Actually, someone named "Rockpocket" voted keep, so it's 2 to 2 at this point. As to the arsonist question, WIkipedia lables lots of people as "terrorist" who have been convicted of conspiracy to commit terrorism, like the Lackawana Six. Not calling someone who was convicted (and pled guilty) of planning to commit arson an arsonist seems like it displays a distinct point of view. Tom Ketchum (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't normally use comparisons to other articles very often, because not all articles are perfect. In my opinion, someone who has not committed arson is not an arsonist, no matter what he might have liked to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the link from the article. That is the third time it was inserted over the last few days by 88.224.58.11, 88.229.163.136, and then Celebimansur. The Anons appear to be SPAs from Turkey. I will watch the Aging article that was hit too. I will left the same warning on the Anons talk that you left on Celebimansur's page. Ward20 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
How do I report Mayalld for WP Personal Attacks, he does nothing but continuely excuse and remove editors on my work and page and says nasty comments, its all because my article got kept, and he dont like it, now every thing I do he delets or removes, it arasment.I tried to stop him being so silly and left him a barnstar but he still leaves nasty comments19:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)
If you think another user has acted inappropriately, you can report them at the administrator's incident board. Think carefully before you do, though, about whether you have behaved appropriately, because the admins who review your report will look at his contributions and yours as well. You might find that they think your behavior has actually been worse than his. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I made the mistake of submitting the article before I was finished, because I wanted to preserve a snapshot before elaborating in more detail. What exactly is required to be considered "notable"? They currently have a video playing on the Logo networks New Now Next video program. I assume that once I include the fact that the band signed with SonyBMG in 2003, debuted their video for their single on MTVU in winter and will make its US premiere at SXSW that would be enough? David Fricke from Rolling Stone has raved about the band (a fact mentioned on multiple music sites).
Can I get access to the text of the incomplete article before it was deleted so I can make sure it meets requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonym (talk • contribs) 20:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll recreate it for you in your userspace at User:Autonym/The Fashion. That way you can finish working on it, then add the completed article all at once to avoid anyone else mistaking it from another garage band (as you can image, we get a lot of those!). -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the page and tell me whether it's adequate at this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autonym (talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Much better. I don't think it will get speedied again with those sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, sorry... still getting my bearings here. I didn't even want to write the article, but was irritated when I saw the video on TV and then couldn't find anything on wikipedia. Autonym (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That - the 'hey, there isn't an article? response- is the very best reason for creating articles on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Check for yourself: WP:LOA. Always better than taking someone's word for it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I am an administrator! Whew - I'd hate to think that I have been using my 'delete' key inappropriately. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You have a key? No wonder yelling at my laptop hasn't worked! =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll bet your keyboard doesn't have a 'smack user upside the head' button either. I'll tell you, once you go Mac, you'll never go back. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Kids these days... When I started programming we stood next to the CPU and shouted "One! Zero! Zero! One! One! One! Zero!" Uphill both ways in the snow. Now get off my lawn. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I note with interest the conversation in the talk page of the Churches of Christ Article.
I do not want to get into the editing war in that article, in any way. However, I think part of the trouble on that page is due to a very limited understanding of the history of the Restoration movement.
I am editing the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) page with the expectation that it will soon reach FA quality. The CC(DOC) shares common roots with the Churches of Christ. The lead paragraph for the Churches of Christ article as it currently stands is so Negatively POV that all three groups from the Restoration Movement will find it insultingly offensive, and erroneous.
May I humbly suggest that you personally read the history section of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) just to get a better feel of the history with which you are working? It is documented with verifiable citations from reliable sources. While four of the five major figures came from Presbyterian backgrounds, their approach to Christianity on the frontier was such that it is far too simplistic to see them as splinters from Presbyterianism. Doing so is perceived as being disrespectful.
I would appreciate it if you would be careful NOT to refer editors from the Churches of Christ Article to the CC(DOC) article right now so thaat their editing war does not complicate my task.
I would be happy to answer any questions. I will watch this section of your talk page so that the conversation can be in one place. John Park (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article has serious problems. I haven't been involved in the writing of it; I've just been helping to keep it cleared of vandalism and the more obvious POV edits; it does need the attention of someone more knowledgeable in the writing area. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope to help address some of the issues related to the CC(DOC) when I have completed my current project. Thanks for playing referee. John Park (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. I was just about to head off to bed when i saw it. Your block notice is kind of funny too. Anyways thanks again and good night, talk to you later.
Anna
AnnaJGrant (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem; occasional userpage vandalism is all part of the fun of patrolling. He got me, too, and I just blocked a sockpuppet of his. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I was in process of creating an article that was deleted: alonetone- I probably should have not hit "save" yet...
If you like I can word the article with more direction concerning "significance" - alonetone is currently the only music platform that is open source, run by a musician community, and is not backed by a company. It does not run advertising. It is completely separate from business concerns and focuses solely on connecting artists with other artists and their listeners - without monetary exchange.
That's cool; if I was premature, I'd be glad to recreate it. If you'll post the three newspaper/magazine article links that show this platform's notability, I'll recreate the article and add the sources so it doesn't get deleted again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm registered there, but my Esperanto isn't very strong, and I haven't really done anything with it in the past year or two. That might be a fun place to hone my skills, though, if I can get my writing up to at least a fifth-grade level. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This is funny! Is the template your own creation or should I give praise to someone else. Either way, it made me laugh :)
Peace! SWik78 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's my own; it doesn't quite work correctly, though; I copied the code from the standard {uw-block1} template but haven't figured out how to add the sig= field or how to make the wording change for an indefinite block yet. I need to get one of my Computer Whisperers to help me with it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen,
Thanks for your quick help with that FactsAreFacts thing; for future reference, should I have approached the user on his talk page more personally or gone to Requests for Comment first, or does this kind of issue generally fall under immediate-response vandalism?
