Hey, thanks for patrolling Equestrianism. I have no real idea why these various horse-related articles get vandalized, but your watching and reverting is much appreciated. You may want to add Cowboy to your list, that one is another target for some very annoying vandals. They are just low-traffic enough that vandalism doesn't always get caught as fast as it could. Thanks again for your help! Montanabw 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Added to my watchlist. Yee, haw. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You got that right, pardner... (grin) Montanabw 19:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Apt because = ing + ?--Fuhghettaboutit 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I just don't know how to reply to that. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I can only helplessly agree with you, and comment besides that both are clean, healthy labor which, while thankless, makes the world a slightly better place. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Clarification", ha; I love your efforts at taking this seriously! I too am shovel-proud and often must wear waders.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I added a link that I thought was pretty helpful to truck drivers - since there is a quarter million truck driver shortage in America - and it was quickly deleted. I can very much understand that all new links should be checked for accuracy since, like the guidelines state, Wikipedia is not a link farm. But my concern is this: there is an external link to a site - www.break19.org - which is a single independent driver recruiter. That site can help a truck driver find a job with just one company. The site I added - www.hiringtruckdrivers.com - works with a lot of companies and helps thousands of drivers find employment. I see it as a much more helpful resource than a site that works with one company. It wasn't added as a link to "get a free high PR link" because like Wiki is set up, they use NoFollow tags. The site I added was chosen because it's a better resource for Wikipedia users that might be truck drivers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BraveTide (talk • contribs)
Yes, after you have read the external links guideline, if you see links that don't meet that guideline, you are welcome to remove them. A resource for hiring truck drivers just isn't the kind of link that is useful at Wikipedia; this is an encyclopedia, so useful links are ones that give more information about the subject. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I only made a page with an entry about the WAR thats all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mp12166 (talk • contribs)
a member of wikipedia known as stranger or pnkrkr or somthing started this war so we'll play along —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mp12166 (talk • contribs)
I know it's summer vacation, but don't you have anything more fun to do than this? Go skateboard outside, or read a book, or something? -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked... so I hope he has an XBOX 360.--Isotope23 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't criticize, as I am not doing anything more fun with my summer vacation, either. Then again, at least I'm making myself useful instead of declaring upon Wikipedia a war consisting of three pieces of vandalism and getting my butt blocked. Come to think of it, that might be fun... I'll bet I could at least come up with funnier vandalism than this kid. Like, I could redirect Ted Haggard to Internalized homophobia and George Bush to Learning disabilities. I guess I won't bother, though. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There's probably some sort of rule about that, and there would go your shot at adminship. Although, you might become queen of the vandals, which would be kinda fun. Philippe 20:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Meh. If there's one thing I've learned about vandalism, it's that you really can't keep it going for long. Unless you have an army of sockpuppets... no, my basically lawabiding nature won't allow me to unleash an army of sockpuppets, using what I've learned here to evade detection, a rogue editor in tight black leather pants... sorry, segued into a different fantasy there. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I can criticize... I don't get a summer vacation. I knew I should have been a teacher.--Isotope23 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, don't be too hard on yourself. Not everyone can wear the tight black leather pants of a schoolteacher. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Now I have the image of my 10th grade Biology II teacher in tight leather pants in my head, she could make a paper sack look good....if you need me, I'll be in my bunk. Wildthing61476 21:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's helpful, I look almost exactly like this. As far as you know. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not. It doesn't take an administrator to respond to the kind of blatant vandalism that you're about to be blocked for, although I will need an admin to actually block you after your next attack on your little classmate. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That's adorable, how you asked if I was an administrator before vandalising my userpage. You should probably read up on how Wikipedia works before you come back and contribute again. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
He isn't a classmate, he is a kid who makes fun of me of my race and beliefs...I don't deserve his cruelty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnykid2010 (talk • contribs)
