fall for Rose at first sight, but that is different.)

Or we could remove this line, like I suggested above: "Both couples come from radically different cultures that are contemptuous of their relationship and are forced to choose sides between the competing communities."

After removing that line, we could reword the next line to state: Cameron said that Jake and Neytiri "both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side, and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting".

Or we could remove the current Titanic mention and rather also include Cameron's thoughts from another source, about how important the love stories in both films to him were. But, again, if you want no mention of Titanic at all, I can be okay with that. I just feel that it should be noted, since Cameron has commented on it more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "Interviewers have often asked him about the love story in Titanic and the love story in Avatar, how they are alike or different." - If you could give me links to those interviews, that should easily settle it for me and give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the paragraph. Maybe those sources can even be added. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I will look for some links. I know that I have read the questions enough, and saw one on the TV Guide channel.

In the meantime: How is this alteration, since Cameron did not initially compare the couples in the MTV interview? Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I noted the improvement and your good observation above that went into making it. Regarding "star-crossed", so far their relationship is flourishing so maybe it's not star-crossed. But perhaps that mean ol' Cameron is having the train wreck in a sequel. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What was that comment you removed about, Bob? LOL, I would have replied, of course. Just you being frustrated? I understand the frustration with everyone comparing Avatar to just about everything under the sun.

Anyway, "star-crossed" does not always mean that the romance is doomed, as I hinted at above, which is why I tweaked the lead of the Star-crossed article just a bit before your most recent replies. It may be better if I reword it even more, but the lead and introduction sections of that article already explain the other meanings of the term. It can simply mean a couple who are from "two different worlds" (literally in Jake and Neytiri's case) who have to overcome repeated obstacles in order to be together...such as repeatedly being kept apart by whatever outside force or forces (be it parents, friends, enemies, evil corporations, you name it); that is part of the definition, or else any doomed couple would be star-crossed. Jake and Neytiri are star-crossed in the beginning. And star-crossed couples are not always star-crossed forever. For example, American soap opera couple Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter were originally star-crossed, but are not so anymore.

The only other online interview I found so far where Cameron is directly comparing the Titanic and Avatar couples is this one, where he was obviously asked about the two love stories. Yes, I have seen him comment on both love stories comparison-wise in one or two television interviews...and have read other articles where both couples are brought up and Cameron has commented on whatever parallel mentioned between them, but I (at the moment) cannot pinpoint the places I read them. With each of those similar questions, they were a part of an interview about the film as a whole. This, of course, means that one would have to find those articles and read or glance through them just to find the one part where the interviewer noted both love stories and Cameron made whatever brief comment about them. But if you doubt that the Avatar love story was/is important to Cameron, here are a few links that make clear his feelings about it:

In this CNN video interview, which I already included in the article (in December) for other information has an interviewer speaking to Cameron about Avatar and Titanic (which you may have already seen), and I have no doubt that both are thinking about the Titanic love story (Jack and Rose) when they note Titanic's impact (though, as I stated to an editor on the Titanic talk page yesterday, I am not a mind-reader. LOL).

In this interview, the article briefly analyzes both couples...since Cameron advised people to go along with Avatar's love story.

In this video, the whole cast talks about the Avatar love story and its importance to the film.

In the "How alien are these creatures?" section of this article, Cameron talks about the Avatar love story as well.

We do not really need any other source for Cameron feeling that Jake and Neytiri are star-crossed. He acknowledges that they are in that MTV video source. We should go by the source in this case, since he clearly agreed with that assessment made by that interviewer. We cannot say, "Oh, Cameron probably was not paying attention to what the interviewer was saying" or "Oh, Cameron was just politely agreeing." Unless Cameron states in another source that Jake and Neytiri are not star-crossed, there is nothing wrong with mentioning that Cameron made the couple star-crossed...since he basically said that he did. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the above material, I think all of it, and I still feel that the paragraph in Themes and inspirations reflects the interviewer's opinion rather than Cameron's, and it isn't supported by any of the above. Sorry to seem like a pill. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I said before, we go by the source in this case. Cameron agreed that the couple is star-crossed, as witnessed in that MTV video. That is what the paragraph is supported by. That, and the other stuff he said about Jake and Neytiri there in that source. I feel that you are not giving Cameron enough credit for listening. I have seen the man object to statements made by interviewers before, and I feel that he would have objected in this case if he did not agree that Jake and Neytiri are initially star-crossed. He knew what he was agreeing to. He has spoken about the characters coming from "two different worlds" and needing to overcome that before. In any case, the love story is important to Cameron, as the above links show, and should have been mentioned in the Themes and inspirations section already. It is not something he just threw in there without thought. (The same goes for The Terminator. The man loves combining love stories with action or ground-breaking special effects.) It was important to him to have that love story in Avatar. I may add a bit from the "How alien are these creatures?" part as well, since it notes some interesting pieces about his creation of this particular love story. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Some more info. "Whereas Cameron's Titanic was built around a kind of Romeo and Juliet narrative, Avatar is a bit more Pocahontas with the alien Na'vi standing in for Native Americans, according to producer Jon Landau." Jon Landau produced Avatar along with Cameron. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Still does not negate what Cameron basically stated. Nor does it mean that Jake and Neytiri are not at all initially star-crossed. Notice that Landau said "a kind of Romeo and Juliet narrative." There is more than one aspect of Romeo and Juliet's romance, and they are just one aspect of the term star-crossed. Though the term/phrase originated with them, not every star-crossed couple is like Romeo and Juliet...and (I mentioned it before, but...) they do not all have tragic or otherwise sad endings. If you want that piece by Landau added in, we can, of course; we can simply add it in as being from the producer's perspective (as we should), and have it come after what Cameron has acknowledged and stated about the love story, in the same way that I added in thoughts by Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana about Jake and Neyiri after Cameron's thoughts about the couple. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to use it or not. I might take another look at that paragraph, but for now I don't feel up to it. : ) Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

different subject

BTW I was thinking of simplifying the last para in the lead. What do you think of this edit from my sandbox? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. You are good at cutting out unneeded details, or details covered elsewhere. I am not sure if the lead is better without noting those achievements, but the lead is supposed to summarize. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Orgasmic_meditation has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Orgasmic_meditation and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Voila-pourquoi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC).