Thanks again,
Wikimancer (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This one was a pretty clear disruption, closer to vandalism than to a real editing dispute. WP:ANI was fine, or you could have gone to WP:AN3 or WP:AIV. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw that you just reviewed the block of this user and I think a 3RR violation block is appropriate, though you mentioned in the block summary that he ignored warnings. In this case, I think that it was the warnings issued were inappropriate, as this wasn't a simple case of vandalism. It was an edit war. Just letting you know of my take on it.--UrbanRose 22:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it's a bad idea to ignore even bad warnings, though. Always better to stop and deal with what's causing them to happen before going back to the edit you're getting warned for; if this ip had stopped flinging insults and discussed more reasonably, she probably could have avoided the block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, just to let you know, I'm letting you know that I removed the warnings from the talk page.--UrbanRose 22:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was a little surprised that you removed my response to his second unblock request as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry :) It was an accident. I was commenting him myself and some text got lost in edit conflict. I've restored your comment.--UrbanRose 22:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I assumed as much, and it wasn't as if I were composing the Great Lesbian Novel in his talk space, so I wasn't that worried about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries this a troll (there's a blog called The Wiki Defender that is a pastiche of what a guy with a "I am the last defender of the wiki" attitude would be). I suspect this is a copycat :) -- lucasbfrtalk 10:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides, I am the last defender of the wiki. Have at thee, vandals! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, nice one. Not what I was expecting, particularly since I saw it before the post itself. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Didn't I mention? I'm also very funny. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe an article with a title like that wouldn't have been beneficial to the Wikipedia community. ;) Rnb (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume that you're talking about my out-of-process block of User:Ianpalimgay. I hope I don't get in too much trouble for not giving him his four articles before I blocked him. Who knows? Maybe he was just about to change his ways and become an incredibly useful editor.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they're all deleted contribs so I don't get to see them :( Did it involve bare feet?
See, this is why I'd be a terrible admin. I'd unblock them, just so I could block them myself. I'm a vindictive bastard. Thanks for the quick response though! WLU (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
They're humorous redirects; for example, Greenland's National Anthem redirects to Winter Wonderland. Not all that funny, either. And admins can read deleted stuff without having to undelete it, which is nice for those of a curious inclination. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi just wondered why you opted for a PROD rather than CSD? Its surely just nonsense. It relates to Brunswick Rovers Football Club which I have CSDed today (It was sp del yesterday too). Kind regards -- BpEps - t@lk 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I figured it was probably nonsense, but I tend to err on the side of cautious with these footballer biographies, because I'm perfectly capable of speedying the most important player on the most important team in England as non-notable, so great is my ignorance about soccer. (That's what we call it where I live.) I keep an eye on the prods and go back to look for sources if they get removed, or wait for someone with a clue about the game to speedy them, usually, because I'd be embarrassed if I deleted somebody important. I can't even give you an example of somebody important. David Beckham played that game, right, besides being in the title of that movie with the cute Indian girls? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this user's recent creation of many redirects
yeh i know but runescape players might be looking for some help!
You just said that, and I answered you. You don't need to say it again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
well they do, i know many game sites but many runescape players also go on wikipedia
Sorry, I'm busy deleting redirects right now. It's kind of time-consuming. No time to chat.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
WHAT YOU DOING MAN!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Z3Z1AAA (talk • contribs) 16:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad another admin helped me with that; those were a lot of pages to delete. Anyway, like I said, those redirects aren't helpful, partly because users who want Runescape aren't going to type the name of a piece of equipment, and partly because most of those pieces of equipment aren't specific to Runescape, so that isn't the most appropriate redirect. Just to take an example, a user who types "yew shortbow" is just as likely to be looking for Archery as Runescape. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's pretty easy to identify the whole list; I'm just busy grading essays this week, and probably won't get to them right away. I'm afraid that adding redirects to Wikipedia doesn't even qualify as hacking, much less superhacking, -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I've seen many people using the template when some regular is extremely uncivil to others. I've got Sennen goroshi (talk·contribs)'s endless mockeries and 4th time FUCK.(threes in one week) Regardless of my suggestion to him not to use it, he keeps saying that. So I think my using the template is valid. --Appletrees (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm not sure what you're referring to; I don't follow his edits that closely. While personal attacks are against the rules, it isn't against the rules to say "fuck." Want to see? "Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. So enjoy you keep speaking "fuck" for your sake. I don't like seeing such slur. --Appletrees (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm still confused; could you link to the rule that prohibits saying "fuck?" If there is such a rule, I'm not aware of it. You can't enforce a rule that doesn't exist, so if there's a rule against cursing, I do need to know about it, because I curse a fucking lot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That is not a civil word when people communicate wit somebody. If you want to say 'fuck', do speak it yourself, not others --Appletrees (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I can tell from your writing style that English is not your first language, so you might not be familiar with the nuances of this word. "Fuck" would certainly be uncivil in a formal situation, like at a job interview or in an essay. But among friends, in casual usage, many people, including myself, wouldn't consider the word to be uncivil unless it were actually used to make an attack. Thus, "Fuck you" is uncivil, but "I'm fucking tired today" is not uncivil. I don't think there are any rules against using casual language like "fuck" in conversation on talk pages, although it is against the rules to make a personal attack. If that user used the word in an attack, I don't see it- "what the fuck?" is just another way of saying "I'm very strongly confused" in casual English. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont need the consensus of a collective group of "self described nerds without college degrees." No more disputes, you win.. but, the fact remains other stations do this, and don't have militant self described "editors" patroling their websights LOSERS!!!
Despite my limited education, I do at least know how to find the bottom of a talk page, how to sign my posts, and how to talk politely to other people. Those are all pretty important skills at Wikipedia, but there's no need for you to learn them, since you say you won't be editing here any longer. Goodbye. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel embarrassed that you were involved in such a childish matter as the bickering between Appletrees and myself.
