|
Might you have placed this in the wrong section? Looks like plain old copyright violations, not racist personal attacks. AniMate 03:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Yes, you are correct- I somehow managed to put my response into the wrong section. While uploading copyrighted images is a problem, it's not quite as bad a problem as my comment indicated- I was talking about the homophobe two sections up. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wait, holding homophobic views (which is legal pretty much everywhere) is worse then breaking the law? Those seem to be some mixed up priorities. Buddy431 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Of course it is. Messing up copyright is the sort of mistake anyone can make by accident- the law is notoriously complicated, and hasn't really kept pace with technology. A decent human being can violate copyright. A decent human being can't be a homophobe. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- The editor in question was not making a mistake. They were deliberately claiming that photos, taken and owned by someone else, were there own. In my opinion, that type of theft (and theft is what it is) is orders of magnitude worse than holding beliefs that, while not ideal, are perfectly legal, and don't deprive other's of their livelihood. And from Wikipedia's perspective, people holding homophobic views are perfectly welcome, provided that they don't express them in a way that attacks others (which, admittedly, the comment in question may have been doing), while uploading copyrighted material is not. Buddy431 (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I guess we're just using different criteria. You seem to be judging based on 'Is it illegal, or against the rules?' I'm judging based on, 'Is anyone harmed?' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- And I believe that stealing someone else's work and claiming it as your own does cause significant harm to the rightful owner of it. I suppose at this point we must agree to disagree. Buddy431 (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- FisherQueen, trying to add references to wikipage Alli Joseph. Looking for proper template. Can you please advise? Thanks. Tahiya72 —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC).
I love your comment here. "We all respect that choice fully", "in order to help you move on with your life" etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's important to let people make their own choices, and to respect those choices by not taking away the consequences they've chosen. That's also my attitude in the classroom. "You didn't read the book? Then, yes, you're right, you are probably going to fail today's test. An extension? No, I don't think that would be fair to you. I promised to give you a test today, and I don't break my promises to my students." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you check the edit history of User:Pioneer77, the MO looks suspiciously like User:Aviationperson/ talk. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
- I agree, but it looks like someone else beat me to the block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Reference desk removals[edit]While I appreciate what you are trying to do by removing these questions (which may be trolling) and responses [1], you have also removed my response, made in good faith, without any sort of explanation. I know it is the policy to not feed the trolls, but I do not appreciate wondering where my contribution went and having to dig through the history to find it. In the future, could you please leave a note on my talk page explaining what you have done? Thank You. Buddy431 (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Talk page stalker butting in: You say there was no explanation but the edit summary does in fact explain, and as you yourself note we should not feed the trolls. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but it is hardly feeding the trolls to drop a short note on my talkpage to explain where my answer went, rather than me having to go searching for the history to find the explanation. Buddy431 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- It honestly didn't occur to me- two of my own responses have disappeared today, because I didn't realize that the questions I was replying to were trolling from a block-avoiding user. It didn't bother me; it isn't as if I'm saving the questions to publish in my memoirs, and I can see where they went on the edit history. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've already been yelled at for also doing some of this same unexplained removal of LC sock postings. You may go to the ref desk talk page if you feel like getting further into this mire. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you aren't disappointed, but this is not mire I want to wallow in. I only wallow in rum. It's a religious thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can dig it. I just found it encouraging that I'm not the only one who recognizes an LC sock when he sees one. I've also asked Buddy and Beeblebrox to go there, which they are also free not to do. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I didn't recognize the larger pattern; I just recognized the similarity to the other antisemitic questions that have come up lately. I was baffled by the 'long-haired wool' one, for example, which looked like a real question to me. (Note that I'm not saying you're wrong: I'm just saying I don't reliable recognize this particular troll.) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Juicy" had me fooled at first too, until someone clued me in on what his user ID meant. Then I took it to AIV, then it went to SPI, etc. Oy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I just don't see the need to memorialize the removal of an edit on somebody's talk page when it's already noted in the page history. It's not like it is all that hard to look it up. I try to follow WP:RBI as often as possible with disruptive users, but I don't believe I've ever run into this particular troll before. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- See, I believe I should have control over my own edits (outside of article space), and so I want to know when someone removes it. Frankly, I consider it disrespectful to touch my posts at all (provided that they're appropriate), but to do it without telling me I find downright rude. Buddy431 (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Really? I know that the little sentence under the 'save page' button says that thing about 'if you do not your writing to be edited, do not submit it here,' so it honestly never bothers me when my writing disappears or is changed beyond recognition. I have places where it would bother me, but I know that's just part of the Wikipedia thing. In this situation, you should recall that Light Current enjoys getting real editors into arguments, so I'm not really choosing to play that game by arguing with you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I have moved this post from my talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've looked at this recent edit, and would like to help you improve it. "SteveBaker being defiant" would be better written as 'SteveBaker's defiance." There should be a comma between 'me' and 'but.' "Plenty" should not be in quotation marks- quotation marks do not correctly add emphasis to a word, and putting the word in a bold font would have been a more correct choice. "Worry for" should be "worry about." Now, personally, I'd usually ignore these errors and focus on your intended meaning, but I understand that correctness is important to you, and so I would like to help you with your quest for grammatical perfection, if I can. To be more clear: your conflict with SteveBaker is becoming disruptive. You can make the choice to simply let it go. I hope you'll make that choice. You are not accomplishing your goal, you are disrupting the reference desk's work, and you are making yourself look foolish. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I acknowledge your wish to help with the same genuineness as yours in offering it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- The second part of my comment, at least, is entirely sincere. The first part is a humorous reminder that no one is perfect, and that what you are doing can very easily be turned back on you. If you didn't like it, I hope you'll remember that unpleasant feeling- and stop inflicting that feeling on Steve. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 September 2010[edit]LeftyLarry7687 (talk · contribs) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It's never a good idea to unblock a sock puppet either, without first reviewing the article history. Anyone can make a mistake, and the admin may wish to take another look at the situation ;) --Kudpung (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article Shirley Phelps-Roper, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley Phelps-Roper until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Wolfview (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