Uh-huh. And that's a good reason to come vandalise Wikipedia? Just tell his mommy on him or something. I'm not that inclined to be sympathetic, since your attack page against him made fun of my sexual orientation, which makes you just as bad as him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess the two warnings I put on your talk page, with the big red stop sign, didn't make that clear enough, but I'm not in your house, so that's the best I can do. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi - you marked an article I was drafting for speedy deletion. Its title was Charlie Owen (Guitarist). Surely there must be some flexibility in getting an article initially drafted before it gets deleted? Your advice, please. Synique 22:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure there is, but an article that doesn't assert notability- that is, an article that doesn't show any sign of being about a subject that has been covered in enough independent reliable sources to verify the information in it- those articles can be deleted immediately. I don't actually remember this specific article, but the message on your talk page indicates that's the reason I tagged it. You should carefully read the notability guidelines for musicians, and decide whether this person really does meet them. If he does, and you can explain why, supporting your reasons with reliable sources, then go to deletion review and request undeletion, and you'll be able to continue working on it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to register my disgust and surprise at having my recent modification to the page on Anglican Church Grammar School removed. FisherQueen, please explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The virtuous man (talk • contribs)
Well, your recent modification to that page was the crude but not particularly clever vandalism typical of a high school Wikipedia vandal, and Wikipedia isn't your MySpace page, where you can add whatever crude but not particularly clever nonsense that springs into your brain. Were you also confused and disappointed when the janitor erased your vandalism from the bathroom wall at school? -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created my first ever page on wiki, which i believe was a completly legitmate subject. Because the entry was only tiny and incomplete it was marked for speedy deletion. I discussed with the administrator what was missing, and extened the entry as asked to include the main things that made the entry notable. Of course the entry is still to be expanded, however for some reason you have deleted it again, without any kind of discussion first? Please can you reinstate - i thought the whole point of wiki was people working together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icerinkprincess (talk • contribs)
Have you read WP:BIO, the criteria that were linked both on the Ben Hilton article and on your talk page? That guideline might explain why so many users are marking the article for deletion as not notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
To refine my answer: Can you link to three newspaper or magazine articles about this subject? If you can, then I was certainly wrong in dismissing it as a non-notable internet phenomenon affecting a very small number of people, which would not be likely to be important a decade from now. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hia, ive read through the article as you suggested, however im not sure its fair for you to judge what is 'notable' and what isnt. The charector Ben Hilton, while not referenced in national news is referenced in local papers - I can supply references to the dates/columnists, but not internet pages with the stories on. Im a little dissapointed by your comment about the phenomenon affecting a very small number of people - id argue there are huge amounts of things on wiki that efect people numbering only in the 100's rather than 1000's. Im not sure its for you to judge what is popular culture, and what isnt? I would appreciate it if you could undelete the article therefore - but dont hesitate to make comments on the talk page. As ive said, im quite inexperienced, but i'll take on board whatever you say to improve the article, as im sure other users will too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icerinkprincess (talk • contribs)
Well, WP:BIO is the notability criteria that we are working with right now, and that's the criteria that I used to judge... all of us using the same criteria is about as 'fair' as we can be in telling the difference between what is appropriate material to put in an encyclopedia and what isn't. Yes, if paper newspapers and magazines have published articles about this topic, you can cite those as sources even if they aren't available online, as long as your citations are accurate and the sources are reliable. If you have the information and sources to show that the topic meets the WP:BIO criteria after all, you should explain your reasoning at deletion review- I'm not an admin and don't have power to undelete an article, but even if I did, I wouldn't do it based on what you've said so far, which still doesn't include an assertion of notability or any specific sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I left a note on Icerinkprincess's talk page that basically said the same thing. Sorry for fragmenting the discussion. LeeboT/C 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want a laugh, check out the message she left for the whining vandal right above her here. