User:Flyer22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I am justice." — L Lawliet. The best opponent for someone who sees themself as justice is another who also does.
"I am justice." — L Lawliet. The best opponent for someone who sees themself as justice is another who also does.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Admit it—you use Wikipedia too. Someone comes to you wanting to know how to find some good stuff on quantum physics, so you sneak a peak at the relevant Wikipedia article just so you won’t sound stupid to your patron. Or someone queries, “What year did George Washington die?” and you could look it up in Oxford Reference, but you don’t. I mean, even Wikipedia couldn’t get the date of George Washington’s death date wrong, could it?

Wikipedia’s Edge

Though traditional encyclopedia producers disdain it, Wikipedia has an edge in one area—currency. If I want an article on “folksonomy,” I can’t find it in Encyclopaedia Britannica, whereas Wikipedia will instantly tell me that it is “a user-generated taxonomy used to categorize and retrieve web content…using open-ended labels called tags.”

If the average university student can safely go to Wikipedia instead of consulting a specialized print reference source, then academia is broken. It is a finger in the eye of the whole academic enterprise. It’s as if our students are saying, “We don’t care if it breaks the rules, deceives us, or is dumber than print reference books. We like Wikipedia, and it rarely lets us down.”

They have never been part of the analog generation. Wikipedia is their world, and it has met their needs wonderfully. To tell them to use only the print encyclopedias for reference information is to make them ask, “Why should I when Wikipedia is at my fingertips?”

Moving Beyond the Impasse

Banning Wikipedia from the academic world doesn’t work either. It doesn’t prevent students from using it secretly (or plagiarizing from it), plus it helps further the anti-academic subculture. We need to be aware that academia is primarily analog and that our students are largely digital. Academics have, for the most part, yet to embrace the new reality that much of the information produced today comes from the users of that information.

Embracing the World of Wikipedia

Truth to tell, much of Wikipedia is simply amazing in its detail, currency, and accuracy. Denying this is tantamount to taking ourselves out of the new digital reality. But we need to help our students see that Wikipedia is also an environment for shallow thinking, debates over interpretation, and the settling of scores. Wikipedia itself advises that its users consult other sources to verify the information they are finding. If a key element in information literacy is the ability to evaluate information, what better place to start than with Wikipedia? We can help students to distinguish the trite from the brilliant and encourage them to check their Wikipedia information against other sources.— William Badke of Trinity Western University[1]

God complex much? Out for justice?

“ Justice? I am justice! I am the god of the new world, saving it from evil and ridding it of fear. Those who betray God are the evil ones. ”
 

The human whose name is written in this note shall die.

Contents

[edit] Flyer22

[edit] Some personal detail

Flyer22 was born on October 4, 1982 (age 25). Hometown of Pensacola, Florida.

Flyer was queried by the Mary Lou Modeling Agency at age sixteen as to looking into becoming a model, but turned it down to focus on own matters of interest, such as screenwriting. Furthermore, Flyer's height is only 5'3", thus modeling didn't sound the most promising, regardless of main interest.

Flyer is able to access editing Wikipedia quite often due to most of Flyer's interest of work at this time being computer-centered. When it comes to Pensacola, Florida, Flyer has no interest in staying long, and may often venture out to Los Angeles, California or New York City.

While Flyer was in high school, Flyer thought about other careers apart from writing that matched Flyer's [fill in blank here], which Flyer's mother would brag about. The views of Flyer's parents could not be imposed on Flyer, and Flyer left to do Flyer's own thing.

[edit] Update

As stated far below, that if I ever leave Wikipedia for good, it is because my life outside of Wikipedia has gotten a lot busier, well, it's close to that time. Now wait. I'm not saying that I'm going to leave Wikipedia for good. But very recently, I have not had the time to edit articles and fight vandalism as I normally would. I'm not too thrilled about that, considering that I still have much to do here at Wikipedia, and many vandals to give the smackdown to, but my outside life is really calling these days. My writing partner is frustrated beyond reason that I spend so much time on Wikipedia when I should be spending more time on the teleplays and screenplays that we are working on. But, hey, I had writer's block there for a little bit. I should be heading out to California soon with him, maybe in a few months, don't know exactly when, but that's the best place to pitch these ideas that we have, certainly cannot stay in Pensacola, Florida and do that. I'm age 25, and I feel like my life is passing me by too fast, and am really eager to start this new phase of my life. I'm not only a writer, but screenwriting is my key to other avenues in the film industry that I want to pursue. And this one script that I've written, and recently got copyrighted, is, not to brag, awesome. I know this is the key script. Just a bit more tweaking is what it needs.

