User talk:Flyer22 Frozen: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:26, 11 February 2011

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.

About Tribadism

You do not agree that tribadism includes her partner's chest and/or breasts? 129.107.225.207 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say nothing about women rubbing their vulvae against their partner's chest/breasts. Stomach, yes. But not breasts. But even without mentioning that, the article already makes clear that tribbing can mean grinding the vulva against any body part. We don't have to mention every instance. For example, we mention thigh, but not knee. This doesn't mean grinding against the knee isn't tribadism, and I doubt anyone would come to that conclusion. "Includes" mean "includes," not "only." Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's fair enough. Rather it be up to the person to figure it out. 129.107.226.173 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, I think it's fairly easy to figure out with lines like "...is a form of non-penetrative sex in which a woman rubs her vulva against her partner's body for sexual stimulation." and "The term can also refer to a masturbation technique in which a woman rubs her vulva against an inanimate object such as a bolster, in an effort to achieve orgasm."

Thanks for understanding, and addressing me about your concern. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I went ahead and made it clearer by adding "or other body part"...which is backed up enough by the first line simply calling it "non-penetrative sex in which a woman rubs her vulva against her partner's body for sexual stimulation." Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, "other body part" may lead some to include "the mouth" as well. Though I would think people would know oral does not count as tribadism. Hmm, I'm sure I'll tweak it further later, so that there is no confusion at all. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your James Dean article reversion

Hi Flyer22

Thanks for letting me know the reason why you reverted the changes I tried to make to the Dean article on Wikipedia. I hadn't looked at the article in a long time, and I was concerned to see what a gossipy mess it appears to have become over the past months. Everyone seems to have added their two cents worth. Even though references are given, some of them are to books which frankly are simply gossip mongering tomes written for fans rather than serious works.

I was particularly disturbed by the fact that Dean's, shall we say more well established and documented relationships, had become mixed up with the section concerning speculations about his sexual orientation, which I would agree should come secondary to the bare facts of his life.

Dean, unfortunately, like all icons, has become public property, which means everyone has a claim on his or her version of what he was "really" all about. However, I think quite obviously a biographical article should stick to sources that are actually known to have known, and been a part of, the life of the subject, rather ideas spun by third parties, amongst whom I would definitely include gossip columnists.

The Wikepedia article as it now stands is an inaccurate and amateurish hodgepodge. If I can't clear it up, maybe you, or some moderator, could do Dean this service?

Sincerely,

KitMarlowe3

The speculation about his sexual orientation has been in the article for a long time now. I think since the last time you edited the article, months or a year ago. The talk page is full of complaints about it. What changed was how it was originally a part of his Personal relationships section, as though it is all truth. Everything said about Dean's sexual orientation is someone else's word but not his own, which makes it all claims and speculation. I didn't think it was fair to present these people's words/theories as fact, and so I divided the information, leaving the Personal relationships section to deal with his known relationships...and the Speculated sexual orientation section, which has had something to do with his popularity in the LGBT community, to deal with the claims/speculation. This can be seen at Talk:James Dean#Category:Bisexual actors?. Are you saying you feel that most of what is stated about his sexual orientation should be removed? If so, what would you recommend fill that section? What sources? Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single Ladies by Beyonce.

Hi Flyer22, i am Jivesh from Mauritius. I am the one who fixed the article and i am sincerely very happy that someone has appreciated my work. I am here almost exclusively for Beyonce, i rarely contribute to other pages). I have fixed 8/10 singles from I Am... Sasha Fierce. And i am expanding singles from (B'Day). I will be very happy to work with you one day. Jivesh • Talk2Me 04:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you. Yeah, I noticed it was you who had done the work. I appreciate it indeed. I thank you for that hard and good work. It wasn't awful before your contributions, but it's certainly well-improved now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late reply. I thought you would reply on my talk-page. I just saw your note on the top of your talk-page. I am sincerely very happy you appreciate my work. May i ask you whether you are a fan pf Beyonce? Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like some of her music, and liked Destiny's Child, but my 21-year-old sister loves her and is a huge fan. I have two sisters and two brothers. My 14-year-old sister likes some of her music too, but, yeah, the 21-year-old is the huge fan.