So I shall try to be mature and state "thanks for the fucking comments regard the suitability of the word fuck"
Now I am worried, I was not trying to be offensive with my use of "fuck", I think all hell would break loose, if one day I actually tried to be offensive with my vulgar vocabulary.
kawai onna matane. domo arigatou - as the locals here in Japan say (not that I am a local, I just live here, as is very obvious, due to my appalling Japanese) Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is that "What the fuck?" is colloquial, and if you haven't learned what it means, the meaning isn't at all obvious just by reading it. Poor guy, I think he just misunderstood. Of course, I am not following your edit-conflict at all, because... well, I could make up something dignified, but the truth is, it's because I don't care very much about Asian geography. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I have had an issue in the past with a non-native English speaker, who has taken great offence to a comment of mine, not due to the offensive nature of the comment, but due to their misunderstanding the true meaning of it. This is easy for me to understand, I recently scolded a young Japanese student of mine for calling me stupid, and after getting him to repeat the comment, I realised he had actually said that he felt stupid. Understanding 50% of a language can often cause just as many problems as understand 0%. Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Poor guy? FisherQueen, what a good conversation you're having. If I'm the only one taking 'great offence" from him, he is not frequently summoned at ANI by many native English speakers. I've had enough. --Appletrees (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure he's a very bad person; I don't really follow his edits, so don't know for sure. But today, you misunderstood the phrase "what the fuck," which is not an insult in English, and you were wrong to think that he had broken a rule. Tomorrow, maybe you'll be right and he will be wrong, but today, it seems that you were wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your opinion/involvement in a (so far) minor squabble. User:FilipeS keeps removing a {{Fact}} tag from Os Lusíadas, on one occasion referring to it as an "idiotic cite request". (The sentence tagged is " Os Lusíadas is often regarded as Portugal's national epic, much in the way as Virgil's Aeneid was for the Ancient Romans.") My own sense is that anything fact-tagged should be cited, however obviously we can't cite everything. (A) What's your idea of the general threshold for "cite necessary" / "not necessary"? And (B) How do you think this specific instance should be handled? Thanks -- Writtenonsand (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In general, I think claims like 'most important' and 'national epic' should be cited, or just not included; as a literature person, I know that there are lots and lots of works that claim such honors, and mostly they aren't as meaningful as simply describing a work's importance to its national literature. I think Lolita is the most important work of American literature, but I wouldn't have to look far to find someone who would fight me over the question and insist that the title went to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, or Moby-Dick, or Beloved. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, thisis quite helpful :o) as the person who keeps doing this is on Tor and the IP address can be blocked accordingly each time. Useful giveaway ;o) ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 12:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Meh, as vandalism goes, it's neither particularly destructive nor particularly amusing. I'm not sure why he bothers. I give him a C-. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, is the user name below cute enough? I'm the artist formerly known as Bondage Bitch. I fell off laughing when I read your comments about Clinton. Alright, I get it. Wikipedia is censored. I can live with that; I'd imagined me and fellow travellers working in the background without anyone noticing, but I can see that it's not worth the backlash if someone did notice. couple of things though: I logged that name in good faith, I didn't think it was breaking a rule. can I keep it as a read-only name for my own entertainment? I think it's fun logging on with that. (Yeh I would, wouldn't I?)
(I don't want to spoil other people's fun but really! "Bound to the A"? What a cover story! I've been bound to the A a few times and not just for the beginning.) Star Bell (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you decided to pick a different name, and we completely welcome your contributions. Don't worry too much about it; Wikipedia's labyrinth of rules is hard to master, and we all correct each other about them all the time, even those of us who are more experienced. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism to my userpage was bound to happen eventually. Thanks for the revert. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's all part of the fun. I used to have one of those "this userpage has been vandalized x times" userboxes, but when it reached 100, I just took it down. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ever consider using protection? :) Why don't I ever get vandalized!?!? :P SQLQuery me! 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Some people do just semiprotect, but I'm afraid I get a lot of entertainment out of the vandalism. I've semiprotected once or twice when someone was especially annoying, but in general, it makes me laugh. The secret to getting vandalized is regular patrol of edits by new editors; revert that high-school kid's vandalism once or twice and you'll be his next target at least some of the time. It's kind of random; I can go whole weeks without getting it, and then three or four will hit me at once. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, I used to do that... Nothing! :( Even when I'd block'em. Maybe I just need to work WP:SSP more :) SQLQuery me! 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I patrol the firehose of crap a lot, which seems pretty effective. Plus, it's always fun to welcome the occasional useful, helpful editor, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, helpful! I usually go to the newusers log, set it to 5000, and open a tab for each bluelinked 'conribs' that I see :) Didn't know about the newbies log, thanks! SQLQuery me! 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for the welcome. I have a quick question...I am trying to move an article titled Bob kennett to a properly capitalized article named Bob Kennett. How do I go about doing this? Thanks. Threehundredthirtyseven (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a 'move' tab at the top of the article, but if you're a new user you can't access that feature yet (there's a delay on it to prevent vandalism and n00b errors, as incorrect page moves are kind of a pain to undo). I'll be happy to move it for you in the meantime. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I assure you that user has absolutely nothing to do with me. I guess this is a classic example of the boy who cried wolf - sort of, just i never denied the fact that i thought Barneca was a bad admin, so why would I deny it now. Anyway I figure there are three explanations:
1 - Tottally unrelated conincidence
2 - Another editor read my comments and set up a hoax
3 - Barneca himself may have staged the hoax to try and stitch me up - unlikely but maybe a slim possibility
By the way, I note that lunar satin denied User:Dark3345's application for unblock because he/she thought that I was DARK3345 but i have nothing to do with Dark3345. Let user:Luna Santin know that he made a mistake if you like. I cant becaue his talk page is locked for some reason.
Don't worry; it isn't that important. Not knowing which blocked user you are, I'm not really inclined to help you much, and since that editor was blocked for her own edits, it doesn't really matter whether she's a sock or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you commented on AndyCook's review, I'm not sure if i have replied to it correctly, but i have attempted to reply to your comment, i decided it would be in both our best interests to post a copy of what i have said here, i hope this does not bother you.