I may cooperate. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

On January 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad this article was finally listed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey congrats on this!— TAnthony^Talk 01:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to hear from you again. Flyer22 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help the Chloe Lane article...most of the history is from 2007 on, nearly ignoring the character's introduction and maturation. I tried remedying it at least temporarily with the introduction of this sentence: Originally introduced as a brainy "nerd" character with few friends, she later matures after dating Philip Kiriakis, who originally was pressured to date Chloe as a joke. Of course it could go more into detail, like her dream to sing in the opera, Mimi and Jan's porn site trick on prom night, etc. Maybe you know more about it and can help? Mike H. Fierce! 23:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I watched her love story with character Philip Kiriakis (Jay Kenneth Johnson) back when I was in my late teens/early 20s. I got hooked on it for some reason, and remember one of my brothers feeling that Nadia Bjorlin was "hot" as Chloe once Chloe got her makeover (he is not a regular soap opera watcher, since he believes that soap operas are generally for women, but he was surely attracted to "hot Chloe" and liked watching One Life to Live's Todd Manning's crazy actions). I was also in awe of her beauty back then. Though I watched Days of our Lives for a bit, I have not watched it for many years or enough to write Chloe's pre or post-2007 years. I do not even remember much of her love story with Philip, though I still do feel that it was a good love story back then (if that makes sense).

If there is enough real-world information about the character, I can certainly fix up her article to be more encyclopedic. And I can always read up on her character history. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. I responded on my talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaving this message for you because you seem like a thoughtful person. I'm de-watching the film's article. It appears that some editors are working to suppress references to the major criticisms of the film (racism, smoking, etc.) IMO, they are reducing the quality of the article by making it a puff piece rather than including discussion of major issues that have received widespread coverage. I tried to raise a couple of these issues on the talk page but any serious discussion of them was shouted down. It's a shame because this is an important movie, and serious discussions of the issues raised would increase the value of the article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers, thank you for the compliment. I advise you to stay with the article. There are others who feel the same way you do, and a compromise may be made eventually. Even if one is not made on the topics you want included, your help is needed at the article. It is not best to have editors who all or mostly think alike editing an article, even if the article has less debates and edit wars that way. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your editing help and comments on adding/deleting international/sociopolitical reviews on Avatar. Who makes the final call? --Amandaroyal (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Amandaroyal. Thank you for the compliment. I thank you for voicing your concerns on the talk page. No one gets the last call. There has to be WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a category which is being discussed for deletion which I see great use in. It is: Category:Musicians who have served in the military. I wonder if you would check it out, and offer your opinion, either way, "Keep" or "Delete", here.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure. No problem, Abie the Fish Peddler. Just let me eat dinner and take a small break from Wikipedia first. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No sweat. Dinner sounds good right about now. Enjoy your break. :-) --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your honest input.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, thanks for your contributions on Avatar. Following your and some other editors' suggestions, I have restructured Critical reception section and put it up for discussion here. Please have a look. I hope we can resolve this impasse and work out something everybody or most will be happy with. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. I was going to comment earlier, but I needed to leave Wikipedia for some hours. I'll be there to comment soon. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been running into "new" editor Gabi Hernandez and trying to fix/revert/advise her about the common newbie/fangirl mistakes she's been making, among other things. However, she has just began adding or replacing many Days character images, which got me thinking that she could be someone from the past like a Roak or an IrishLass or whatever. Can you recall who we had Days image issues with way back when? I'm drawing a blank.— TAnthony^Talk 01:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall much of a problem with Days of our Lives images. But either way, I doubt that this person is IrishLass0128/CelticGreen (also known as KellyAna); though still very fangirl-ish, "they" were a little more experienced with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Gabi Hernandez could still be someone from the past, but I would not be able to pinpoint who. Have you asked Mike? Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my alterations to Avatar (2009 film) you wrote "And what is the Ibid reference? People remember to reference properly." I don't understand what is wrong with Ibid? I regularly write essays for journals, and Ibid. is used when referencing the same source as the preceeding footnote. Even wikipedia describes Ibid. as "the term used to provide an endnote or footnote citation or reference for a source that was cited in the preceding endnote or footnote" so I don't really get where you're coming from about "referencing properly"? Thanks Billydeeuk (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not know what you meant by Ibid. I have never seen that done on Wikipedia until now, but thanks for explaining. As for properly formatting references, I meant using citation templates, per WP:Citation templates, like the ones you see in the article. We have nominated that article for GA (Good article) status, and the referencing being properly formatted is very important in order to get it promoted to that level. It is extra work for other editors when some editors do not use citation templates; it is especially irking when they only include bare urls. I am thankful that you at least formatted the references in a way that resembles citation template formatting.

PS... A comma should have been in that edit summary of mine, right after the word people (LOL). Hated that I left out a comma as soon as I saw it, because of how it sounds without the comma...almost like an insult. Flyer22 (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for clearling that up. As you noted yourself, I do always try to emulate the way that other users have cited references in the article when I cite myself (and it's not too disimilar from when I cite articles in academic articles). However, if the use of Ibid. is not acceptable by Wikipedia standards, I shall of course refrain from using it in the future (it just seemed a little pointless re-entering all the information for each individual reference, but of course I can always copy and paste!) As for the comma, I read it as a comma being there so no offence was taken! Billydeeuk (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, I just happened to notice this and the use of Ibid is actually not recommended at Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Footnotes#Style recommendations, basically because with so many people contributing to articles there is a greater chance of citations being confused by subsequent edits. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Billydeeuk, there are times when citation templates are not needed to cite sources. For example, when citing a television program (a show or some kind of special) or some kind of note about what aired on television at that time. The television program is the source, and having no citation template for those kinds of sources is often allowed. You can read more about sourcing at WP:Citing sources.