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess "a growing number of users" is somewhat accurate, since it went from 1 to 2 as she posted that, but at least she assumed good faith and was generally polite :) LeeboT/C 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there are a number of high school students who sincerely and honestly don't understand why what is important to them might not be important to everyone, or in what ways an encyclopedia is different from a diary. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue with that. This edit earlier today leaves the same impression. Some people are genuinely unaware of how Wikipedia works. I'm okay with that, as long as they hold off on the profanity and insults. LeeboT/C 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed but equally, just because what I posted wasnt important to you, dosnt mean it isnt important to other people. Id also ask you to not write foul or threatening comments on my talk board. I understand if the previous user said such, they are of course well out of order and you have done well to edit that page. However im only trying to post a good first page, and i feel like im being bullied, even though im just trying to right a polite article. I apprecaite the work you do as it important wiki isnt a joke, but you could easily comment on my talk page with advice rather than deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icerinkprincess (talk • contribs)
I don't think I threatened you on your talk page, did I? Certainly what I said was a bit crude; it was a rephrasing of the vandalism your new ally had added to Wikipedia, and advice that he might not be the best ally to choose, if you want to avoid having other users think badly of you. It wouldn't be very nice of me to tag your article for deletion and not tell you about it, so I don't think I was wrong in putting the standard deletion notice on your talk page, either. I could even tell you where to go to complain about me, if you like, but I strongly recommend that you don't, since what I'm doing is a pretty standard Wikipedia activity, and you aren't likely to get the results that you hope for.-FisherQueen (Talk) 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I looked to see if I could find any reliable sources for the person you wanted to add to Wikipedia, and googling "Ben Hilton" and "Facebook" together yielded a surprising 0 hits. Even the information I remember in the article, about an online movement of a few hundred people to persuade this person to get a Facebook page- if that were true, there would be some hits for his name and facebook together. I didn't think that what you described was enough to meet the notability criteria before, but now I find that there isn't any evidence to even support the truth of what was in the article. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
AGAIN PLEASE DO NOT POST FOUL AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE ON MY PAGE. I removed your post, and asked you not to write that sort of thing. I have been polite, and while I have disagreed with your point of view, i think it is perfectly reasonable to ask you not to use phrases such as the one you did on my talk page. I do not beleive that saying that sort of thing is standard wiki practice at all, and i find it offensive that after removing those words, you insist on resuing them. Regarding the Ben Hilton aspect, it does not have to get google hits to prove it is real. As I have said before, I admit it is no world wide phenomomen, and I am still learning. Because you have never heard of it, or it is unlikley to effect you ever, does not mean it has no significance or notablility to others. I believe Wiki is a community, and evolving encyclopida, not a place where an individual can catagorically say what is and what is not allowed on. It is part of a more local aspect, and is widely known in my area/cohort. Indeed, if you look on Facebook itself you will find a group with over 1000 members included. Try looking on there, before you suggest im lying, or making something up. I have been polite, and eager to learn. You have been a bully. I will not post about the Ben Hilton charector if it is so important to you, however I ask you not to post on my talk page. I believe it best if we do not communicate any further as I have no wish to waste any more time on a person like you. I will likewise endevour not to waste your time by posting on your page. Im not surprised after this experience with you writing that sort of foul language that so many people seem to be complaining about you here.
The people complaining here tend to be ignorant of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or vandals. FisherQueen has done nothing inappropriate (and I don't think FQ even commented on your page since your first request not to be spoken to). We have guidelines for a reason, and we have pointed you to them. If you can meet them, take your issue to deletion review. LeeboT/C 19:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess ou are sort of right Leebo, im just really exasperated. The other guys complaining do appear to be vandals as you say, and i do understand my newbie status to posting dosnt help me - i.e. i should have written a more in depth article in the first place stating the orogin of the Ben Hilton charector/where youd see him etc. I just feel like ive been bullied by her, in particular by her posting the stuff about making love to animals, then when i removed it and asked her not to post it again, she reposted it deliberatly to annoy. Thanks for trying to be impartial tho Leebo.