As for not replying on your talk page, sorry about that. I thought you'd seen the note at the top of my talk page about replying. Sometimes I reply back on the user's talk page, though. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. May i ask if your sisters are on Wikipedia? Please do not get me wrong. Actually, my point is i would have requested them to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Beyoncé Knowles. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not on Wikipedia. Not even that familiar with it, with the exception of having used it much like the general public has, I'm sure. Flyer22 (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and i ever i need help, may i ask you? Be frank. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yes, as long as it is something I can help with. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you and would you like to join th e Wiki-project? I mean are you interested? Jivesh • Talk2Me 12:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest and say I'm not interested. These days, I'm not even that active in all of the projects I am a part of. But if you think it will help you.... Flyer22 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. I understand. I am very happy to know that you will help me when you can and that is important. Thanks for being kind to me. Not everyone is like you. Jivesh • Talk2Me 18:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Houston

Hi,

You reverted my paragraph split in Whitney Houston lead, citing 4-paragraphs rule from WP:LEAD. While I totally agree it should be this way, I think now it's too much things put together and that was my way to start showing this fact and eventually slimming the lead down a bit.

A career history is not a strict definition of who it is. Maybe her relatives belong to the first para, because they're also famous, but the rest does not - "Houston began..." should be next sentence and a paragraph.

Now we have way too long introduction, with 2. and 4. para being just a list of her achievements - it should be joined and cut to the most important. Alternatively we can make the 4. paragraph a separate "Awards" section and cloning the sentence about Guiness record to the first paragraph (as a general proof that she is very important artist, which should be reflected in this shortest summary - 5. here). But please don't pretend it all still fits in the lead just by squeezeing all the materials to the "demanded" amount of paragraphs.

What do you think about how to resolve this the best way? -- kocio (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions seem reasonable or like a good place to start. I only look after that article at times. I don't heavily edit it. I was just wondering why it was made into five sections all of a sudden, which only looked worse to me. The lead I never thought of as too big, because there are good or featured Wikipedia articles with leads that big or bigger. Michael Jackson, for example. The Whitney Houston article's lead was most recently designed by Bookkeeperoftheoccult, who has experience getting such articles to GA or FA status. I'll ask Bookkeeperoftheoccult to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm not sure who broke up the Jackson lead into six sections. I'll be addressing that on that talk page soon. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Jackson, I went ahead and reverted, instead of addressing it on the talk page, as it was done by one editor after that lead has been through extensive debate and conformed to the WP:LEAD "no more than four paragraphs" standard. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit the article that much anymore either, so I have no qualms about trying to improve it. Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson and Madonna are all good examples of how to summarize the most important points in someone's career. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These examples are good (shorter, better split to paragraphs), but I don't consider them good enough. They follow the strange pattern of glueing together the nutshell definition with debuting informations, instead of putting generalizations in the first paragraph, and trying to enumarate too many things. I said much more on this topic down here. kocio (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead bloat

All important articles tend to have bloated lead, which I think is understandable, but still a flaw. People try to catch every important thing here, but - as we know it - in some cases you end up making neverending lists, because on some topics we have many facts to note, while on the others just a few. My feeling is the most important we want is comprehension in the lead, which means we have to be more picky and think more meta-level in some superimportant articles.

While MJ or WH can be 1000 times more rich in world-important details than the average singer, we should still keep the leads as 4 short, logical paragraphs, even if we lose some details here, because what we want is to gently introduce a reader, not forcing him/her to parse the text. Instead we have to summarize more tightly and have better generalized things. For example instead of writing here all achievements as a singer, actor and dancer, we should just say that he was important artist in all these areas, maybe with some most notable, one in each field. All details should go to the sections or even separate entries, if needed.