"in reply to your clause for the blocking of my account, i have updated my account with a safer password, and the reason which i care to keep this account is because andycook is my real name, and id very much like to make some valid corrections, and expansions of incorrect pages and stubs. I don't really have any proof, nor do I expect anyone to believe that my real name is the name of this account, but i can assure you that i wouldn't take the time to get my account back if i planned to vandalize wikipedia. I hope there is some way that i can prove that my intentions here are for the greater good, as i would be very pleased to be welcomed into the wikipedia community. anyways, sorry for any wasted time."
thanks again for putting your time into this (please ignore any spelling and grammatical errors) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.68.120 (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fisher Queen, I found your comment on this page about assuming good faith so useful after seeing how you had put:
{{dated prod|concern = {{fq-prod}}|month = April|day = 11|year = 2008|time = 15:22|timestamp = 20080411152235}}
on the Gordon Tait.
But I would be grateful if you could spend a moment to explain why you put this up two minutes after the page had got started and when it new additions were still being added.
Whilst I feel that the admonition to assume good faith is such a wonderful pillar if the wikipedia community, it sometimes concerns me that this assumption is abused by people who unnecessarily put such tags onn pages where the cyber-ink is scarcely dry. No doubt you have a good reason to explain this behaviour and look forward to heaing it. Harrypotter (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I read the article you created, and I couldn't understand by reading it whether this architect was notable or significant at all. But I wanted to assume good faith, and not just speedy delete it as lacking an assertion of notability, so I used the prod tag, which gives five days to add a clearer explanation of why he is important and the required reliable sources. Two minutes after creation is when all new pages get patrolled by new page patrollers; it's important not to hit 'save' on a new article until it includes, at minimum, a few good sources and a clear description of why the subject is notable. I noticed from your talk page that you've had this problem before; many experienced users like to work on articles in our own userspace until we're sure that they are ready to post. Here's a day when I had two different half-finished articles in my sandbox, waiting to post them in articlespace until they were finished. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The image on my talk page, of course, is a humorous critique of the assume good faith guideline. Although the cat asks to have good faith assumed of him, he is clearly not acting in good faith, as there are strings of dead bird hanging out of his mouth. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Pictures of kittens help us relax when we feel angry
Please learn to separate factual edits from vandalism. The edits made from this IP address were merely factual edits to Orangemike's page to reflect Orangemike's sudden fame resulting from his mention on the Toucher and Rich show. Deleting factual edits constitutes vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.104.249.90 (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi! There are appropriate ways to deal with an editing conflict. Inappropriate ways, like personal attacks, will only end to your inevitable block. And besides, they make you cranky. You don't want to be cranky, do you? You want to be happy. So read the relevant policies, discuss things politely on the talk page, and when you feel stressed, instead of vandalising, just look at pictures of kittens until you feel calmer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Why the removal of the tags? Please explain? J. D. Redding 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You have been accused of adding pseudoscience to articles. I don't know enough about energy science to know whether your changes are legit or not, but your block log shows that you've been blocked dozens of times. If this article really is biased, then someone other than you will restore the tag, but if you really are trying to add bad science to articles, then the tag isn't needed. Be patient; if your science is solid and the other editors are in the wrong, then I'm sure that someone else will restore the tag. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The users making POV edits in question have attacked me. What options do I have? One has stalked me. The users also work in tandum.
This is not new conduct for either user. We have had conflicts before. ScienceApologist has been sanctioned by arbitrattion committe. Mabey both have been, but I do not seek the contributors out .. they do ...
I am sorry you seem not to know anything about the subject. The article is biased now. Is there anothertag I can use?
last questions here ... Why must someone other than me restore the tag? Is that a requirement to place a NPOV tag ... to have a second motion to keep it?
No comment? J. D. Redding 16:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess not .... J. D. Redding 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear heart, I don't actually stay logged on all the time. If you are right, and they're in the wrong, lots of admins are reviewing the page, and surely some of them have the knowledge to recognize the bias and restore the tag. If you're wrong, and the article is not biased, then you'll be happier not having made a mistake. I might be right or wrong, but I didn't say that the article was free of bias, only that I personally would be more comfortable if a user who isn't directly involved in edit-warring places the tag. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I hate being stalked by ScienceApologist. Anyways, removing relevant reliable information from the article makes many articles biased. Omission of facts.
I find it surprising that i use the same criteria for many articles i have done and improved (ex, expert, scientist, etc ...) ... but only when he edits science articles I have been editing, information is removed. POV pushing and attacks on me also.
A tag should be there. Tag to clarify that there is not inforantion is absent in the topic. How is anyone to know that there are reliable sources of information (government documents and patents) and other information (for other public sources) if it is removed?
Removing different sources of knowledge is not representing all them. Thanks ...
Sincerely, J. D. Redding 05:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (ps., people need to learn the historical method and apply it to all types of sources ...)