I don't think FQ was trying to be malicious by referencing "making love to animals" (as you gently put it). It's an example of the contributions of the user who you were asking to help you argue with FQ. I understand how you feel (if you look through the archives of my talk pages, I've had many such discussions with exasperated newbies). I do the same tasks, reviewing new articles, so trust me when I say that the notability guidelinesfor biographies are what new article watchers go by, not their own biases. Ben may be a local notable figure, and we're happy to consider the article once you provide links to sources that talk about him. Without those sources, the article is unverifiable, so you have to understand it from our perspective when we look at hundreds of new articles each day. LeeboT/C 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a few customs at Wikipedia that will help you feel less like a newbie. One of them is signing your posts- you can do that by typing four tildes (~~~~.) Another, as I seem to have outraged you by posting on your talk page, is to put old comments into an archive instead of just deleting them from the talk page. And another is, when someone says that your article doesn't meet a specific policy, explaining simply and clearly, using evidence, why it does. You'd said an awful lot today on this page, but one thing you haven't said is what part of WP:BIO Ben Hilton meets, and what specific sources you have that will show that. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Monthly Challenge: June Stub Review! Take a moment and sift through the roughly 3,600 Stub-class LGBT articles. Are they still stubs? If not, make an assessment change. Even better, do you see anything you can add/edit to increase the rating? Let's see if the project can lower the number of stubs down below 3,000!
Project News
WP:LGBT Exceeds 200 Members!!
Two editors have been selected by project members as co-coordinators. Their duties are still a bit unclear, but having a few more janitors around the project will help keep us running smoothly. Please feel free to message Fireplace or SatyrTN if you have any project questions or concerns.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, just ask Dev920. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let her know.
Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC).
SatyrBot 16:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read our No personal attacks policy. This posting[1] is completely inappropriate and is the sort of thing that will lead to a block. If you have a criticism do it without calling people a "terrible person" or a "fucking cunt". If you need insults to make your point, perhaps you need to rethink your position. (H) 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
May I request that you reread my message to Yamla? I think that you'll find, on closer reading, that the sarcasm and humor come through pretty clearly, but if Yamla doesn't get the joke, I will of course apologize to her. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, oops. May I suggest the use of <sarcasm> tags in the future? I will revert my removal of that comment. Sorry about that, I actually realized it was probably sarcasm and was about to ask about that when you posted here. (H) 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No harm, no foul. I would never be mean to another editor, not even a vandal. I'm a very, very nice person. Ask the seventh grader who wrote 'bitch' on my blackboard; he'll tell you how nice I am. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I bet the vandals who point out how many users (vandals) complain about FQ were ready to eat this one up... I'm sure they'll be disappointed. LeeboT/C 16:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I am always polite to vandals, although I may tug on their chains occasionally. If I ever get blocked, it won't be for personal attacks; it'll be because I snapped and started adding lengthy hostile personal commentaries to George Bush and James Dobson. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
If you get a chance, do let me know on my talk page. I want to witness that :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, how much is your (evidently already questionable) reputation worth to you? Philippe 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd do it for $5000. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
<arbitrary outdent>
You obviously think church work pays more than it does. If I had $5G, I certainly wouldn't be sitting here right now. Can you say "hello Circuit City..."? Philippe 03:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
"Hello, Circuit Shi..." no, I guess I can't. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support your becoming an admin. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! ...even though I got in trouble for making personal attacks just today? :) -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I would also support you in that... and if I had any clout at all, I'd nominate you myself. Philippe 03:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I might be just about ready to give it another shot... except that I'll be leaving town for a few weeks starting Sunday, and won't be near an internet connection to answer any questions, which might be a problem. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Definitely put in for it when you get back. I'd be willing to co-nom.--Isotope23 13:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to give it another go, and though it doesn't seem wise to do it when I won't be around, I'll be back at the end of June and ready to go for it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
How can people be considering FQ for admin? While she does indeed do good work with certain vandals, she is also bullying to newcomers, and rude to others - certainly NOT admin material. Ofcourse it is in a vandals nature to be rude, however FQ does not rise above this, and persues personal vendettas. Im sure one day she will be suitable when she learns, but NOT yet.