What I see in such cases most of the time is overloaded stories as a lead. The first paragraph should be the core definition on its own - then lead as a longer overview - and then sections for details. Reader can then always adjust any topic, no matter how big and important, to his personal time frame: fast skipping (few seconds, not even leaving the first para), overviewing (let's say less than a minute, but still skipable), then detail-picking in relevant, well planned sections.

When we make the lead "a story", we stop making summary and it tends to grow out of control. We lose clarity also - in MJ case we had too many para, but you could tell at once what they were about and skip those you're not interested into. Now our nutshell definition (first paragraph) suddenly ends not as what it should be - some general facts are connected with the beginning of his career, which is totally different level of abstraction. And this is when the reader gets puzzled and has to read all the story and can't skip paras, because a story in the lead is not logically split into paragraphs - we just try to have 4 paragraphs, not caring if they are still logically separate parts.

I think we have to think more what is the lead for and how it could be more useful for people, not just how much paragraphs it will take. I like killing too long leads very much (look at my page =} ), but I believe the first step to do it properly is to create logically separate paragraphs. Then you have some structure, which you can slim down by generalizing. This is why I prefer too many simple "one-aspect-at-the-time" paragraphs in MJ and a template claiming it is too long, than the proper amount of them, but with "a novel" approach, when you have to follow the writer from the beginnig to the end if you try to find something. It is hard to maintain in the long perspective, since the story is one big and not very clear construct.

That's why I think it's better to explicitely show why it is too long (too many separate topics gathered here, not well generalized) than simply hide this fact, making it even harder to manage. kocio (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've brought up some valid points. Would you mind copying and pasting this to the WP:LEAD talk page? I feel that it's something that should be addressed there, as most leads of very well-known people do what you mentioned they do. Bringing this up there is the best way to get things to change. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

The main problem here is that this part of text wasn't structured, IMHO it's just a long "praising" section. =} Whatever we do, there will be some uncosistences and subjectivities in trying to sort the things out, until someone makes a brave rewrite and cuts some quotes. I'm not that fluent in English to make such things myself.

I just thought this 2 paragraphs summarize this praising, so it's good to remove them from the long enough Influence section, especially since it all sounds like telling all the same in different words and I don't like such duplication. You can combine it back if you feel it'd be better - or maybe cut some not-essential-enough stuff by the way?

The Voice section - here we have at least some hard facts and some other quotes, which concentrate mostly on the voice, not just on the influence. I believe it has some justification to be separated. However, it still is praising and does not differ clearly from the rest, so if you feel... etc.

One thing I really don't want to be removed is more fine grained paragraphs I made this time - at least most of them - because they give some breath to the reader's eye. kocio (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rearranging, this is exactly what I think should be done! kocio (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're okay with it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory rape

Although I agree more or less with your recent edits on the article, I don't think that when the example of the Texas Statutes is given, changing the language of the precise statute is appropriate. Perhaps finding another example from another state would change the language appropriately without removing the quoted citation? Atom (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see where the exact wording was sourced. It alluded to the Texas statutes, but I thought it was just some random editor's wording (paraphrasing). Feel free to revert me, of course. I feel that "actor" is a weird word to use and do not see why we should not use "accused" in its place, but you have a point. Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word actor is, verbatim fom the statute, as is the other wording. Yes, it is strange, but they use it in legal jargon to basically mean a person initiating the action. The bias that they seem to assume the guilt of the person because they are older is strange, but it is from Texas. As I said, maybe other state statutes say it in a less biased way for the article? Atom (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I gathered in what way they were/are using the word, but still... We could still use "accused" but in brackets...as [accused]...since we would be changing quoted text. As for what word other statutes use regarding Romeo and Juliet laws, I'm not sure. Romeo and Juliet laws, with the exception of the typical aspects, are actually something I'm not as familiar with as compared to other sexual/relationship topics. I'm also not that motivated to look into what other states may use for the wording. Flyer22 (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake?