My mother still wishes that I would use my mind for a different career path, something other than Hollywood, but that is where my heart (career-wise, of course) is. I have some more things that I want to do here at Wikipedia before I'm really so busy that people only see me here once every week or so, thus I will try and hurry up with those tasks I've set. I'll see you all around whenever.

[edit] Contact

To get in contact with Flyer, apart from Wikipedia, you may email Flyer at KillerVow@bigstring.com

[edit] Credentials

Flyer has significant knowledge in the scientific/psychological/sexual fields, as well as in popular culture topics, such as soap operas.

Specific detail on Flyer's credentials are without mention on Wikipedia. This is Wikipedia, where anyone can edit, and their contributions are of more note. Flyer sees some things as bragging.

[edit] Hobbies

Flyer loves to write, and to read books. And has several other hobbies as well, though will not list all.

[edit] Favorite television shows at the moment

[edit] Favorite reads

[edit] Favorite reads on Wikipedia

Favorite nonsense article speedily deleted from Wikipedia Only alterations are that the name Chuck Cotter was not bolded, a wiki-link, bullet points were not present, and that a few grammatical errors have been corrected:

  • Chuck Cotter
Chuck Cotter is one of the most mysterious, creative and intelligent men to enter into the financial services industry. His date of birth, place of origin or family history is unknown because if you knew it, you would probably be dead. Over the last 20 years, Chuck Cotter has reviewed, ravaged and destroyed thousands of loan presentations at senior loan committee. He knows the ins and outs of every industry and credit deal ever and he knows future deals coming in.
  • The few who have grown close to him have the following tidbits of information to inform the public of the man, the myth and the legend, Chuck Cotter.
  • This great nation tried to honor Chuck Cotter by placing his face on Mount Rushmore, however, the stone of Mount Rushmore was too strong to carve out his mustache.
  • Chuck Cotter smoked 54,000 cigarettes just to get cancer so he could beat it.
  • Guns don't kill people, Chuck Cotter kills people.
  • Chuck Cotter has counted infinity twice.
  • Chuck Cotter doesn't sleep. He waits.
  • There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals that Chuck Cotter allows to live.
  • There is no chin under Chuck Cotter's mustache. There is only another fist.
  • Chuck Cotter has two speeds. Walk and Kill.
  • Chuck Cotters' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
  • Chuck Cotter's outlook calendar skips from March 31st to April 2nd cause no one fools Chuck Cotter.
  • Chuck Cotter doesn't read books. He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

[edit] Main types of articles interested in creating and or expanding

  • Science articles.
  • Human nature articles.
  • Science-fiction articles.
  • Action-adventure articles.
  • Film articles.
  • Video game articles.
  • Soap Opera articles.
  • Prime time television articles.

Main types of articles working on at the moment:

  • Soap opera articles.
  • Sex-related articles, such as sexuality, rape, etc.

[edit] Main type of editing style

  • Very flexible — usually bounces from soap opera articles, to human nature articles (whether it be sexuality, etc.), to actor/actress articles, to other types of articles, to combating vandalism.
Logo This user loves knowledge.
Wikiproject Soap Operas This user is a participant of WikiProject Soap Operas.
This user is a member of the
Video Games WikiProject.
Sign up for the new VG Newsletter.
Wikiproject:Television This user is a participant of WikiProject Television.

[edit] Created articles

Flyer has created:
Couples

  • The J.R. and Babe (Jabe) article.
  • The Bianca and Maggie (BAM) article -- I wasn't a huge fan of this couple before, but after refreshing my memory on them by watching clips and videos of their relationship on YouTube, I was pulled in more than when I originally saw chemistry between these two. I've never been a fan of a gay/lesbian television or film (or play, for that matter) couple, not because I refused to, but because no gay/lesbian couple ever pulled me in. This couple, however, is a different story. They also have had a little more real-world impact than J.R. and Babe, and it was great to work with, as that was my main reason for creating this article. And this article (the second of which I created) was definitely better than the earlier stages of when I first created the J.R. and Babe article. It's really awesome to see how much of a newbie I was then, how unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies I was then to how I am now with Wikipedia. A few months really did make all the difference. Flyer22 17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Specifically sex/violence-related

  • The Serial rape article (soon to recreate, article was a very tiny stub and needs to be re-made).