Make sure you register an account before expressing your opinion in the RfA. LeeboT/C 11:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I actually had a similar problem with FQ, she was initially intimidating to me when I posted my first ever piece, but while she was quite 'hard' in her communication, she did know what she was talking about, and maybe just needed a more softy softly approach, rather than assuming everyone was a vandal. If she can be a bit more patient with inexperienced guys like me I bet she'd be good at admin. Icerinkprincess 12:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I had a similar negative experience with FisherQueen. I didn't find her approach very constructive and even bordering unhelpful about a new article I was writing - had I not been more determined I would have just upped and left. I think her intentions are probably good but sharp edges need rounding. ParkerJones2007 17:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry just edited again as I accidentally interuppted Leebo's post with mine - put it right now! And look I learned how to do the four tilda thing! Icerinkprincess 12:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Definitely go for it FisherQueen (and I'd be happy to nom you again). Majorly (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I know you have been dealing with him lately, so could I possibly get your comment at this ANI discussion? Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Harry Potter and the deathly hollows comes out in 32 days!
and the movie in 24 days!
I'm excited, I'm sure you are tooRockinfreakapotomi 14:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I am most excited about the book... I am convinced that Snape will prove to be the true hero of the series, and would like to be proved right. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree! By the way, The Principle let me snag the two old imac G3's that were down on the first floor (the green ones) like the one in your room. I'm going to try and fix them up and get them to work so hopefully they can be utilized.Rockinfreakapotomi 14:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to be around for a bit, would you like to have a go at getting the Mop and bucket? I'm more than willing to nominate you if you would like... WjBscribe 15:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it's been a while since I last offered my services to the community, and I'm ready for another go. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Lovely - I'll write you a nomination, you can think about those joyous questions... WjBscribe 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Awesome! I tried that out and CAT:CSD has been held mightily in check since then! (well, not quite, but it's getting there :]) LeeboT/C 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
So i'm not allowed to create pages about my myself and how great I am at Solitaire... then what the hell is Wikipedia for? Tokolosi1 15:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's an encyclopedia. You could help us build it if you like. Or if you're more into creating a page about yourself and how great you are at Solitaire, MySpace might suit your needs perfectly. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, i'm sorry. I forgot to mention i'm not Emo. Haha, i've tried it before. None of my friends had it back then so I just left it alone. For a Middle School teacher, you're pretty cool *Giggle*
I do not disagree; although I was erring on the side of caution in AfDing it, I do think it needed deletin' in a bad way. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear a recent changes patroller,
I am disappointed. The informational and historical project was deleted from "free" encyclopedia. This non-commercial information and web-site about Ali Sarmini, his artwork and Quneitra got a support of the officials of Syria. The Syrian Ministry of culture after creation of site www.arabiansymbol.com propound organisation of international exhibition of this artwork. I am disappointed. Your removing I induce consider as incorrectly in law. It's affect a right freedom of information and emotionals of many arabian. Say again - it's a national cultural value of all arabian. Wikipedia have an information of Mona Lisa and other cultural values. How I can understand your removing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali Sarmini (talk • contribs)
Did you read the link left on your talk page, to our conflict of interest guidelines? It isn't appropriate for you to create an article about yourself; if you truly are a notable artist, then someone else will recognize your importance and write about you. We do have an article about the Mona Lisa, but that article was not written by the artist who painted her. That article also has lots of sources verifying the information and the importance of the painting, which your article didn't have. Please be careful about claiming that deletion is 'incorrect in law.' There is no international right to create articles on a privately run web site, and Wikipedia prohibits even implied threats of legal action. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear mister, we are not "an artist" himself. We are the Russian company, BMG Co.,Ltd , who made this website. This website was created for informative and educational purposes and is dedicated to the three unique paintings and artist himself. It's not a commercial project or something. All the information we have got on the website is fully reliable. We do not need to put any references on our website beacause we gathered information from many private sources. Why we cannot put the information about artist, his works and some other themes (like middle-east conflicts) here in Wikipedia? If you would like, we can register another name in your system not to seem it like "self-PR". For sure, you can make WHOIS operation on our site and see who is domain owner and compare with the owner of our main business site bmg-rus.com (sorry, only in russian). Thank you for your attention. --Ali Sarmini 21:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are not the artist or someone closely associated with the artist, then the only remaining problem is showing the artist's notability. Read the notability guidelines carefully, and make sure that the artist meets them. If he does, then take your reliable sources to deletion review and request that the article be undeleted. Allow me to point out that I am not an administrator, and did not delete this article- in fact, I'm not even the one who tagged this article for deletion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I'm not sure I want to undelete the article. Because no one asked a question before delete or edit. I am sure, my doings weren't contradictory to wikipedia rules. I agree that the artist is not popular and famous around the world, but he is famous in Syria and other Middle East countries. And now he is going to be famous around the world. And I do not mean the article in wikipedia. --Ali Sarmini 21:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine; you don't have to request undeletion if you don't want to, or if you don't have the necessary sources. If he truly is notable, someone else will create an article about him eventually. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to back up what FisherQueen said, you do need to put references in. That you "gathered information from many private sources" is not sufficient. Wikipedia requires all submissions to be verifiable from reliable, external sources that anyone else can check for accuracy. Otherwise, your submissions are original research. Additionally, it would appear that you are admitting to being a role account here. Wikipedia has a "one person per account" policy. I apologize if I misread, but it would appear you are stating above that multiple people are involved here (evidenced by the usage of the word "we").--Isotope23 16:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
We cannot put the references on such people as artist himself, journalists for arabian countries, historians for middle east conflicts and other. And we do not publicating disputable articles. That is why we put our site as reference. What do you want people to check? Artist's biography couldn't be found anywhere in Internet, the same about paintings we are describing. We just want to share the knowledge of Ali Sarmini`s creative, his really unique works and reasons, why they came out with the people. And the website which was deleted as reference was created for informative and educational purposes and everyone who interested in artist's creative is free to get some more information from there. That is why our website could be corresponded as original source and I think it has a right to be true. Also, let me explain why I'm always using "WE". I`m the owner of the company, and the website was created by the team. And all the information we have is a teamwork. And you can trust me, we did a lot of work. We are not something like spammers, you know. I don`t think we want to make more than 1-2 articles and some additions in already existing articles, like Quneitra. By the way, for those who don't know what website we are talking about - here. --Ali Sarmini 21:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
And FisherQueen can easily be excused for believing the account registered as User:Ali Sarmini was the actual individual Ali Sarmini. LeeboT/C 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Its ok. It wasn`t a good idea to register as an artist. I got it too late. --Ali Sarmini 21:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, nothing. The article is about a subject that does not meet the notability guidelines, so it's going to be deleted, and there isn't really anything either of us can do about it. Go, enjoy writing your games and playing them, and sharing them with others, and some day, if the game becomes well known and widely played, someone will create an article about it. Don't let it bother you; most of us aren't notable.-FisherQueen (Talk) 16:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen, I got your note and your message is well taken. I won't add any more links until I have updated articles. Regards, Westwind2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind2 (talk • contribs)
Cool- I'll leave the standard welcome message to give you some pointers about other ways to help, and welcome to Wiki! -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you check out our sites? I'm just curious because I get the feeling that no one has, they just feel like deleting this page. I'm not necessarily saying that you are doing this, I'm just saying that I cannot understand why we are not notable. No one else at our age is as advanced as we are. If you would look at Our Website I'm sure you would understand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethaltohistorian (talk • contribs)