Huh,i never said im an admin. -.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasaa (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Your talk page says you are an admin. It also says you are working on assembling my IKEA furniture, which I appreciate, because the doors on the secretary are not fitting quite properly. You should also restrain yourself from using a new account to avoid your block. If you think you are ready to edit usefully, you can request an unblock on your original account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, are you still an administrator? I just want to COMPLAIN and NOTIFY you about a threat to block my user (I am not familiar how to deal with this guy and vandalism). I was emailed by some editors per private message that many Filipino editors were out to muscle me and to ban me, due to my prophecies, inter alia. I told them that WikiPedia is merely one of 140 forums and places I registered and joined (I was banned in 20 wiccans and atheist forums), and I don't care if guys are stupid and unruly. I debunked FEAR in my life. I have high respects to you, since I knew you were so impartial, and when you helped in re-creating [[Florentino Floro]. But this User:Maxschmelling. User talk:Maxschmelling had been pestering me[2] on Philippine news editing. He had gone wild, and he even deleted my modern wrist watch record auction from Reuters news. I ignored him since he must have had a family mess or job crisis, inter alia. I discern and let these go. Is this guy an administrator? He claimed that he is not a Filipino and not related to Filipino but has lots of fear to show his nationality. I had used WikiPedia Psalm 109 and 73 since when I read Wiki rules, I could not defend myself against vendetta or cover-up and hidden agenda by editors and administrators who were out to muscle me, for reasons, as personal defense based on Bible and spirituality, since the world is full of rage. Please enlighten me on the power of this guy to block and to threaten to block when all my edits are not news. And what is my remedy against him? Can you block him? Thanks. --Florentino floro (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If you aren't able to write clear, concise encyclopedia style, don't feel too badly- not everyone can, especially in a second language. No, I won't block the users who are trying to help you write in the Wikipedia style, especially as, if I'm understanding a recent conversation on your talk page correctly, you are planning to use the Bible and your communication with elves to curse the editors who disagree with you with annihilation, to the fourth generation. Are you still living in the Philippines? I've heard it's genuinely beautiful there. Why not turn off the computer and sit outside with a cool drink and a good book, instead? I recently took a long break from Wikipedia and discovered that the real world holds delights that nothing online can match. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, memories. I traveled all over the Philippines from 1995 - 2006 (I reached almost all[3] the tourist spots - Banaue, Cebu, Camiguin, Ilocos, Alaminos, Aparri, etc. - I met a marine officer, and he told me that he traveled worldwide, but the most beautiful, in terms of nature and pristine beauty, are South America and Philippines)[4]. El Nido, Palawan, is the only place in the world, a complete paradise, the so-called "last frontier", where daily it rains for 2 hours, and since 1965, there never was a single storm (our country experiences more than 20 typhoons yearly). But I fell in love with Wikipedia, since, here, I can share my travels and insights on the unknown and truth, for future generation, IN TIME. By the way, thanks for re-creating my article Florentino Floro, since at the time, I could hardly edit here, since I had no computer and internet background in school. - --Florentino floro (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello again. I was the one who added the speedy delete tag to the skylurker page. I have had a conversation on [[User_talk:BananaFiend|my talk page] with User:skylurker. I tagged with speedy delete as nonsense, which seems to indicate that the article does not make any sense. While I believe that it did not have any place on wikipedia (and could be speedy deleted as such) I think it more properly was deletable as a personal theory (non-notable). The user seems relatively personable and I think the "nonsense" message might have been a bit insulting. I think perhaps in future I will edit the user notification added by twinkle automatically to be a little less harsh where necessary. Any advice on this one? Sorry to bother you BananaFiend (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
'Nonsense' was a reasonable tag; if I was feeling friendly I might have used a custom {{db|No assertion of notability}} or similar. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, how is this for proof? It is part of a documentary from History Channel with the EXACT same phenomenon, however my material consists of a continouos study of > 2 months, hundreds of HQ pictures , some picture series with about 200 in them and even a close encounter at 30-50 meters, where I could see the "inside" of a translucent sphere with binos. So far for "nonsense"?
Need help at Shannara....Multiple vandals....who all happen to be my friends too. UGH. (Try not to block me too, but if you do, oh well. the_ed17 18:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe semi-protect the page? the_ed17 18:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocked both the users; hope it works. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And of course, I accidentally blocked you as well, since you're all using the same school ip. I cleared the autoblock when I realized that I'd done it; I see from your talk page that you've experienced that before. Someday you'll graduate, and presumably they won't, and you'll have your own ip in your own grown-up apartment, house, or tour bus. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
=D Hilarous. But a "tour-bus"? Am I a rock star?!? lol! Thanks a lot. the_ed17 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You might be a rock star. I'd hate to rule it out. Or maybe you'll be the first superstar philosopher, giving philosophy lectures to sell-out crowds in giant arenas. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be cool to be a rock star...but there's one tiny problem......I can't sing. =) ..."Superstar philosopher"?!? That would be SWEET! If I became a superstar philosoher and people actually came to see me, well, maybe this world isn't as bad as I thought. (crap. future to past tense..oh well) the_ed17 15:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That was definitely not the answer I was expecting, but those are good points...I guess. But Bob Dylan as a philosopher? I did not know that....interesting!!! the_ed17 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
For certain definitions of "philosopher." He had some big thoughts, Dylan did. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite old enough to completely understand...But my mom always says stuff like that about him, too, so I kinda understand.... But (on a different note) is it alright if I stole your style-thing (I'm not sure what to call it) for my talk page etc.? I'm going to change the color eventually, but...if it isn't, I'll just revert it. the_ed17 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to steal any code from my page that's useful to you; I stole it all from other places, anyway. I didn't discover Dylan until I was out of college... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I found the Web colors article useful when I was building it; it has charts of colors and their codes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you--and Web colors was really helpful!!! Also, User:Jpgordon slapped a {{schoolblock}} on the school's IP, so no more of my friends can edit vandalize anymore...helpful! the_ed17 18:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I really think the people on here should lighten up. Stating a Haggis is a Ginger and hairy with 2 legs longer than other, they are often seen running around hills. Very shy fury animals, which when skinned make traditional Scottish cuisine, was mearly fun. Crikey what sad people you must be to be offended —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samismarried (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a bit offended. However, that doesn't seem to be true, so it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Funny but not true things belong on your personal web page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
hey i'm really suprised by this. we do a tv show online that makes absolutely zero money. we do it for educational purposes only for the benefit of doctors and patients out there. we dont sell anything. i added a video of a show we did with the most respected man in the vitamin industry talking about the importance of quality control in the vitamimn industry. its just like a jazzy seminar. if i am going about doing it the wrong way i would appreciate input on how to do it right. i created a new section titled "educational video" and put the episode there.