[edit] DYK articles

Flyer has nominated three articles to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? section. All were a successful process. The three articles are as follows:

An entry from Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 28 July 2007.

Wikipedia

An entry from Todd Manning appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 September 2007.

Wikipedia

An entry from Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 14 February 2008.

Wikipedia

[edit] Awards

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of High Culture
For your dramatic improvements to the article Greg and Jenny Nelson, I thank you and award you this Barnstar. I have cherished Jenny and Greg for almost 30 years, and your improvement to this article means there is at last a fitting monument to their everlasting love. Thank you, Jeffpw 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Soap Opera Barnstar
You have been awarded the Soap Opera Barnstar for your contributions to WP:SOAPS and soap opera-related articles on Wikipedia. IrishLass0128 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for reverting all those bad edits on the Supermodel page. Number1spygirl 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles significantly expanded

Highly notable soap opera characters

  • The Bianca Montgomery article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now
  • The Josh Madden article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now.
  • The Todd Manning article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now.

Couple articles, as improved enough from just plot or other basics

Couple articles improved, but need improvement the most

Mother of couple articles and couple mentions

[edit] Words from Flyer about these soap opera articles on Wikipedia

Beware, badly-shaped soap opera articles. This editor is on a mission to make sure that you all comply with Wikipedia policy, and that some of you serve to be the best articles on Wikipedia. Soap opera articles can be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer as well. They just need to be worked on to get them to that status, of course.

Flyer has interest in other types of articles on Wikipedia, not just soap opera articles, and wants to eventually ease out of soap opera articles being the main focus. This does not mean that Flyer won't still edit soap opera articles. However, with as many soap opera articles that need fixing up right now, it will certainly be a while before soap opera articles are not Flyer's main focus on Wikipedia. Flyer22 03:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other articles contributed to

Flyer has contributed to:

  • The J.R. Chandler article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now.
  • Other soap opera articles.
  • Also currently helping to add the {{soaps}} template to soap opera articles.
  • The star-crossed lovers article (somebody listed "my" two couple articles in this article, but I'd rather that article be much better fixed up first).
  • The Claire Bennet article (very, notable character, provided fair use rationale for all of its images that were there, except main one, though those images are no longer there).
  • The Spike (Buffyverse) article (very notable character, high interest in continuing to contribute to this article, as it's not truly improved it).
  • The Clark Kent article (we all know who this is, high interest in continuing to contribute to this article).
  • The Kendall Hart Slater article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now (very notable character).
  • The Lara Croft article (very notable video game character).
  • The Alexa Havins article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now (actress).
  • The Justin Bruening article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now (actor).
  • The Samuel Page article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now (actor).
  • The Greenlee Smythe article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now (very notable character).
  • The Maggie Stone article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now (very notable character).
  • The Marissa Cooper article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now (needs a cultural impact section, however, because it's possible for this character).
  • The Ashley Davies article; gave a complete overhaul and am creator of how it is now (character is an icon).
  • The Tomboy article (soon to expand).
  • Various other articles, in either slight or somewhat significant ways.

[edit] Vandalism

[edit] Favorite vandalism moments

Flyer steps out of "talking" in the third person on this user page to specifically address this issue:

Stating that I have favorite vandalism moments and or favorite vandals does not mean that I support vandalism on Wikipedia. I repeat: It does not mean that I support vandalism on Wikipedia. For those who feel that I shouldn't have a section titled "Favorite vandalism moments" on my user page, well, what I mainly say to that is that I'm human. And for someone who doesn't laugh a lot, it takes a really funny and or creative vandal to make me laugh...and a few have done so:

1: Fourleggedhourse -- this vandal vandalized the Tom Cruise article. Here is the link to that vandalism moment...[2]

2: 64.26.68.82 -- this vandal vandalized an article I created. If you guessed the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, then you guessed correctly. This vandal, in one visit, made three different edits, all hilarious as heck, to what was then the Maggie's confession section of the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article. And was its first vandal. Here are the links to those humorous vandalism moments...[3][4][5] The big ouch about this is that this vandalism was carried out on the same day that this article was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did you know? section. The plus is that those vandalism edits to this article were quickly reverted.