I looked at your web site, but I don't see a section that lists press clippings- newspapers, magazines, and other significant sources that have written about you. I don't doubt that you're doing something worthy and cool, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you do find yourselves having a Wikipedia article written about you some day, but in addition to the lack of reliable sources to verify that you meet the guideline, you also appear to be in violation of our conflict of interest guideline, which asks that no one write an article about themselves or their business. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for people who have their articles deleted to insult the folks who tag the articles as nerds with no life, but the people who do that are generally quite stupid, and you strike me as smarter than that. As a teenaged filmmaker, you know what it is to give your time to something you think is important, even if other people think you're wasting your time, so you would never insult someone else trying to create something good- you're trying to make a movie, I'm trying to help write an encyclopedia. Do you want to help write an encyclopedia? We have lots of film articles that could use someone to research and improve them. Or are you only interested in promoting yourself? Also, remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~)-FisherQueen (Talk) 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to insult you. I am just curious how people like you find new articles so fast. By the way, one of our actors has a Wikipedia, and it even has our movie listed on it. So if our movie is notable enough to be listed on his page, why can it not be a page of its own?Bethaltohistorian 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)bethaltohistorian
It's hard for me to answer the question about another article without seeing it; can you provide a link to it? You can link to an article by putting it in double brackets like this [[Insert title here]]. As to how I find articles so quickly... well, I wouldn't want to give away all my secrets, but if you stick around as an editor of articles that aren't about you, you'll be sure to find out. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, there was a link to his article on ours, but you must not have looked close enough. I certainly wouldn't want to give it to you now or you might delete his as well. He wouldn't be very happy with me if that happened.Bethaltohistorian 17:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)bethaltohistorian
Hey, thanks, Isotope23! It's good to have friends with admin tools. I'm just googling to see if that person meets WP:BIO; he has at least been in some movies, but it looks like mostly in extremely minor roles. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
There was a previous AFD of this individual, thought the article was different enough that a speedy deletion per db-repost wouldn't apply. This new article still doesn't meet the biographical article guidelines though and looks like a conflict of interest too. Don't worry, you will most likely have your wings to see deleted content soon enough!--Isotope23 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I figured that if nobody looked it up for me, I'd very likely be able to see it myself, come July 3. I did send it off to AfD, by the way. And, for my young filmmaking friend- his notability or lack thereof doesn't really have anything to do with the notability or lack thereof of your company. Even if his article gets deleted again, yours can still be easily undeleted once you find multiple, independent, nontrivial sources writing about your company. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The prod and my prod2 have been removed from the above article. I'll watch and see what you do. Cheers! --Stormbay 18:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Off to Articles for Deletion it goes; feel free to weigh in on the discussion there, if you like. Wouldn't life be easier if they'd just leave the prods on? -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I try to be helpful if there is an accompanying effort to save the article. I have weighed in on the page. --Stormbay 21:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I most certainly did not forge a signature! A friend of mine wrote that comment and formatted it in a strange way that look unprofessional. I simply edited it because I do not believe that this is a time for us to look stupid. If you do not believe me, check the edit history of the page or contact him at MattStemmley@anpslive.com. Please do not throw around false accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethaltohistorian (talk • contribs)
Ah, I see that you are correct. I apologize for the accusation. Will you apologize for calling the rules that keep you from using Wikipedia to advertise yourself 'Orwellian opression?' -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Why aren't they Orwellian oppression? In 1984, when the party didn't want to let a certain bit of information get out, they erased it as if it had never existed. Sounds terribly familiar. By the way, it's not advertising. Advertising involves trying to sell a product. Why is it so bad to want to let people know something. We certainly are not trying to sell them anything. But if they go looking for us, we want them to be able to find us. You know that almost anything you type into Google, the first thing to pop up is a Wikipedia article?Bethaltohistorian 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Bethaltohistorian
Yes, but we are not erasing information; we're distributing it. Wikipedia isn't the government, and it doesn't control the media; it's just one encyclopedia, publishing information that has already been verified by reliable sources. Not everything needs to be in an encyclopedia. Would you expect Encyclopedia Brittanica to publish an article about you? Would you be angry if they didn't? Wikipedia may be online, and user-created, but it's still a real encyclopedia. Since there's no Wikipedia article about your company, the first Google hit will be your own web page, and isn't that where you want them to go, anyway?