As for re-entering all the information for each individual reference, there is something I call "the duplicating feature," which makes it possible not to have to reenter all the same information for each individual reference. For example, when adding a source, you can add the chosen name (any name you chose) as an attribute by using <ref name="name">details of the citation</ref>. Thereafter, the same reference may be used multiple times by adding <ref name="name"/>. "Some names require the use of straight quotation marks, and it is never wrong to use them." Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer. I wasn't aware of the controversy or the discussion when I made that edit, and have not done much with the article. I saw quotation marks that were grammatically inappropriate while perusing the plot summary and I removed them. No foul. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But what did/do you mean by grammatically inappropriate, Jc-S0CO? I am okay with grammar, and pretty good at it other times, but I would not say that it is one of my areas of expertise. I am more of a screenwriter than a writer. Flyer22 (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the article, the word was used as a noun in the middle of a sentence. Quotation marks ("") are never supposed to be used for emphasis (which is unmerited here) or mockery (think if we wrote a biography for a judge that enclosed the word "judge" in quote marks - it'd be disparaging punditry that would be quickly reverted). Quotation marks are used only when the enclosed words are a quotation or the name of a written work, such as a poem (Ex: Dominique's favorite poem is "Design," by Robert Frost). Its use here is no more appropriate than bolding, italicizing, or all caps - it's unprofessional for an encyclopedia. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. It was brought up that putting the word "soul" in quotation marks may be seen as disparaging, but I argued that people could generally see we were trying to say it was coming from the Na'vi point of view (as the link I provided on your talk pages shows). It was not necessarily used to emphasize the word (like bolding, italicizing, or all caps would do) but rather to show the point of view of the Na'vi people. For example, if a character were to use a word or words to describe something, and then we relay that exactly as they described it. Or if a character were to use a word in the wrong way, and we were to put it in quotation marks to show that their use of the word is not accurate or is at least debated. As you know (if you read the discussions), we decided to put the word soul in quotation marks because some people have a problem with that word being used (even though it can mean more than just "physical spirit"). As for emphasis, though, I have seen quotation marks used for emphasis so much within online articles written by journalists or other literary professionals...that it does often seem natural to me when it is done in some cases. But we have decided to remove the word "soul" completely, and rather use different wording, as seen in our most recent discussion about this (Soul vs. consciousness revisited). Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up that last sentence in the lead. It was getting so confusing and when people kept playing with the wording to sound like there a high chance of a sequel ("it might be" or "is currently thought to be"), it complicated it even more. I was really close to removing it completely and just letting the "Future of the franchise" section explain it. Thanks for editing it with something that clearly says it's the last one, but isn't as firm as simply 'it is'. --13² 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. If they start consistently playing with it again, I am all for you simply removing it from the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. When I removed what seemed to me 'peacock' terms describing Horner's vocal score for Titanic ("For the haunting, evocative vocals heard throughout the film") you reverted it, and, rather than providing a source as I suggested, simply directed me to the page defining "Peacock terms" and replied '"haunting, evocative" clearly describes the filmmakers' intent, and just what type of voice we are talking about'. Well IMHO, and I write as one who earns his bread as a professional music writer and editor, "haunting" and "evocative" don't begin to define any "type" of voice - to me these words read as subjective reactions, which are fine in a piece of aesthetic criticism but not in what is meant to be an objective dictionary article. I'm afraid they still read to me as peacock terms, since they donate positive values on Horner's vocal score without presenting demonstrable fact. Do you see my point? If so, how about providing a citation for the source of these words? Failing that, I suggest they're ripe for cutting. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Alfietucker. I disagreed with your revert for the exact reasons I stated in my edit summaries. James Horner and James Cameron intended for the voice to be haunting in certain moments within the film, and have stated as much. Yes, no one's voice is haunting on its own; it is rather the way a voice is used or the purposeful actions behind it. The "Titanic voice" being haunting at times within the film is apparent to anyone who has seen this film. I do not see how the words are peacock words in the sense of WP:PEACOCK. Or how they are subjective, since they are clearly describing the intent of the voice. Leaving it simply as "vocals" is telling us what? You asked that the "haunting, evocative" part be put into quotations marks if it is within the source. That is what I did. The source uses the words; maybe not together, but it does use them. I will break up "haunting, evocative" as "haunting" and "evocative." And now that I think about it, it may have been a different source that used "haunting." I read the online.wsj.com article at a friend's house before putting it into the Titanic (1997 film) article, and could have sworn that I also read "haunting" in it, in addition to "evocative." Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. It sounds as if you may have confused your sources, or have simply overestimated the authority of the one source you cite (I'm not questioning Earle Hitchner's authority as a music critic, but simply whether his subjective description of the music constitutes a fact). In any case, even if James Cameron and James Horner themselves are known to have desired a "haunting" vocal (assuming that was how they described it - source please?) that doesn't make it any more objective a description. You personally may find the result "haunting" but I (and I know others) don't. And there's nothing you can do to demonstrate that the music is objectively "haunting", any more than it is possible to demonstrate, say, that the Eagles is the greatest rock band ever (though some may think so). Far better then, if you need to put in this "fact", to say that Cameron and co. wanted that "haunting" quality (if you can find the source for this) and then go on to say how Horner found his singer to create this effect to his satisfaction. Until then, I'm cutting those purely subjective terms - unless, of course, you prefer to have 'For the vocals heard throughout the film, subsequently described by Earle Hitchner of The Wall Street Journal as "evocative", Horner chose Norwegian singer Sissel Kyrkjebø (better known as "Sissel").' That certainly would be a truer representation of the source you cite.Alfietucker (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I still do not find describing these particular vocals as "haunting" or "evocative" as necessarily subjective. The voice is presented as "haunting" at parts within the film. And, to me, you either have a powerful voice or you don't. The capabilities of one's voice is a matter of fact, not opinion. But even so, where most people consider a voice to be very strong, there is likely someone who considers the voice weak or at least not all that great. Thus, I guess I can see how some people would probably not see this voice as "evocative." But as for haunting? It is hardly any different than "For the scary moments within [whatever scary film], so and so used..." I mean, just because someone does not find a film's horror scene to be scary...it does not make that scene any less scripted that way. I have to ask, though: You really did/do not find the "Titanic voice" to be haunting at any part within the film, even when Jack dies and that music starts playing (trying to get an emotional rise out of the audience)? How would you describe the vocals at that moment? I mean, to most others, it is "sad music." It certainly is not uplifting. But I am okay with your compromise, until I add a source for Horner and Cameron wanting the voice to be haunting. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Or a source using the word "haunting" for the vocals. And when the words are put in quotation marks, it is making it clear that it is from the source's (or sources') point of view (which is why you suggested quotation marks in the first place). Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your courteous replies. FWIW I don't think "sad" is synonymous with "haunting" - maybe the music had a "sad" effect on me: I can't honestly remember since I think I saw the film only on its first release, and the music wasn't sufficiently "haunting" (as, for instance, Gabriel Yared's score for English Patient was for me) to hold its place in my memory. But that is to stray into subjective opinion... Anyway, subjective opinions are ok in my book as long as their author is clearly indicated, so go ahead and find that source! Alfietucker (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for simply wanting things to be accurate, and working with me politely on this. You are right that "sad" is not necessarily synonymous with "haunting," but I would say that it is mostly meant to be in this case. I remember watching a lot of "Behind the scenes" and "Making of" programs about Titanic in 1997 to 1998 (news about this film was all over television back then), and I remember "the voice" often interchangeably being described as sad and haunting; others time as "sad, haunting."