With this notice, I think you hit the wrong talk page. The Google Project is not the doctors' mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, WhatamIdoing. Yes, let's call it a mistake. The project was related enough to the doctors' mess for me, LOL. I disagree that it has nothing to do with medicine, but I see that it was the wrong project I posted it at months ago. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of people at WT:MED probably would have been willing to help, but leaving a note at the underwatched page dedicated to talking to the Google Foundation folks isn't really a useful way of reaching WikiProject Medicine. As you can see, it took several months before anyone noticed the comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Does Maggie Gallagher think about anal sex?

http://www.queerty.com/what-does-maggie-gallagher-think-about-anal-sex-20110128/

I totally understand feeling protective of articles that I have worked on. DCX (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Still, she has no bearing on what we do here. All we can do is try and have the article be as neutral as possible. It wasn't about me being protective of the article, though. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she is a powerful anti-gay activist...we shouldn't be writing her material to use against..."us"(?), but she is still pretty ignorant to cite a Wikipedia artcile as a reference (J/K). FYI - Pregnancy is painful, unsanitary, unsatisfying for women and creates unique risks for serious physical injury and death (if you doubt me, go read the Wikipedia entry on the subject)...(lol).DCX (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was citing the negative aspects of anal sex, which, yes, Wikipedia does document, but Wikipedia is not on her side regarding anti-gay or anal feelings. Wikipedia was/is not trying to be anti-gay or anti-anal by reporting health risks of the act. That is what I was trying to get across to you. The woman clearly did not cite the fact that Wikipedia also documents how women can derive pleasure from anal sex. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to make a joke and extend an olive branch.DCX (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I know that. Just wanted to make clear those points. In any case, I accept your olive branch. It's nice that you are willing to move on and not hold grudges, the opposite of some Wikipedia editors here. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, your talk page headers never cease to amaze me. --AniMate 08:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no explanation, LOL. Just grins. Flyer22 (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel better I've often wondered what Maggie Gallagher thought about anal sex. The question has at times kept me up for hours. I can sleep easy now. --AniMate 09:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too funny!! You often do know how to get a laugh out of me. I appreciate that. I know I just don't want to sound like her on the topic. Sometimes, I am too technical about what sex organs are, for example, completely overlooking the fact that some people view the anus as a sex organ. Anyway, thanks again. I either get called pro-anal or anti-anal working at that article these days. Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Sex article

I'm fine with the BRD process. I made what I felt was a constructive change, and you reverted. No problem. This is the discuss part. "Anal sex is perhaps most often associated with male homosexual behavior, ranging from monogamous same-sex relationships, in which anal sex may be the central focus of lovemaking, to less consensual male-male sexual activity, such as male-male rape, in which anal sex is an act of aggression." Your edit comment was. "Atomaton, I'm thinking it was added because anal sex is most often associated with male homosexuality, which is sourced below" I looked through the references,[2] through [7] and I did not see that quote. Are you sure that this is not just speculation, or opinion offered by one editor? Which reference said that? Atom (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late replying to this here, so this comment is just for readers of this section of my talk page, and clarity once its archived: It's been cleared up on the Anal sex talk page. Two sources cite the misconception. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments in the anal sex talk page. I explained my reasoning, and I believe it is sound. You say that the words sound like weasel words, and yet they are the opinion of the author whom you cited, and in fact, put the sentence in proper context. I'd rather that you had discussed it, rather that reverting me. It seems to me that you and I have a great deal in common. I will not get in a revert battle with someone whom I respect. If you look at my comments in the article, perhaps you will have a change of heart. Atom (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments there as well. There is no reason to reply to me here about it, when we are discussing it on the talk page there. I have disagreed with your reasoning, and you should have replied instead of reverting me. I believe my reasons for reverting you are more sound/valid, for the reasons I posted there. Two editors (myself included) disagree with you for those very reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, I did comment on the talk page. How can you say that the author you yourself cited is using "weasel words"? The quite you disagree with about heterosexual anal sex being larger in number is a direct quote from the author you cited. Atom (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted me, instead of replying to my addressing you on that matter specifically. It is weasel wording to say "this certainly is not the case," just as it would be weasel wording if we worded any information in a way that encompasses WP:Weasel wording. It doesn't matter if the weasel wording is cited; there is usually always a way to word material without including weasel words, and that is what I did just moments ago.