we pay for our own bandwidth, we dont have tile adds, we are just trying to help educate the world... —Preceding unsigned comment added by NPTV (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Under the conflict of interest guidelines, we all agree to refrain from adding links to our own web sites to Wikipedia. That's because we want to do what's best for the encyclopedia, not what's best for ourselves. If your resources really are the best available references on a subject, then someone other than yourself will recognize that and use them as sources. If you want to do what's best for Wikipedia, you can help by adding useful content to articles, citing not your own web site but the best sources you know of. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate you more than you can ever know! Thanks for the comment. I sure hope we can get some of the Anon editors to talk about their concerns. I tried to speculate on what I think is the matter, but trying to re-edit without talking doesn't seem to work. John Park (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have much actual knowledge, but I feel useful being able to help referee this little match. I am pretty sure the anon editors are all one person with a dynamic ip, but I could be wrong. I think you're right (or maybe someone else is) that they're trying to revert to an old version without looking very closely at the new one... it's a shame collaboration is so difficult for them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Fisherqueen, I kindly ask you to unblock my account as I have sorted out the matter that made it look like a communal account. I had let some people air their views through my account unaware of the fact that it is against Wikipedia policy. I apologize and appeal to you to kindly reinstate the account. This mistake will not be repeated. Thankyou, User:bmjmureithi.(70.11.104.32 (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC))
Your edit history is consistent with this explanation, and I'd like to give you a second chance; I've unblocked your account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Trolling wiki in boredom, I come upon this. Remember Mr. Barefoot from months back, User:Creepy Crawler? Is it worth adding all the socks there now, or should I/we wait until they're back at it? WLU (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother if he's not active; lot of work for nothing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
sources??? Aren't you supposed to "assume good faith"??? Jayneofthejungle (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You already said you are part of the Wikipedia Review in the edit summary for your first edit. I don't understand what that has to do with good faith; you aren't ashamed of that, are you? They make some interesting points about where the line is drawn between publicized information and personal privacy, I think. I don't really get why you created an obvious nonsense page; I thought most of the folks who post at the WR were pretty familiar with how Wikipedia works, even if they don't always agree with the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because I quoted WR doesn't mean that I post there. I mean, you obviously read it too, don't you? Are you embarrassed about that? Probably not, because it's the "in"-place to be. Since Post-postmodernist thought is oldhat, it's only a matter of time before Post-post-postmodernism takes over. Why don't we just get it over with and start the article already?? Jayneofthejungle (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not embarasssed. I'll be honest, though; I don't claim to any deep understanding about WR; I have read there from time to time, but I am not a regular reader there. As I said on your user talk page, I'm more than happy to undelete your article, but I can't do it until you provide me with three reliable sources. If you don't like that offer, though, I'm only one admin; you are welcome to make your case for undeletion for discussion at deletion review. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll admit that my article was nonsense. You can delete it. However, this Jon Awbrey business is not nonsense : I do not believe that anyone's real names should be "outed" on wikipedia, banned troll or not. The fact that real people's are names are used in this way is not fair. All references to real names should be overcited and new users should be told not to use real names. Another discussion is underway at wikipedia review;...but this isn't there, is it? Jayneofthejungle (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but you're forgetting the entire licensing issue. You have to have the rights to use Awbrey's name under the GFDL, because you have to credit his contributions; However, you do not have the rights to use his name in any other context: you cannot say "Jon Awbrey is a distruptive puppetmaster" because this has not been proven in a court of law. Furthermore, the WMF is changing licensing to another format without asking former contributors whether or not they agree to the new licensing scheme. The WMF, who by definition do not own the copyright, do not have the right to change the license on anyone's contributions. They can certainly ask, but if the answer is no, the answer is no. How can you justify the current situation when someone's personal name is used on-site with this kind of epitaph when you need them to accept the change of licensing. Be aware that Jon Awbrey made thousands of edits and that eliminating all of them may do much more damage to WP than you can imagine. Perhaps you need to consider the consequences here? Jayneofthejungle (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that he was very unwise to use his real name. His name isn't copyrighted, what he did here and what people said about him are simply recorded as all edits are. It's hard to oversight his name while he's still doing disruptive edits. After he stops disruptive editing, it may well be easier, and he has learned a valuable lesson about using his real name to write things he is ashamed of writing. Many published authors learn the same lesson. I couldn't find the discussion at WR; I'm not a registered user; are there hidden forums I don't see? Has Awbrey made any predictions of when he's likely to stop making new sockpuppets? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and no, you're right that you can't just delete all of his contributions. I don't think anyone offered to, did they? The most he can hope for is the blanking of his userpage and talk page, but I don't know that the software would even be able to delete all those individual contributions; I'm not as familiar with the tech side of Wiki as some people. I'm just a humble vandalism remover, in general. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that if they change the license, they will have to either get Awbrey's permission or delete the contributions from all articles. Wikipedia does not control any copyrights by definition.