Anyway, you are more for naming the author of the pieces describing this voice that way than for simply putting the words in quotation marks? If so, why? Quotation marks alone get the point across just as well (that it is someone's opinion), and I feel that adding the names of the authors is unnecessary. Although...the way you did it is fine. But we don't usually name the author for every quoted word or words, unless it is in the Critical reception section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The main reason I like a quote to be clearly sourced is, I would have thought, fairly obvious; otherwise any contributor/editor on Wikipedia may well be tempted to put forward their own opinion on a subject and think it's ok so long as they just put quote marks around it. That would not even be a case of original research... Alfietucker (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

But any quoted material should be able to be validated in the source, though it may not be able to be readily validated if there is not a url for it or if you have to sign up or pay to see the source. Take this piece near the beginning of the Performance analysis section, for example:

When it was shown to the press in autumn 1997, "it was with massive forebodings" since the "people in charge of the screenings believed they were on the verge of losing their jobs – because of this great albatross of a picture on which, finally, two studios had had to combine to share the great load of its making".

That piece is clearly sourced within the Titanic (1997 film) article. Naming the author of the quote is not only unnecessary but disrupts the flow, especially since I attribute information to that source more than once. Sources exist on Wikipedia so that the information can be validated. Naming the author of a quote cannot stop someone from altering that quote to say something else entirely, or a person from coming up with a fake author name. Sources exist for this reason. If you dispute the accuracy of a quote, that is what the source is for -- to check up on that. If the source is not readily accessed, then that is where we have to assume good faith on the part of the editor who added it.

But, yeah, it has been nice talking with you. If you plan to keep the Titanic (1997 film) article on your watchlist, helping to stop vandalism or other such unconstructive edits from plaguing it would be much appreciated by me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed that you changed the "worldwide" record wikilink to link to highest grossing films in US and Canada. This is the domestic only list. Instead of reverting, I figured I would ask you in case I was mistaken. Are you aware of this? :) DrNegative (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I know which is domestic and which is worldwide. As you can see, it was an honest mistake...seeing as I meant this link. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, I thought you were having problems accepting Avatar being over Titanic on that particular list and wanted to go with the domestic list instead. ;) DrNegative (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not like that Avatar surpassed Titanic, but I have accepted that it did. I accepted that it would days before, as you saw in my edit summaries. I would not make a dishonest edit like that, whether because of my personal feelings or otherwise. Really, I am a little offended that you thought I would. If I was angry or significantly upset about Avatar being the highest-grossing film of all time, even though I also like the film and knew it was coming, I likely would not even be editing the article right now. Right? And even if I had made such a dishonest edit, Avatar was still pipe-linked as the highest-grossing film of all time and the "domestic article" clarifies what that article is about. Thus, what would have been the point?

Besides, as I stated before, Titanic will have another run in theaters; I am confident about its chances of making enough money to reclaim its crown. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you missed to winky at the end of the statement. It was a joke. The entire statement that I made, was not to be taken literally at all. I am sorry however that I offended you, but I am not here to make friends. I just wanted to inform you on your talk-page of the error so that you could accomplish what you meant to do without me reverting you. I felt it was the noble thing to do. From now on, I'll just revert it, if I see an error of course. DrNegative (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the smiley, but I could not be sure which way to take it -- as a simple joke or a sarcastic one. With the Internet, some jokes are easier to catch than others. Days ago, I clearly got one of the jokes on the talk page you said you made in order to cheer me up. I can take a joke. And not offending someone on Wikipedia is not about whether or not you are here to make friends. No one signs up at Wikipedia to makes friends, but a lot of us do make friends here along the way. I accept your apology, and I did not mean to sound too defensive if I did. I felt that the statement was clear without biting your head off.

Anyway, I'll see you back at the Avatar article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Template talk:SecretLife over the use of actors in a navigation box would be greatly appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will be there soon after I comment on some things at Talk:Avatar (2009 film). Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer, much appreciated. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Avatar#Literary antecedents (Themes and inspirations) -- Jheald (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, I'm going to ask you one time to please stop your disrupting reverts on Avatar. Thank you.

I'm joking. lol :P In all seriousness, could you provide your take on this Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Cinema of the United States, your opinions are always welcomed. :) —Mike Allen 22:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL!! I needed the laugh. And no problem. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you know JR Chandler has cancer?!? Even more interesting he hasn't told everyone. Isn't that just the most amazingest thing you ever read?!? Seriously though, keep an eye on this. This IP seems bound and determined to document who does or does not know about JR's cancer. I'm insanely busy and don't have much time to edit, and since you're one of our most active editors on AMC related articles, you should probably revert his/her edits on sight. AniMate 03:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL, from the edit histories, you should know that I have already dealt with that IP on the JR Chandler and Bianca Montgomery articles. I will revert anything I see as trivial, wrongly formatted, or that is too much extra plot. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First Annual Wikiout. In order to give our vandalism, new page and spam patrollers a well deserved day off, it is suggested that all edit patrollers take a 1 day vacation from editing Wikipedia, on Thursday, April 1, 2010. _{(No, this is NOT an April Fools Joke)} Go out, enjoy the spring weather, and give your wrist a break from using that mouse! Please pass this message along to other patrollers by adding {{subst:User:Wuhwuzdat/Wikiout}} ~~~~ to their talk pages

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Today (January 31, 2010), I pretty much had a day off; just a few edits. But I really cannot afford to take a day off on Wikipedia these days, with how much the Avatar (2009 film) article needs constant checking up on. I will try to get a chance to pass this Wikiout message along. Thank you for considering me. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This user is deleting stuff and nominating all my own images for deletion. User:Fastily Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can help you on that, Daniel. You have to make convincing arguments for why that stuff should not be deleted, and invite editors from the relevant talk pages to those discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

At least this one image

I just can't get over how good this one really is for the blond article. Why was it again that it can't be used? File:Daniel Christensen hair.JPG Not only the good resolution and how it came out well but how exact it is. Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, again, I do not know what to say. We have been over why your images were removed before, and you can always check the edit history to see who recently removed your images and why. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Look out your window:

What do we want? SMURFS! When do we want them? NOW!

