User:FisherQueen/Archive61

FisherQueen User Page · Talk page · Archives · Sandbox · Patrol · Templates

From Mary

Dear FisherQueen,

You added comments about an entry called Discovery Medicine. References have been added. One is from the subject's official website -- the editorial board page. Affiliations of the editors are listed there. The other reference is U.S. National Library Medicine's official website (PubMed.gov) where the subject is indexed. I am not sure whether or not you are aware of the changes. Thank you. Best regards, Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryw05 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Aren't those places where all journals would be indexed? I'm afraid I don't know enough about medical journals to know how to establish which ones are notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello FQ and Maryw05. From a quick look, Discovery Medicine looks like a valid topic for an article. See Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) for a essay proposing a criterion for such journals. Consider asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals if there is a concern that Discovery Medicine is not notable. I checked for citations to its articles, but did not find any, perhaps because it only started publishing in 2010. The people creating the journal seem to be part of mainstream academic medicine. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ms. FisherQueen and Mr. Johnston, Discovery Medicine is recognized by the U.S. National Library of Medicine by including it in its MEDLINE/PubMed collection (indexed and archived). Not all medical journals are approved for this recognition by the U.S. National Library of Medicine after an in-depth evaluation process. Please see the U.S. National Library of Medicine Journal Selection here. If other biomedical journals are notable and qualified for an article entry in Wikipedia, Discovery Medicine should also be. Not sure where Mr. Johnston looked for citations of its articles and did not find any. You may search Discovery Medicine in Google Scholar for a quick look. Some citations are listed there. Overall, it looks like Ms. FisherQueen's comments (in the box above the article entry) have been there for quite some time, and as a reader of both Wikipedia and Discovery Medicine, I think Discovery Medicine (as a recognized scholarly medical journal) deserves a prompt resolution on this matter. This would be fair to this journal. Thank you. Mary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryw05 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduce myself

Hi, Fisherqueen; I found you by chance, while reading the Srobak talk page... I immediately admired your infinite patience and good manners to deal with that kind of guy. I feel glad when I find someone with your kindness and cordiality to a person who is far to behave politely (Indeed I have some problems with him in the past). I'm convinced that courtesy can't be never left behind. Even if one may be a helpful collaborator to the project. Have a nice day, girl ;) Fma12 (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

dunno if...

...you still use these User:FisherQueen/D3, User:FisherQueen/Fq-biz template, but consider removing the WikiCompany link. It is down and will likely not online again since it redirects only to a private blog now. mabdul 12:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the heads- up; I didn't realize that WikiCompany was no more. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Unhelpful advice

Stop pooping your pants! SlumDum (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please restore page

FisherQueen -

I am working on creating the page for my choir Chicago Chorale. I was not done editing the page and it was deleted before I had a chance to do so. If I did something wrong I apologize I am completely new to using wikipedia. As I understand it was deleted because there were not enough outside sources, but I did not have a chance to create those outside sources yet before the page was deleted. Here are some of the additional links I had open to add.

http://www.chicagochorale.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Proclamation.pdf http://chicagoclassicalreview.com/2011/11/chicago-chorale-soars-in-baltic-and-scandinavian-music/ http://artsandabout.com/music-classical/climbing-a-musical-mountain/ http://timeoutchicago.com/music-nightlife/opera-classical/15125717/symphony-of-oak-park-and-river-forest-with-chicago-chorale-

Please reopen my page and allow me to continue editing it. I really am very new to this and I didn't mean to do something wrong. I would really appreciate your help in this matter. Thank you. Jnmeyer (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Those sources work for me; we get a lot of articles about organizations that really aren't notable, but those sources convince me that this is an organization that Wikipedia could use an article about. All that's needed now is a rewrite so that the article reads like an encyclopedia article, with 'just the facts.' Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to respond, but I just wanted to say thank you for the help and the reconsideration, I really appreciate it! Jnmeyer (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)jnmeyer

Trans murder

Whoops, her name is Robyn Browne, not Brown. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&q=robyn+browne+murder&oq=robyn+browne+murder&aq=f&aqi=d2&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.1418.4305.0.4361.19.10.0.1.0.0.535.4375.4-6j3.9.0. Rasppeachberry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC). And she lived in the UK, not US. Sorry, I should obviously edit Wikipedia when I'm more awake! XD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasppeachberry (talk • contribs) 21:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Tipton portrait.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Tipton portrait.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shizhao (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing of National Geographic reference - Section Blanking

Hi FisherQueen Re ACMTC thanks for restoring the information on the National Geographic documentary. Unfortunately Eldamorie removed it once more on 23 April saying he/she sourced it to a blog , but what blog , and where is not provided: I have never seen that being given as a reason to remove reliably sourced information given anywhere else on Wikipedia. I also see that the IP edit on 19 April was tagged for section blanking. I suspect that all all of these entries from 11 April (when the Nat Geo show first aired) on except for Rovjar and myself, Benbullen were done by the same editor, using multiple IP’s and User names. (Sockpuppetry).

I was hoping that as an administrator who has worked on this article you might be able to find out about the source of these User Names and IP addresses? VJ Miller says on the talk page “Hi there. Myself and apparently others have been trying to make this article not so negative." Surely this is his/her POV? Since the 11th this article jumped from low numbers to being viewed 10,000 times. Thanks for your time. Benbullen (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Benbullen

I added my opinion on the talk page, and I agree that this is a case of someone trying to whitewash the article to remove mention of this documentary. But then, others seem to be working just as hard to make the article biased against the organization. I don't have the technical ability to investigate sockpuppetry (or, indeed, the technical knowledge to know what to do with the ability if I had it) but you can request an investigation by more knowledgeable people at WP:SPI. I'll keep half an eye on the article and the discussion, and once consensus is clear on the inclusion and wording of that section, it'll be easier to use admin powers (me and other admins) to keep the best version in place- I'm certain that a neutral section that discusses the documentary without using its existence to make a point is possible. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Universal Life Church

Hi FQ, I did not mean to suggest you were a vandal! Apologies. This entry is my Wikipedia experiment. I agree there was a problem with the citations, but there was a massive wipe by Thecatholicguy, some of which was cited and I (maybe wrongly) thought it was best to restore that and then go back through systematically and remove uncited statements. Cheers. -ULC4ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by ULC4me (talk • contribs) 07:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The change was a reboot to an older version, before church members started rewriting the article to be more promotional. It wasn't by Thecatholicguy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thecatholicguy was rude, combative, and rule-breaking. But he wasn't wrong about how promotional this article was. If ULC members want to edit the article, they're welcome- but only to the degree that they can write in neutral, sourced ways. I think that restoring the article to back before the ULC members started making it into an advertisement, and then rebuilding it from there, is going to be easier and more effective than taking the advertisement and trying to remove all the advertising from it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)