However, might I point out that by saying that Wikipedia needs to continue using Awbrey's real name because "it teaches him a valuable leson", the same thing could be said about the Pseudonymous editors on Daniel Brandt's hivemind page, since they have learned a valuable lesson that just because they have a pseudonym doesn't mean that somebody can't figure out who they are. Is this what you intended to say? I should think not. Jayneofthejungle (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you fully understood me. Wikipedia never chose to use Awbrey's real name. Awbrey made that choice. Sometimes we all have to live with the consequences of our choices; he put his real name in, and now it's in. As you pointed out, even blanking his userpage doesn't change the many edits he made under his real name. I don't quite get what you're saying about licensing; edits get recorded with the usernames that we choose, and I don't understand how any change to the license would even affect that. In any case, I'm finished for this evening. Good night. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
All edits are made on specific terms; You cannot simply arbitrarily change those terms. And the license does not give Wikipedia the rights to use Jon Awbrey's name as they choose. In any case, other people are beginning to understand the implication of all of this and hopefully, you will all have learned something because of this. good night Jayneofthejungle (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a new user at the article (Mark0880) putting in a lot of information that all seems to be unreferenced. I've talked to him on several occasions and he seems to have his heart in the right place, but he keeps inserting information that seems much more appropriate for a sermon or tract than an encyclopedia [5][6]. Since you have experience with this article, I thought I'd come to you first and see if you could suggest a tact to take with him. I was just vandal fighting and drawn to the artile, I'm not really familiar with using references such as the Bible on articles dealing with religious matters. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Mark0880 has a passion for his faith. I have watched the conversation with interest. He put the suggested materials on the talk page and then put it back in the article. I am going to write a note on his proposal in the talk:Churches of Christ. We will see how he responds. John Park (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I was too slow. User:Epecho did a great set of edits and a comment to Mark0880. I love collaberation! I am glad s/he's watching. John Park (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Since there doesn't seem to be anything more for me to do here... hi there! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Good morning! Have a nice day! John Park (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
First time I've seen that phrasing for blocks. Very good. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I only use that template for users who ... er... have obviously made a decision that they desire to be blocked, and have communicated that decision clearly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you like my decline rationale, "you have not demonstrated the faculties expected of positive contributors"? I amuse myself sometimes... - CobaltBlueTony™talk 15:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, when I was a novice at Wikipedia, it never even occurred to me to create an article about myself. I was very concerned not to make any bold edits until I was confident I understood the rules. Behold my first three article space edits [7][8][9], all very minor copyediting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hm. When considering the real possibility of fame and fortune, I'd prefer just the money. Who needs everyone in one's personal business??? No article for me, EVER, thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™talk 15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There was a time in my youth when I hoped I'd be a famous writer some day. In the wisdom of my early middle age, my goal is never to be significant enough to have an article about me written on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I swear this is why we need a CSD tag for hoaxes/joke articles. "Aerobic Beading with Richard Simmons"? "Snow White and the Seven Beads"? This reads more like a bored kid in school made this up. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Argh, you're right. I apologize; I missed the obvious hoaxiness of it. Must have read it too quickly. We do have a deletion criteria for 'pure vandalism,' which in my opinion an obvious hoax would fall under. Excuse me, I need to go fix an error that I made. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: I would watch "Aerobic Beading with Richard Simmons." Sounds way more amusing than "Survivor." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hiya FQ, hoping the weather finds you sunny and your bank balance finds you rich.
I've a question for you - if you would be so kind, have a gander at the history of Richard Ofshe, particularly the contributions of 89.159.146.254 (talk·contribs). You can see in my AIV report why I've been reverting - a source of "personal knowledge - Richard Ofshe" raises obvious WP:RS and WP:COI issues. Steve Crossin declined to block and fair enough given his rational, but hasn't responded to my question on his talk page. I'm perfectly willing to allow that this may not be an AIV matter, what I'd really like though is an option for a case like this, when after numerous postings on their talk page, there's been no reply and ongoing edits to the Ofshe page.
I'm aware of WP:PARENT - I'm looking for advice, not a block, and am keenly aware of my shortcomings in comprehension of many policies and guidelines. As always, the distilled wisdom of your many moons as an admin is the only beverage that will slake my thirst.
I should write hallmark cards for wikipedians. WLU (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like it may be the man himself, trying to add a personal statement about his opinion to the article. It's easy to understand that. I made a very short block and put a personal note on the talk page; if there's inaccuracies or bias in the article about him, it should be fixed, but it looked to me to be a fair account of what he has done and also what has been said about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
He falsely calls me a vandal as I restoring the previous compact version and his behavior is highly uncivil and suits personal attack. I don't think the vulgarism should be included in the article, so I will raise RFC to resolve this absurd dispute. --Appletrees (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think, as I said on the talk page, that you may not fully understand the phrase 'in deep shit.' It's a slang phrase that means 'in trouble,' and isn't intended to associate kimchi with literal shit. Once I understood that you were reading it as an insult against this important Korean dish, I understood why you were so angry. Many readers don't understand why you are so angry, because that isn't what the phrase means... when I hear the phrase 'in deep shit,' I don't think of excrement at all, and neither do most English speakers. Rather than an RfC, why not just discuss it like a reasonably polite person? I see that the other user has already rephrased it in an attempt to compromise with you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Users who are not fluent English speakers are welcome at Wikipedia. But if you assume you are being attacked when someone says something in English that you don't understand, then the problem is not language, but manners. Your recent edit did that. Maybe that section should be in the article, and maybe it shouldn't. The only way to decide is to stop making threats and attacks and talk about it politely, or stop making threats and attacks and let others talk about it politely. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, you're not objective since the previous appearance at my talk page. His accusation of me doing vandalism is truly a personal attack which you miss it. I understand well about the meaning and in wikipedia, trivia section is not advisable. Besides, you and he are not many people, but two people. Currently three people are commenting for the subject and one anon involved in editing the article, so I'm not the only one to claim that the slang is inappropriate for the encyclopedic contents. I've undergone several hard times with the guy who has shown me enough and right after I reverted his vandalims (why are you condoning the offensive attack of him?), I left my comment at the talk first to resolve the matter. So please do not accuse me of showing bad faith to him. You also miss that Sennen goroshi's edit summary to mention about "sockpuppetry", and do you think that is civil act and good faith? I don't think so. His mention of gaming system is also very unhelpful. I will raise RFC, so can gather more opinion on the inclusion of the slang. RFC is for hearing more comments and not threat. --Appletrees (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
As for 'calling spade is spade" [10] Thank you for your involvement here. That was really "helpful" --Appletrees (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't bother making any more accusations on my talk page. As far as I can tell, you're enjoying being angry at people, but it isn't much fun for me, so I'll just let you get on with whatever you were going to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You've bothered yourself to have your opinion for this. Thank you for your above civil and good-faith comments. Your lecture earns a point. --Appletrees (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You side him which is not clearly a compromised version with me or other anon at all. You not only reverted to include the vulgarism, but also well organized alignment. You're also involved in voicing your opinion on this, so you're not a meditator. I request you to revert it to the previous version before Sennen goroshi vandalise. (Why didn't you give a warning to him? That is also the fact that you're not neutral.)--Appletrees (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
we talked the other day. I will make it brief.
see her myspace http://www.myspace.com/JuliannaRoseMauriello
I do not understand. How a few admins can claim anything different.
the problem is is to alot of people she is a "loli".