I'm just being silly. : ) Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile, Bob. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you might seriously consider refactoring your comments here. As distasteful as this chap is, speculating about when he might "sexually abuse" someone is innappropriate and violates WP:BLP. Could you remove the parts of your post that refer to the person, rather than the ones that discuss the merits of the article, I don't want to defend this chap but our policies should really apply to all living subjects.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not see my comments as out of line. After all, we call it child sexual abuse all the time at the Child sexual abuse and Pedophilia article talk pages; we do not usually use the more "neutral" wordings of "sex" or "adult-child sex." But I will remove any comments that violate any Wikipedia policy. Do you feel that all of what I stated about him being a pedophile or a hebephile or both should be removed? If anything, I felt that was informative. Or do you feel that the "sexually abusing" part should be reworded? Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated to this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Gabbe. Was the comment by that IP so bad that it needed to be blocked out? Would you mind relaying to me what was stated? Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It said, "THE GUILTY MUST PAY FOR THEIR CRIMES" (or similar words to that effect) followed by an email adress. It had absolutely nothing to do with improving the article itself. Gabbe (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of the details. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Flyer22. I appreciated your advocacy on the Avatar discussion. I was wondering if you care to look over this page before I post it. I welcome any feedback. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amandaroyal/International_media_reaction_to_Barack_Obama%27s_election Thanks! --Amandaroyal (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It needs a little polishing, but it seems like a good article to me. In regards to the polishing, you should go ahead and properly format the improperly formatted headings; I'm referring to the capitalization problem. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings about that. The reference formatting is not the best, per Wikipedia guideline standards, but that should be okay. It is not like you are going for Good or Featured article status right out the gate. I do advise you, though, to request feeback about this article at the Barack Obama article or at one of the related articles United States presidential election, 2008 and Presidency of Barack Obama. Articles about political figures are not taken lightly on Wikipedia, as you have already likely assumed, and it would be best to get feedback from the usual editors of the Barack Obama-related articles before creating this one. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add some more narrative and analysis soon. How do I know who the Barack Obama editors are? I would like their help. Do I just go to the discussion page and see who is talking the most? Still a little new here : ) Thanks --Amandaroyal (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your're welcome. And, yes, just look through the edit history and on the talk page to see who the usual editors of those articles are. You do not really have to check, though. Just post your proposal on either or all of those talk pages, and the usual editors will usually weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed hard sciences to physical sciences because I believe "hard sciences" is a biased term that implies a legitimacy that may not be found in the opposite, which would likely be "soft sciences". (Kaurigem (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

I understand that. I also do not like the wording "hard sciences" (anthropology is certainly not a "soft science" to me). That piece of the lead was originally added by Darkfrog24. I simply have not yet thought of the right wording to replace it. "Physical sciences" does not fully fit either, because, as I stated on your talk page, "There are aspects of the social sciences that are physical as well, such as anthropology." But then again, maybe I should not take the terms so literally. The article Physical science, for example, notes the other ways that term is used. Either way, I will go ahead and tweak that part of the lead in some other way right now, though. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to natural sciences. Perhaps this is a better fit than saying "hard" or "physical"? Flyer22 (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you are continuing to do a great job watching the article to remove cruft and keep it tight. It seems to me, however, that there are several sections that, especially as time goes on, include a considerable amount of information that is either no longer notable or should be in a side article. First, the "Cast and characters" section: Should the character ame go first, then the actor? As it is, it says: "Sam Worthington... is a disabled former Marine". If it were the other way around, it would say "Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is a former Marine." The section contains information that is either already in the Plot section or just not that important, such as in Norm's description: "because of the shot, he can't operate an avatar after the battle...." I don't think we want to describe everything that happens to each character. Also, "Weaver said that Augustine reminded her of Cameron". Is this helpful, or just trivia? Next, Origins. Does it matter that Cameron "reportedly" wrote the script treatment in two weeks? Next, under "Release, Initial screening", we have a whole paragraph beginning "Difficulties arose during a 3-D preview showing in Germany on December 16...." Is this whole paragraph worth more than a sentence? OK, here's my real issue: "Performance analysis". This section contains gorey details on what people predicted about the box office that turned out wrong. I think that this whole section could be reduced by more than 50%. Maybe some of this info could be moved to another article, but really, James Cameron stated the obvious when he said that the film would do better if it got repeat business. I hope this helps you tighten up the article even more. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Ssilvers, it is good to see that you have gone back to editing the article. By the way, I distinguished the title of this talk page section so that it does not go to the other section with the same name while we are replying.

In Cast sections for film articles, we start off with the actor's name first because of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Cast. The cast section should include a bit of information about the characters and the casting of the characters. Though there may not be any available info about the casting of ceratin characteters.

As for the Performance analysis section, I have looked over what can be cut from it, but most of everything there seems relevant to mention. But it could also be that I'm too attached to it, since I wrote most of it. It is not just about "gorey details on what people predicted about the box office that turned out wrong." As I stated in the GA review for the article, "...this film's performance at the box office is far beyond the typical film box office performance, and many people have wondered just how it has been able to do what it has done performance-wise, including box office analysts. They have wondered so much that they have thoroughly weighed in on it; there are various other thoughts from them about this film's success, but I have not added those thoughts, because the section is long enough and already covers everything about its box office performance well... I created it because the extent of this film's box office success has baffled most people. It seemed important to address how people thought this film would flop (like had been thought of Titanic), the box office predictions by box office analysts who were sure it would not flop, Cameron's take on all that, the box office analysts being stunned by just how successful this film has been at the box office, and the explanations they have given for its monstrous run. Not only is it notable, but I knew that people would particularly want to read all that. People have often wondered what is behind this film's baffling success, even on [the Avatar talk page], and heated debates about it continue on the Internet. The Performance analysis section gives them their answer."