The other aspect of the cited text is saying that heterosexuals have anal sex more because there are more heterosexuals. This applies to almost everything, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. It's like a "Duh" comment. That is why that addition by you is debated. One can easily state that more heterosexuals play basketball, since there are more. That is why such an addition is silly. It's not like that statement is saying that anal sex is practiced more by individual heterosexual couples than individual homosexual couples. And, again, would you keep this discussion in one place? I see no reason to discuss it here and at the Anal sex talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I offered that wording as my opinion, it would be weasel wording. If we are relating what the cited source says, it is not. Paraphrasing may need to avoid weasel words, but direct quotes are the exception.

I understand what you are trying to say, but you misunderstand what I am trying to say. If the misconception is that anal sex is primarily an action done by homosexuals, then the best way to counter that would be to show that some other group pursues anal sex in larger numbers. If instead someone were to say that "a larger percentage of homosexuals participate in anal sex than other groups" then your comments would be valid. Percentage would certainly be more important there. But, that isn't the case. The misconception seems to be, according to Dr. John Dean, "anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men.". Don't you think that when I quoted Dr. Dean again by saying "It is thought that about 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a more regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples, because more people are heterosexual." that I was countering that premise to dispel that misconception?

I will keep the discussion over in the article after this. Best to you, Atom (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel wording is weasel wording, and I already explained why it was not needed.

I understand what you are saying, but I do not see how it is valid at all. You say, "If the misconception is that anal sex is primarily an action done by homosexuals, then the best way to counter that would be to show that some other group pursues anal sex in larger numbers." ...But the problem with that is what I stated above. Like I mentioned on the Anal sex talk page, No source exactly states that anal sex is mostly practiced by heterosexuals. "In absolute numbers" is ridiculous for all the reasons stated above. It's like saying, "In absolute numbers," more white people have sex than black people because there are more white people. Or "in absolute numbers," more heterosexuals eat pizza than homosexuals because there are more heterosexual people in the world. It is deceptive. It is one of the same reasons that stating that most serial killers are white has been debated at the Serial killer article time and time again. "Absolute numbers" means nothing since it is quite clear that there are more white people in the world than black people. The same applies to heterosexuals and sex. What you are stating can apply to oral sex and various other sex acts too, not just anal sex, since there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals. I do not get at all why you feel it is needed or logical to mention this "more heterosexuals do it because there are more" stuff. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

'Twas nice of you to say that. I appreciate it. Tvoz/talk 04:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was only stating the truth. You've been a great help. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Houston article

Hi Flyer22! Thank you for reverting the unsourced additions. I'm guessing you're a Whitney fan? Novice7 | Talk 10:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mother is. Though I do like a lot of Houston's classic songs. I am just someone who looks after certain articles, either often or from time to time. Sometimes, I become concerned with articles that are not that well-watched and have a lot of vandalism, etc. To me, the Whitney Houston article was definitely an article that should have had more people helping to revert stuff. I'm glad that it has that now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I loved Whitney back in the day (and the Bodyguard still an all-time fave), so I'll keep an eye there too. Tvoz/talk 18:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I also keep an eye on articles abut people I don't love... Tvoz/talk 18:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks for the help, Tvoz. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm happy to see people clean up Whitney articles. Novice7 | Talk 04:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! So, do you think with enough fixes, Whitney Houston can become a FA or even a GA? Btw, I work on some of her singles and albums too (like the GAs How Will I Know and Why Does It Hurt So Bad). Please keep an eye on them too (I have lots of articles on my watchlist). Novice7 | Talk 16:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can, just like most articles on Wikipedia. I say "most" because I've never seen a stub article as GA or FA, LOL. As for my watchlist, I haven't looked at it in a long time. It's too frustrating to see all that vandalism or unsourced stuff, and makes me despise Wikipedia. I already have a love-hate relationship with this site. Plus, my watchlist is long, and I can be there all day correcting matters (though I sometimes spend most of my day correcting things on Wikipedia anyway). I check articles by looking at my contributions or just going to the articles, as I usually edit or revert on the same articles over and over again these days. I'm not up for looking after any other article at this time. In my view, Wikipedia should only allow registered editors to edit. Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, okay. You're right, some IP edits can be frustrating. Thanks again. Novice7 | Talk 16:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate massage