He's back already. Tom&Jerry123 (talk · contribs) is definitely him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- We could go back to trying to explain the difference between major and minor details to him for the 7000th time, but I think I'll just block him instead. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Please please please please please PLEASE revoke talk page editing privileges! I cannot bear another series of unblock requests from him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I was planning to wait until his first unblock request, but since he's nothing if not consistent, sure. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have a question for you. How do you approach a girl in America ? I mean what is the ideal way to ask a girl out in a respectable manner Jon Ascton (talk)
- Many women like to be approached incrementally: some conversation on the phone and access to one another's Facebook paces, for example, before the actual first date. So start by asking for a phone number and/or email address- or offer yours. Once positive contact is established and both parties are feeling good about one another, I've had good luck with the direct approach: "Would you like to have dinner with me next Thursday?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 September 2010[edit]If the band itself is not a source, what is? What would I need to use as a source? All these "fans" have vandalized this page with UNsourced made up stories, wanna be musicians have listed themselves as former members, where are THEIR sources? Pinkmermaid (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The band itself is a source- any interview they've done in a published source would be entirely acceptable. However, "some guy on the internet who says he's in the band, but doesn't link to any sources" is not one of the sources listed at WP:RS. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
So the band has to do an interview with a third party, then you accept it as true but getting the facts straight from the band is not acceptable? There are no interviews by the band that list several of these supposed ex members of the band. There are also no interviews listing several of these "facts" as they are untrue. So how do these other people get to list all these lies on the page? You can't link to articles where the band says X Y and Z were never in the band because they never had any reason to state these things in an interview. You can't prove a negative with an article. The band and management know who was really ever in the band, but apparently only fans and strangers who know nothing about the bands history are credible sources according to Wikipedia and the band themselves are not. Whatever. Enjoy your website of falsehood. I mistakenly thought you all were trying to have accurate pages. And I have no interest in discussing the very long list of lies on the page in the talk section but leaving up the page as is. What's the point? If Wiki doesn't care if the facts are true, I will just leave it as is. And if your next argument is to say how do you know I am affiliated with the band, I can prove that easily through any verification you wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkmermaid (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary to prove it, because Wikipedia doesn't permit us to add unsourced information anyway, no matter who it's from. As far as I can tell, you haven't tried discussion yet, so it's too early to say whether discussion would be as useless as you think. We'd love to have an accurate page, and we'd love to have your help in that, but if you aren't willing to help, that's okay- eventually, someone will. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your latest update. Greg Leon was also never in the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkmermaid (talk • contribs) 00:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to jump in on the article talk page with clarification; that source seemed to indicate that he had been, but I may have misread it. The problem with the image you wanted to change is that Wikipedia doesn't own the copyright for that album cover- Quiet Riot does, and we try to use pictures that are free for Wikipedia users to use. The existing picture isn't as great, but it was released by the photographer, which makes it preferable. If the band wants to release one of its photos into the public domain, we could use it- they wouldn't be able to do that with an album cover, since I think the label owns those rights, but there are probably photos they could release. See WP:IMAGE for Wikipedia's image use policy, which is insanely complicated because US law is insanely complicated. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not an album cover. It's our new promo image for the band. We are giving permission for wiki to use it. I stated that when I uploaded it. I checked off "public domain". We have released that photo on the press page and myspace page for any press or fans to use (officialquietriot.com, myspace.com/officialquietriot) the photo currently on the page is an old photo taken by a fan with their baby in the photo. Hardly an official photo....
Greg Leon played in "Dubrow" which was an interim band that Kevin Dubrow formed after disbanding QR and before starting a new QR a couple of years later. Any articles stating he was in QR are incorrect. There are articles that say he was in the band, but none of them are statements made by anyone in the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkmermaid (talk • contribs) 00:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's more clear. You should put some of this on the article talk page; I'm not the Boss of Wikipedia, and there is a need for consensus with others. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Why can't I update the page like everyone else? Obviously anyone can add any made up garbage they want judging by the vast array of made up stuff on this page. Pinkmermaid (talk) 01:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
and here's a source for you. Tracii Guns was never in the band either. He came to one rehersal and that's it. Here is a source from a third party article. http://rockdirt.com/frankie-banali-talks-new-quiet-riot-tracii-guns-blackie-lawless/19624/
Pinkmermaid (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Notice that I posted notes on the talk page about the edits I made. I am going to let you put your comments about the article on the talk page, not my personal talk page, because no one else will see them here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, that account had no interest in Quiet Riot until today. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- That is odd. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 September 2010[edit]can you help me regard my article. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nazril_Idrus .
im new user..
Tq —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurshahlan.nasrun (talk • contribs) 10:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd be glad to help. The article you are trying to create is an advertisement, which is why it keeps getting deleted. I did my own search, and could not find any evidence that this person meets the criteria for inclusion, so Wikipedia would not need an article about him even if it were written in a neutral, 'just-the-facts' way, as our rules require. I advise, as I advised on your talk page, that you stop creating articles about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 September 2010[edit]I'm happy to leave this as an improvement tag for notability for the moment. The BBC ref you added was a co-incidence, a killer happened to be named Walker and it's a much more recent case. I agree that if enough sources are discussing the case 50 years on, for whatever reason, then there are good grounds for suspecting that notability in a new article might be addressed in the near future. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oops! That BBC source was sloppy of me; sorry. I agree that improvement is needed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
|