That said, I can be okay with that section being significantly cut if it is covered in a subarticle, but I do not have the time to create a big subarticle for it right now. It would be a stub-article first. If you want to go ahead and do that, I say go for it. You might even be the one to significantly expand it. But I would want your proposed version of the Performance analysis section demonstrated on my talk page first.

Regarding the other cuts, such as to the Initial screening section, I say go ahead for that now. If someone objects and reverts you, take it to the talk page. I know that you feel you got disrespected by the other usual editors of the article, but you must sometimes discuss significant changes to it with them as well. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I made a few streamlining changes and gave thorough edit summaries. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your cut was/is pretty nice. It did not cut out anything too significant...other than one quote by Cameron that I feel is important to mention. Along with a few tweaks, I added that particular quote back, per the reasons in my edit summary for it. And, sure, I also would have preferred that Cameron's quotebox comment not be shortened, since it mentions the extent of the debate about the film before its release, but that section somehow looks cleaner thanks to your edits. I like it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What rule forbid me to write it there? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not exactly about a rule forbidding you from putting that piece there; it is about WP:Consensus. The usual editors of that article are against it being put there, because not only is it taking up unnecessary space (we are trying to keep the size of this already huge article down/stable)...but it is WP:UNDUE the way you had it (meaning, for example, why should that paragraph be the one subsection there?). We created the Themes in Avatar article for a reason; consider putting it there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

All right. I just followed 3rd principle "You can edit this page right now" -- SerdechnyG (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You could always discuss this on the talk page, as was suggested to you by two editors (one being me). But the usual editors there will pretty much state the same thing, if they reply at all. Flyer22 (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, dear friend. It's just a few facts (sourced facts). You discuss them first, not me. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

When you want your "facts" included, you are supposed to discuss them as well. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Straightforward violation of 3rd basic principle. We wrote it - you discuss it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no violation. Ever hear of WP:BURDEN? You added the information as unsourced first. It was your job to source it. We should not have to request that you source it. Even when you sourced it, it was removed because sourcing was not the only problem. Including the type of information that you wanted to include in the Critical reception section was discussed before your addition. Yes, you wrote it. And, as I stated before, we already discussed it (rather things like that). Since consensus would be against your addition, obviously it is your job, not ours, to provide reasons why it should be included. That is how WP:Consensus is formed. And, yep, you went to the talk pages to discuss it. You got a compromise. That is how Wikipedia works.

I am not sure what type of wordplay you are trying to sell me, but I'm not buying. You got your compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's forget it and concentrate ourselves on a furhter work . -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22. Thanks for your commendable work on Avatar. I wonder if you would consider spending some time on Themes in Avatar too, to help bring it up to the mark with the main article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Cinosaur. I appreciate your work on the Avatar (2009 film) article as well. I'll think about helping out with the Themes in Avatar article, but it will not be soon and I cannot promise anything on that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Breakout role means a role that makes an actor famous. Breakout character means a fictional character in some kind of media, who's only intended to be a supporting chatacter becomes the most popular; the most famous example is Fonzie in Happy Days. Megan Fox's role in Transformers is not an example of this.Aquila89 (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you are saying now. Still, as I stated on your talk page, breakout character and breakout role are [often] synonymous with each other. They are used interchangeably all the time. However, from what you stated, it is clear they do not mean the same thing in every context. I had forgotten that. Thanks for clearing that up. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already read your reply, but thank you for notifying me. Aquila89 (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

People start and finish puberty at different times. I am 19 myself and I did not start puberty until I was 16. I have not finished puberty either because I have not fully grown, not got my wisdom teeth and my voice has not broken yet. I am still an adolescent. I am a late developer compared to other people my age. (and yes I am still growing taller, I measure my height each year)

My dad did not start puberty until he was 16 and he said he did not finish it until he was around 21 to 25. I take after him. Also some people take longer to go through puberty than others even though they start around the same time. Some people may start at 13 and finish at 14 whereas others may start at 13 but not finish until 21. There is no strict deadline. People are different. For example some people's voices can break at the beginning of puberty whereas other people's voices can break at the end of puberty.

Personally I think your comment saying boys complete their physical growth at 17 or 18 is discriminative towards late developers like myself. I started puberty late and my Deciduous teeth were late falling out too. It upsets me to see that it has not been acknowledged that some people don't finish puberty until their early 20s.

I think that you should change the age at which boys attain full physical growth to 21 to 25.

Thanks,

Biologist Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biologist Mark (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Biologist Mark, I am well aware that people start and finish puberty at different times. But I highly doubt that you did not begin puberty until 16 years of age. But even if you did, that would be a case of delayed puberty (which is not normal). You should read the Delayed puberty article, more about delayed puberty from other sources, and more about puberty in general. Even the Precocious puberty article, perhaps. In the same way that people do not begin puberty at 6 years of age, unless due to precocious puberty, people do not typically finish puberty at 21 years of age...and certainly not at 25 years of age. As the Delayed puberty article states, "Puberty may be delayed for several years and still occur normally, in which case it is considered constitutional delay." I notice that you did not put girls as finishing that late. And again I ask, since boys usually start puberty only two years after girls, why is it that you feel that boys usually finish puberty five or nine years after girls? What? You were only talking about boys who begin puberty at age 16? Even if you personally were to have started puberty that late, that does not mean that boys generally/usually start puberty that late. In the same way that it does not mean that males generally/usually finish puberty as late as 21 or 25. The problem with all of your additions is that they are highly dubious and unsourced. You want to change material that presents the general end of puberty for adolescent males to something you cannot even source. You have not yet provided a reliable source saying that puberty generally ends for males at ages 21 or 25. You say you have not finished puberty yet, because you have "not fully grown, not got [your] wisdom teeth and [your] voice has not broken yet." Um...I point out to you that adult height for human males is usually attained by ages 17 or 18. Any further height beyond that is very unusual. You have most likely reached your adult height (sorry to say, if you are disappointed about that), and are through with puberty. A male continuing to gain natural muscle growth even after puberty is not about puberty; we note in that section that males may continue to gain natural muscle growth even after puberty. Yes, they continue to grow, but not height-wise (unless due to some unusual factor), and not puberty-wise. And, no, I have never heard of a case where someone starts puberty at 13 and finishes at 14. One year of puberty, really? A source for that, maybe? (They would be unusual cases, if that were to have happened at all.) I am not sure what is going on with your voice. Some men have deeper voices than others; just because your voice is not typically deep...it does not mean that your voice has not "broken" yet. And wisdom teeth? I am not going to truly address that.