Hi, flyer22. I don't really like having discussions on my talk page (I am going to remove the comments their as I standardly do with matters germane to articles rather than my own actions) and I cannot claim expertise on the topic, but my understanding from watching a cable documentary on artificial insemination is that properly executed stimulation of the prostate is a sure-fire way to induce ejaculation in males whether human or bovine, is standard in animal husbandry and captive breeding programs, and that it is pretty much involuntary and automatic - hence the use with bulls. The source for the article is not exactly the most authoritative imaginable, and I doubt this wisdom of drawing any conclusions from it, since it was not written to address the specific question you raised. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, Medeis. I'll leave that discussion here with just that link alone, for my archive. Thank you for addressing my thoughts. And, LOL, I know Go Ask Alice! isn't authoritative on the matter. I was just making chatter in wondering which wording is more accurate. "Some men" or just "Men." Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording following the source is most appropriate, and had you not done so I would have made the same change myself.μηδείς (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And, again, thank you for indulging me in dicussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Editing

Hi flyer if you have the time could you take a look at this edit I made here [1] I feel I sufficiently warned the editor and was warranted when they slipped into 1st person plural. It could have been a close paraphrase, but looking at the whole article I don't think so. --Wlmg (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your involvement with the 'Frot' page

Hi, Flyer22... I am extremely grateful for the time and effort you've put into answering the objections and nit-picking of "Mijopaalmc" et al.! (I sort of understand where he's coming from, since "Frot Granddaddy" Bill Weintraub is so fanatically opposed to sticking anything up the wazoo that his site forbids discussion of butt plugs and those "Aneros" thingamajigs, even though such toys may be much safer for rectal penetration than a man's penis. But on the other hand, Weintraub is a Lone Voice In The Wilderness wailing against a tsunami of anal-oriented gay pr0n, with bareback stuff accounting for 25% of sales, by some estimates -- so I'm inclined to forgive his fanaticism.) Anyway, I especially appreciate your efforts because you're a chick and don't have a prostate, so it must've been tempting for you to recuse yourself from the whole debate on the "I ain't got a dog in this fight" principle. But you didn't, and I thank you. Throbert McGee (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 196: / Line 196: @@
 Hi flyer if you have the time could you take a look at this edit I made here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AManangnono&action=historysubmit&diff=413077600&oldid=253351745] I feel I sufficiently warned the editor and was warranted when they slipped into 1st person plural. It could have been a close paraphrase, but looking at the whole article I don't think so. --[[User:Wlmg|Wlmg]] ([[User talk:Wlmg|talk]]) 11:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
+== Thanks for your involvement with the 'Frot' page ==
+Hi, Flyer22... I am '''extremely grateful''' for the time and effort you've put into answering the objections and nit-picking of "Mijopaalmc" et al.! ''(I sort of understand where he's coming from, since "Frot Granddaddy" Bill Weintraub is so fanatically opposed to sticking ''anything'' up the wazoo that his site forbids discussion of butt plugs and those "Aneros" thingamajigs, even though such toys may be much safer for rectal penetration than a man's penis. But on the other hand, Weintraub is a Lone Voice In The Wilderness wailing against a tsunami of anal-oriented gay pr0n, with bareback stuff accounting for 25% of sales, by some estimates -- so I'm inclined to forgive his fanaticism.)'' Anyway, I especially appreciate your efforts because you're a chick and don't have a prostate, so it must've been tempting for you to recuse yourself from the whole debate on the "I ain't got a dog in this fight" principle. But you didn't, and I thank you. [[User:Throbert McGee|Throbert McGee]] ([[User talk:Throbert McGee|talk]]) 01:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)