This vandal didn't stop there, however. Another vandalism moment from this vandal can be seen with this link...[6] to the John Pollack article.

3: 131.212.147.32 -- Got a laugh out of me as well. This edit done to the Buffy the Vampire Slayer article was later reverted (of course) by an editor that I work with sometimes (Bignole), and it had to be reverted, but I could not help finding this edit funny that day...[7]

4: Not too long after, another vandal --121.210.217.13-- to the same article managed to get a smirk out of me with this edit...[8]

5: Number 5. Yes, at first...this edit, done to the Romeo and Juliet article by TonyHarrison4lyf, didn't hit me with the funny, but after reading that one phrase that was edited in throughout the article, it became funny, really funny for a few moments, then back to being a single laugh. Plus, the enthusiasm of this vandal to type in that one line throughout this entire long article... Wow, see what I mean, in this link...[9] Priceless.

Some crass stuff, and it may seem as though my sense of humor is on the dirty side, but I assure you that it's more about what I find funny, not anything about necessarily being dirty and crass.

  • And again, I don't truly condone vandalism on Wikipedia (really, I don't) and vandals do anger me, but I can appreciate the funny and or creative vandal every now and then. If this statement sounds contradicting, such as a person feeling that murder his horrific, but says that they can appreciate the creative murderer every now and then, it's not meant to be...and that's like comparing apples and oranges.

Image:Banner whose side are you on.png

[edit] Least favorite vandalism moments

1: 59.128.65.140 -- My user page (yeah, this user page) was vandalized for the first time and by a person of that IP, and...well...it was not very creative. I laughed once, but all in all, not enough to keep the laughs going for more than a second or two. Judge for yourself, as it is seen with this link...[10] Not me, but if this user had used a picture of a penguin, perhaps that might have gotten more laughs out of me.

2:Colaatje5 -- I didn't really bother this user much, though I have changed some of this user's edits due to being wrong formatting. Perhaps this user became frustrated with other editors doing the same and took it out on my user page. Though I wouldn't totally discount that this anger was probably all directed at me. Just about erased my entire user page, this user did.[11]

[edit] Hall of infamy

Months ago, I received an email from a disgruntled newbie editor. It was some days before I came across this email, and it turns out that this is the most-insulting email that I have ever received. Though I must admit that I don't usually receive hate mail.

This attacker not only proceeded to "give me a lesson" (quite a few, actually) on writing/grammar, and on things that I already know, but daring generalizations about me based on where I am originally from (Pensacola, Florida), and criticized me on writing when the reason this attacker's edit in the Supercouple article was reverted had nothing to do with writing. I could see if this attacker had actually edited something to prove his credentials as this much-celebrated writer that he claims to be or was actually familiar with what I actually edited (considering Wikipedia is a collaboration of editors), but all this attacker tried to do in the Supercouple article was refer to Luke Spencer and Laura Webber as being from General Hospital in the lead of the article, which I felt was not needed, seeing as it didn't flow as well (and could be mentioned within the lead picture instead), as I stated on his talk page. It wasn't even a true criticism on his writing ability. So needless to say I found his need to write this long, condescending email to me as bizarre as they come:

  • Dear Flyer22:
I'll leave this alone. You can have your way. I doubt it's one of the more highly visited pages anyway. But you haven't the slightest clue as to what flows well or what good writing is. I'm not insulting you. I'm just pointing out that some people have studied more and have superior experience in certain areas than you do. For instance, can you tell me why "highly visited pages" or "badly-shaped soap opera articles" shouldn't be hyphenated? Do you know the difference between "further" and "farther"? Or "like" and "such as"? Or when to use "who" and when to use "whom"?
  • Can you tell me the grammatical error if a friend wrote, "Hopefully, Flyer22 will learn what constitutes finely flowing prose and well-written prose"? How about these mistakes if an enemy wrote: "I've read everything Flyer22 has done on this wikipedia site and there's no doubt they should go back to first grade and learn how to write." Why does the period go inside the quote there but not on the ones with the question marks? Do you know why you should have written that you were 16 instead of sixteen?
  • I don't doubt that you've read plenty of books, but I seriously doubt that you're well-read. By the way, can you tell me why "well-read" is hyphenated or why that particular sentence required the use of "that" twice?
  • I've worked and earned praise from national-award winning writers, including a Pulitzer Prize winner, and prominent editors across the country. You can't claim that. Nor can you claim any solid knowledge of grammar or knowledge of what flows well. Do you know the difference between a dependent clause and an independent clause? No, you don't. I know all of this because I checked out your wikipedia page.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, although I realize I'm coming across that way. Just realize there are people with better-polished skills than you, and sometimes you're better off leaving well enough alone.
  • You obviously have an interest in words. That's refreshing these days. I hope you stick with it.
But try mixing some classic literature in with some books with raised lettering on the cover. If you're serious about editing wikipedia articles, take some editing courses. I once had the unpleasant misfortune of having to spend several days in Pensecola. Most people would immediately right you off as an idiot redneck. But the fact that you enjoy reading leads me to a different conclusion. As a huge "Buffy" fan, the fact that you contributed to the article on Spike makes me shudder, so I refuse to read it. (What's the error in that sentence?)
  • This e-mail isn't meant to b!tch-slap you. It's just meant to remind you should have at least a little bit of training and/or knowledge before criticizing others. But I respect that you care about words. If you want me to, I'll help make your writing on your wikipedia page not only grammatically correct, but also flow as if it was written by a trained writer.
  • Best wishes, J

Furthermore, he had apparently taken his discontent with me (and that's putting it lightly) to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, as seen with this link, where he was promptly turned down, because, yep, it was NOT a conflict of interest. Obviously he was/is unfamiliar with what a conflict of interest means.

Best wishes? Best wishes, he said in the email to me shown above? And what did I state in response to this, you ask? Well, let's just say that I bragged (just) a little about my credentials (which had nothing to do with literary writing). I don't usually let people bait me, especially into bragging, but I felt it was warranted here.

Do people have to list their credentials, if any, to be taken seriously at Wikipedia? Or does their work speak for itself? Do people have to be from a certain state/city to be taken seriously, or are some of the world's most scientific minds looked over because they came from a state that some people don't like?

The words "from General Hospital" are not needed at all anymore in the lead next to Luke and Laura's name in the Supercouple article, since that's now mentioned within their image description, which is also in the lead. It is not like I hadn't pondered what was the best for the lead of that article on this matter. To act as though all or most individuals from any state/country that you hold prejudice against are uneducated morons is the highest form of ignorance. I can hardly believe that he asked me if I knew the difference from further and farther. And I did not even significantly contribute to the Spike (Buffyverse) article. In fact, I only remember making one tiny edit to it, and because this attacker is unfamiliar with my edit style, they feel that the way that article is now must be significantly due to me, even though Wikipedia is a collaborative effort? Scoffs. It's people like this that I am glad I'm not around. Odd generalizations irk me. And he stated that he could determine my capability as a writer by having read how my user page is formatted? Uh, hello, it's a user page, not an article. I'm not trying to apply beautiful prose to my user page. I don't see user pages as all that different than blogs. And the writers that I know certainly don't write perfectly on their blogs. If I wanted to spell because as becuz on my user page, then I would, and it still would not have any bearing on my spelling capabilities.

Out of spite, I went ahead and listed some my favorite literary reads and slight notes on my credentials above. I mean, what did this attacker think, I was simply reading comic books? And even if I were, that would have no bearing on my capability as an editor. I was going to list my literary reads eventually, but, heck, why not play into the attacker's curiosity now? The attacker was made aware that his email would be posted on my user page for all to see.

Congratulations, attacker. Your prejudice suits you well. Here is your award — a listing in my infamy section.

— May this be a lonely hall for you.

[edit] If I, Flyer, ever leave Wikipedia for good

It is because of one of three things:

1: Either I am dead. And if so, I would hope that a good editor take over some of the articles I would edit and keep them in shape.
2: Either my life has gotten much busier outside of Wikipedia (though usually I'd be back on occasion).
3: For some bizarre reason, I have no more access to computers ever again.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Badke, William. What to Do With Wikipedia. Trinity Western University. Retrieved on 2008-03-14.