You cannot diagnose yourself. Did your doctor say that you did not begin puberty until you were 16? Unless your doctor said it, you should not go around saying it. And if he had said it, he would have also been very concerned. This is not discrimination; it is about facts and what can be sourced. Unless you can find a reliable source saying some men do not complete puberty until ages 21 or 25, it cannot (and should not) be added to Wikipedia. And even if sourced, it should not be presented as the usual/norm. Saying that adolescent males typically/usually complete their physical growth by ages 17 or 18 is reporting the typical/norm. But notice that we did not say "all."

Either way, I now have to give you a third, more severe warning. Take what I have stated into account, instead of re-adding the same information.

From what I see, you need to study more about these subjects. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On my 18th birthday I measured myself to be 180cm. On my 19th birthday I was 183cm. This is an increase in height. And just because you have had your 18th birthday doesn't mean you have "magically" finished growing. I might have finished growing now I am 19 however some people are extremely late in some circumstances and are not quite naturally fully grown on their 18th birthdays.

I am exactly the same size as my dad now anyway. I can barely see my wisdom teeth below the gums so they should come through soon. Well I may just be a man with a high pitched voice.

Now I know for a fact that every woman has fully grown by age 16 because it is common knowledge that girls mature earlier than boys. I haven't noticed any boys grow taller after 16 apart from myself but because I carried on growing after 16 so I know for a fact young adults can still grow.

Thanks for your opinion,

Biologist Mark

Biologist Mark, I did not say that "just because you have had your 18th...you have 'magically' finished growing." I would never say that...because it is as silly to me as saying that just because a person turns 18 and is now a legal adult, they are now significantly physically/mentally different than 17-year-olds. Read again what I stated above. And, no, not all girls are fully grown by age 16...but I would say that most are. My point on that matter was that since boys usually begin puberty two years after girls, it does not make much sense that boys would usually complete puberty five or nine years after girls. And, yes, boys can continue growing after age 16; that is not unusual. But boys have usually reached their adult height at ages 17 or 18. Increased height after that is unusual. I did not say it never happens.

Also, Biologist Mark, remember to sign your user name when you reply. To sign your name when you comment, just type for tildes (~~~~). And you do not have to start a new section just to reply to the same topic; simply reply in the section you already created, unless it is a completely different topic. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from User:Eluchil404

Sorry for the delay in responding to your concerns. I took a another look through Biologist Mark's contributions. He has not added the disputed content since March 8 his more recent edits reflect a change of behavior. He didn't violate the letter of WP:3RR and I'm not going to block for edits that are now a week old. He is a new user who is making good faith edits to the article that nevertheless appear to violate wikipedia policies on original research and reliable sources. Not understanding the problem with his edits at first does mean that it should be patiently explained again. See WP:BITE. If he returns to disruptive editing or my inaction is totally unsatisfactory you can seek other opinions at WP:ANI. My view is not a formal determination of the situation just one editors opinion. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him as a sock puppet of that other user we had dealings with at the Adult page. Thanks, Flyer22. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you as well. You have always been a great help. I have been absent from Wikipedia for several days, and I cannot always watch out for the articles I usually watch out for. So it is good to have backup. Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant to state this earlier: Coming back to this matter, Paul Erik, I am not sure that Biologist Mark is the same consistent vandal of the Adult article. I mean, yes, Biologist Mark started adding "By age 16, people have usually reached full physical development," but that is because he was frustrated that I kept restoring the article to say "By age 16, boys are close to completing puberty, which is usually achieved by ages 17 or 18" (and the previous version of that). So he figured that he would start altering it in different ways. Unlike the Adult article vandal we have consistently battled, who always uses a screen name very close to his original and other sockpuppet screen names, Biologist Mark has a completely different screen name, he did not attack the legal part of the article, and he actually communicates with other editors. I still feel that he should be blocked, but maybe not as a sockpuppet and not permanently just yet. Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain we're dealing with another sock here. Biologist Mark appeared and started editing the Adolescence article fairly soon after an admin protected the Adult article due to the sock puppetry. Then once the protection on Adult expired, the user returned to a similar pattern of edits seen previously: see this edit from January and this edit by Biologist Mark for just one example of the pattern. The naming is not all that far off from some of the other socks, such as Omniscientific Desmond (talk · contribs) who made this edit. Thanks for following up; I agree we need to be cautious of blocks of newcomers (but this is not a newcomer from what I see). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I appreciate your thorough checking. I am now most definitely convinced they are the same person. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, but this extremely pleasant user that we've both had nothing but positive interactions with has decided to go on another well advised page move spree. I just caught it and undid most of them, but apparently they've been moving a couple of pages every week for a while now. Keep an eye out, since they're mostly AMC related and that's more your area. AniMate 05:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not thought about that user in a long time. Thanks for the heads up. I'm away from Wikipedia 2-4 days these days, but I'll help when I can. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can get some new info for the Bianca article from an interview I conducted with Eden Riegel for my magazine back in December. I could plug some holes in the articles with the source myself, but it would be a COI, clearly, since I'm the editor of the magazine and I did the interview. Here's a link. . Mike H. Fierce! 06:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of interviews with Eden, have you read her interview in SOD where she talked about why she didn't want to come back? Do you think any of that could be put in either the Bianca article or the BAM article? --DrBat (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been busy, guys. But, yes, both of those interviews would be beneficial to those articles, and should be added. I will do that when I get a chance to, if you guys don't. I need to further fix up the Bianca and Maggie article anyway, starting with changing out all the dead links. Flyer22 (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I just read the above linked Soap Opera Digest interview and this article at Soap Opera Central, and I am shocked that they are going to recast Bianca. Usually, I would be very angry about it (recasting the iconic role has been discussed/debated plenty of times on soap opera message boards), but I just am not that angry for some reason. Maybe it is what Riegel stated, or the fact I have gotten used to the idea, or that I don't feel that a Bianca recast will go over well and that Riegel may again return one day. But oh well. Time for me to add in a bit to the Bianca Montgomery article, about the role being recast. I still do not want to change Riegel's picture as the main picture, but IP editors will likely fight me on keeping Riegel's picture first instead of second once the role is indeed recast. I know that I will have to redesign the Bianca article a little as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What do I make of it in regards to the article or as a fan? With the article, I think it's important to mention that Riegel is choosing not to come back because of changes in the character and fan response that led to. We should also use a better source then Soap Opera Central. Especially when we have Soap Opera Digest which is much more reliable and has more information on why she made the decision not to reprise the role. Soaps In Depth also has an article about this.