Many people will not even admit they are attracted to her.
But its strange out of ALL the editors to her page over the last 2 years, MOST are the same exact people.
interesting?
They ignore her myspace and her imdb.com to satisfy themselves?
This will never end, even if she would do an interview these people on wikipedia would STILL claim she was straight because it ruins their fantasy.
I WORKED with her for FOUR DAYS straight. I MET her wife, I KNOW for a FACT.
I believe that most if not all of the editors on wikipedia ALSO KNOW for a fact she is gay. They just dont want to admit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.175.94 (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understood the message I left for you. Personal knowledge is not a citeable source for an encyclopedia; we are not seeing Truth but verifiablity. She may well be gay, but until that has been published in a reliable source, Wikipedia can't use it. I have no fantasies whatsoever about this actor, since I don't know who she is and don't care very much. I do have a fantasy of a Wikipedia in which all articles are well-written and fully sourced. MySpace isn't a reliable source, but even if it were, her MySpace page doesn't seem to say that she is gay, as far as I can see. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL are you SERIOUS???
Here, let me hand you these glasses once...
(sighs) as usual... why waste my time, you all know it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.175.94 (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Your time is being wasted, because you are having so much trouble believing what I am saying. Because it is easy to create a fake MySpace page, MySpace is not considered a reliable source. Because imdb's content is added by users, just like Wikipedia's, imdb is not considered a reliable source. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, information that is not verified by reliable sources is not valid. Because gay couples cannot marry in New York, and because the marriage age in Canada is 18, any claim that she is married is so profoundly improbable that it would have to be verified by several very good sources. If there is no reliable source, there's nothing more for you to say. I could tell you to go ahead and add the information to the article, and someone else would immediately remove it, because we all follow the same rules here. If you want to follow different rules than Wikipedia's rules, you'll have to go somewhere other than Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Because gay couples cannot marry in New York, and because the marriage age in Canada is 18, any claim that she is married is so profoundly improbable that it would have to be verified by several very good sources. "
Um, New York is not in Canada. And many couples are "married" in new york where the actual legal age to be married is 14 with parental consent. Just so you know some facts here... it was legal for gay people to marry in New York for a period of 7 months in 2007. Suggest studying up some.
Doesn't matter though believe what you will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.175.94 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that New York is not in Canada. Full marks for geography! Canada is the most likely place for a gay couple to marry, since Massachusetts requires residency and so does South Africa. If it is your claim that this television actor married during the short window of legal marriage in New York, at the age of fifteen, that would certainly have made the news. The news stories about it from any newspaper or magazine would indeed be a reliable source; just include a link to it when you add the information to the article about her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not understand why you removed what I saw as a legit article.
help me to understand why you would remove a article that meets a NPOV?
I comply with wiki rules, sorry I did not see the messages and understand, I really thought a troll kept removing the page, sorry.
Cathy cathytreks (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope that the note I left on your talk page helps you understand the relevant rule. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries; I've had to have rules explained to me, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you FisherQueen, AND I have noted your kindness of heart and assumption of good faith on my (talk) page, if I can ever do you a good turn I will be first in line,
best regards,
Cathy cathytreks (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a nice lady. I'm pretty, too, as far as anyone at Wikipedia knows. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Just saying howdy and a thanks for your continued reverts of nonsense vandalism and other services to humanity. I see you also are a fan of "I Can Haz Cheezburger" or other lolcats sites. My kind of person! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 03:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't threaten me. Unblock my LaruaWA11 account now, I will make as many accounts as it takes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilecremence (talk • contribs) 12:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of any number of threatening sockpuppets that would result in anyone unblocking you. The only times I have seen blocked users unblocked, it has been because they have made a persuasive case that they understood the rules, were not going to break them any more, and that they had knowledge or skills that would make the encyclopedia better. That doesn't seem to apply in this case. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the multiple reliable sources that you need to show that this is a notable topic; you need to add the newspaper article, magazine article, and book sources from which you get the information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If it meets the notability criteria, there's no problem with an article about it. The article I deleted didn't make it clear whether or not it meets the notability criteria, and didn't cite reliable sources, like newspapers, magazines, and trade journals. Of course, since you have a conflict of interest, it would be better to add the subject to the requested articles list than to write it yourself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I am still very new at this. It will take me a few days to digest the info. I know I have a conflict of interest, but since the company is noted by outside industry publications on a regular basis, I do not think I will have any trouble citing the neccessary resources.
Thanks again. Grimmjaw08 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried my best as a non-admin. But can you step in here. Two users in a dispute and both being rather uncivil. I am starting to lose my cool on this one..may have. So please can you step in and take charge here. I already suggested Tea and Biscuits and made it clear that both were at fault and should just seek mediation. Thought it was resolved but it appears the user did have diffs. I looked at all 12 of them. 11 seems semi-fine as it was a dumb vandal. But as I stated it was harsh to point it out. Rgoodermote 23:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Marked as resolved. If you still want to check it out go ahead. But I told them to go to WP:Mediation and I really hope they go there.Rgoodermote 23:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I take that back. Rgoodermote 00:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. Two rude people need refereeing? In such cases, I would rather wait until they cross the line into appalling personal attacks, then blocking everyone. But the thread is on ANI, so presumably someone with better civic spirit than I will say something. I'm going to log off and watch a Tarzan movie. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny one. Well..there goes the admin. Actually..it is pretty close to the personal attacks part. Anyways good night mate. Rgoodermote 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