Anyway, many, many companies have tried what you're trying now. If we didn't have our notability criteria, we'd stop being an encyclopedia that anyone could use, and turn into MySpace, where anyone can create an article about themselves. Would the New York Times be more reliable if it allowed President Bush to write the articles about himself instead of checking the facts for themselves? It would not. Seriously, you appear not to fully understand what Wikipedia is, and you're trying to use it as MySpace. That's not what we are. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
MySpace is a social networking site that allows people to talk to one another and gossip. Wikipedia is purely information. That is all we want to put out--information. Anyway, no one really believes that Wikipedia is reliable, so I guess it does not matter. There isn't a single high school or university in the United States that allow students to use Wikipedia for research. I guess that all it really is is a game for people to sit an play around, pretending that they know everything. Thanks for all of the headaches. Maybe I will go and write an article about the deletion of articles and how people just like to be bullies.Bethaltohistorian 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't an appropriate source for high schools or universities because it's an encyclopedia; you should be reading secondary sources, books and magazines, for your research, not an encyclopedia. Recent studies show that Wikipedia is as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica in its top-tier articles, and we're very proud of our reliability; policies like the one that keeps you from advertising your company are how we stay so reliable. You are approximately the five hundredth person to call me a 'bully' for enforcing the rules, and it gets funnier every time. In fact, you have, today, gone through almost every one of the behaviors that we see hundreds of times every day from people who are mad because they really can't create articles about themselves. Go on, call me a Nazi and threaten to sue me; those are the only two lines you've missed. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No, what's funny is that you care so much about something that does not concern you. I am not going to threaten to sue you because that would be nonsense. I don't know who you are or where you are from and you haven't hurt me physically or financially. You just have wasted my time, and I can't sue you for that. So go ahead, sit at your computer 24/7 and delete history in the making. When our names are in the big media and we are quote 'notable' I wonder who will be laughing?Bethaltohistorian 23:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
When your names are in the big media, you will be notable, and should have an article on Wikipedia- but you still shouldn't write it yourselves. If I see an article in Entertainment Weekly about you and still remember the name, I might write it myself- that would make me laugh. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It's fairly tough to get listed on IMDB. I daresay that if you are notable enough to be listed there, then you should also have a Wikipedia article.Bethaltohistorian 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Really? I thought it was pretty easy for an actor to be listed on IMDB. It's user-created, not created by an editorial board, if I understand it correctly. I've seen a fair number of movie extras come through the deletion discussions using the same arguments, but those who didn't also have reliable, independent sources all got deleted. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can't; I've never made a movie. But if you're talking about an undistributed movie made by high school students, I can see how that would be more difficult than getting a page listed when you've been a speaking extra on one or two movies that were shown in theatres. Now, as fun as this has been, believe it or not, I actually do have a life, and am off to spend the evening with friends. Please believe that, despite this amusing little exchange, I have the utmost respect for you and your friends; making a movie is a huge endeavor, and I don't think I could have done it when I was in school. If you continue in your efforts, one of these days, you'll be the one chuckling at this conversation. Will you remember to thank me when you win your first Independent Spirit Awards, for inspiring you to greatness? -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey
sorry i deleted that by accident, i have added references - is it ok now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by And what (talk • contribs)
Much better. I hope there's no offense- I can see now that this is a notable business, but we get a lot of folks who want to advertise their little non-notable businesses, so we are pretty assertive about sourcing on company articles. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
i think it s encyclopedic. please write talk page for consensus--Qwl 22:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect. It is not encyclopedic to, in Kurdistan Workers Party, make the word 'murderers' unusually large and centered on its own line, or in bold type, in order to 'accent' it, or to make a point about footnote 15. What it is, is plain, simple vandalism. There is no need to seek consensus, because, frankly, it is very clear that you are in violation both of WP:3RR and WP:NPOV. Your only choices are: Stop, and try to help write a neutral encyclopedia article; Stop, leave the article alone, and go edit Puppies or Cheese until you're feeling better; or be blocked. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
/me goes to watchlist Puppies and Cheese. - Philippe | Talk 00:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, while Cheese is very well developed, Puppy actually could use some work. If Qwl takes my advice, he could make himself very useful there. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Note my correct use of the semicolon in the above comment, which I think shows erudition and attention to detail. Note also that I am not making any judgments about the validity or invalidity of footnote 15; I am not able to make such judgments, as the footnoted source is in Turkish. The aggrieved editor may be right, or wrong, but either way, he is incivil, and he's makin' me mad. And he won't like me when I'm mad. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Ya'll know I just had to preview a page to see that, right? :-P - Philippe | Talk 01:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You didn't find it, did you? I can't even remember the name of the article any more, but whatever it was, it's long gone, I think. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