As a viewer, I feel bad for the actress who will be replacing Riegel because she's probably going to be given a hard time, at least at first. This could become a "real" Bianca scenario.

By the way, great work with bringing Todd Manning to GA status. Rocksey (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on all points, Rocksey. I only added the Soap Opera Central reference as "quick news" (though this news has been out since early March). I plan to add the other information. It's just that I am busy right now, and am contemplating on if I should add a Recast section already. Besides, you already know that I feel that Soap Opera Central, when reporting the news, is fairly reliable; it's been debated at the project more than once, and won out on the news front. But, like I stated, I am going to add the other references/information to it. I don't mind you adding to/improving the article at all. So feel free. I know that I don't own that article. And thanks for congratulations on the Todd Manning GA status; the article still needs a little work, but I'll get to it eventually. As for what I was hoping from your reply, I suppose both. Your take as a viewer, and as a Wikipedia editor. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rocksey as well, and am also unsure of exactly what you are asking. I don't really watch the show, so as an editor, I think adding a couple of sentences about Riegel's decision not to return would be fine. I don't think we need a recast section yet because they haven't actually recast. Also, while there has been some rough consensus that soapcentral is fine for news, when there are better sources to use, we should use them. AniMate 16:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)`

First, I was asking for your thoughts as viewers. I don't watch the show anymore either. It just isn't the same anymore, and I have mostly lost my passion for editing soap opera articles. I just felt that you were still watching the show occasionally, AniMate. I know that you are familiar with enough of it, which leads me to believe that you used to watch it. In addition to just chatting about it briefly, I was hoping for both of your takes on what should be done with the article now (such as whether or not we keep up Riegel's image as the main image of Bianca once the role is recast). I explained the Soap Opera Central bit. With the Soap Opera Digest reference above, it does not go into as much detail about Bianca being recast, and I was torn on whether to link to that url or cite the reference without it...since it is a magazine page and I have been called out for linking to magazine pages that way, due to copyright violations. Not only was I busy yesterday, I did not feel like trying to find out the date of that interview. I simply went for the quick/easier choice, until I do more with the information. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Soaps In Depth article has more information on the recast and I will look around to see if I can find more information on it from other sources. As for the date of the Soap Opera Digest issue with the Riegel interview, the date for that was March 30, 2010. I don't think there would be a problem with sourcing it without a link. Do you think the information should be added to the Casting and character creation section or to Characterization and story influence?

With the image, though IPs/fans would probably be constantly switching it, I think Riegel's image should remain the main one even after the recast, because she is so notable in the role. Rocksey (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have at first said to put the information in the Characterization and story influence section, because that is where we address those former head writers saying that they could not recast Bianca because Riegel is so ingrained as the character. That's why I put the new recast information there. And the reason I put the original information on recasting Bianca there is because it has a lot to do with Bianca's characterization (Riegel likeness/image as Bianca) and the influence she has on the show. But now it might be best to move the recast information to the Casting and character creation section. I'm not sure which place I feel is the best. However, we don't have information on who the recast will be, because they have not chosen a recast yet, so maybe it is best that we leave the recast information out of the Casting and character creation section for now. I will leave it up to you, if you are going to add it. I'm up for whatever type of redesigns you may want to try as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Find anything interesting in my interview? I've also done interviews with Eve Salvail, Niamh Kavanagh, CeCe Peniston and Jill Scott if you're interested in how to get to those and sourcing those. Mike H. Fierce! 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your interview will be useful, Mike. I'll get to adding all this stuff eventually, if Rocksey does not beat me to it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

different subject

At least this one image

Response from User:Eluchil404

different subject

At least this one image

Response from User:Eluchil404

I just read your post on Talk:Pedophilia

Zombieland

JANET!

Zombieland, Part 2 topic

Whoopi goldberg

Hey sorry didn't notice

TB

ephebophilia

blond

Release dates.

AfD nomination of Chandler Enterprises

Take a look at this

Jesse McCartney

Physical attractiveness article

Dark/Black

Eye color

Lesbian kiss

Control (Janet Jackson album)

Eyes requested

Fact and Tendency

AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com

One Life to Live, and other soap operas

Potential sources for shonen-ai

Gender

Talkback

Blond, Part 2

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uninvolved_Admin_Requested:_User:Damiens.rf_multiple_JPG_deletions_and_related_matters

Troll

Orphaned non-free image File:Ryan and Greenlee.jpg

Orphaned non-free image File:Greenlee Kidnapping Spike.jpg

Greenlee

Cast/Crew

WikiProject discussions

Administrator

Reply

98.235.192.45

NA Categories for Beyonce Knowles

Avatar 2009

Avatar - citation needed for Polyphemus etc.

Merry Christmas

Re: Metacritic wording

Happy Holidays

Excellent work

That's what I was thinking about you too re good job!

"Film critic" at beginning of sentence

Barnstar

Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines

RE: Jennifer's Body -- Wikipedia is not censored

Happy New Year

Avatar's Metacritic Score

Re: Ping pong on "Vegetarianism"

Infestation at Avatar

Updating the box office gross - Avatar (2009 film) article

DYK nomination of Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines

Avatar - star crossed paragraph

mediation notification

DYK for Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storylines

Chloe Lane

Avatar

Category for deletion

Avatar Critical reception rewrite

Days images

Ibid.

Re: "Soul"

The Final Destination

Peacock terms in Titanic (1997 film)

Avatar box office

Template:SecretLife

Avatar again

Please stop..

Hugest news ever

Wikiout

Help ,me please

Long live the Smurfs! Long live the Smurfs!