Has a checkuser ever been done to try to grab the underlying IP of that problem? Ariel♥Gold 11:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to not have a stable IP, though someone with 133ter skillz than I might be able to come up with something; I don't think a checkuser has ever been done to see if it's using a specific IP range. Might be worth a try. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at contribs, he's been blocked at several pretty widely varying IPs. I'm not sure what more can be done, other than continuing to undo his disruptions and waiting for him to grow up, or walking the streets of Leeds (which is where he's editing from) with a picture of his favorite actor and waiting for him to come and try to touch it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hrmm, I just took a tour through suspected and confirmed categories, and the IP range does appear large. But then I took a look:
Now, granted, I'm no checkuser expert, and obviously this is just using whois tools, but it seems to me there should be some way to deal with it, as the point of origin appears to be the same in every single IP (known) in the categories. Food for thought, I guess. Ariel♥Gold 12:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm struggling with how to say this publicly; I would not recommend a rangeblock. I could go into detail, but not here.--Isotope23talk 13:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd guess any range block would affect multiple innocent users, so that's most likely not something that's possible. I just found it interesting that they all resolve the the same ISP. However, I also realize that you, and Queen, and others are significantly more familiar with range blocks (and of course, blocking in general) than I am. I just thought the info might be of some help, some way. If it isn't, that's okay, there are enough of us to spot it, and the patterns are unmistakable, so ~*shrug*~ Ariel♥Gold 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If you have an idea that might work, I'd love to hear it. You could try the strategy of creating a subpage and deleting it, so only an admin can read it. Ooo, secret messages. I'm good at language and policy, but very weak in coding and tech stuff, and this area leaves me kind of useless. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Or, you could just set up a Wikipedia only gmail account :) I know that you philosophically have a problem with the email function, but it's been my experience that sometime there are things that can be said more easily off the record. Of course now I've built this up enough that whatever I have to say could only be a disappointment.--Isotope23talk 14:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
...and to sweeten the deal, with an email address you can subscribe to the unblock mailing list. Even if you do very little unblocking, subscription usually provides a couple real gems every week.--Isotope23talk 14:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. There's an idea. A pretty good idea, in fact. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. I may live to regret it, but I have finally added a wiki-enabled email account to my Wikipedia experience. I'm going to get hate mail, aren't I? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
~*Rushes off to send Queen emails!*~ Ariel♥Gold 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I reserve the right to ignore any and all emails; I still believe strongly that Wikipedia business should be conducted on wikipedia. Also, I can't promise to remember that I have it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hee hee, I agree Wiki stuff should be done here. And you can ignore my email if you want to... ~*Sniffle*~ it's okay... I won't mind... ~*sob*~ (Just kidding, all I sent was some extra security info you may or may not have known) Ariel♥Gold 15:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Good way to deal with it. I use mine to have completely off topic conversations with WLU, talk WP:BEANS stuff where publicly stating things may not be the best route, go through unblock emails, and yes get hate mail occasionally...--Isotope23talk 15:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you do a fair amount of article tagging, so I thought I'd mention a tool I wrote to help do this. It's based off of Twinkle, which I know you're already running, and adds a "tag" tab at the top of pages in the article space that allows you to easily add a variety of maintenance templates. It's called Friendly (WP:Friendly), and since you've already had Twinkle experience, installing and using it would be a snap. I'd love it if you could give it a try and hopefully it'll help make your job a bit easier. Thanks! --Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a try; it does look like tools I would use. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm so glad you like it! Feel free to make suggestions for improvement or new features altogether on the project talk page. Thanks so much! --Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Given what happened with us tagging the same article at the same time earlier, I've implemented basic template checking in Friendly's tag feature! At the moment it only checks for the same tag that it's adding (case insensitive). For instance, if {{pov}} is already on a page, Friendly won't see it because {{npov}} is what it's checking for. I could implement checking for synonyms by simply programming a list of them in the script, but I don't know of a good way to find, for instance, all of the synonyms of {{pov}}. Do you? --Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 19:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Want to add anything before I "publish" this (and this is an open invite to any of the usual suspects here)?--Isotope23talk 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and fixed a minor spelling error in the PDTtW section, fyi. --Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What a succinct and useful addition to the canon. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go tag thirty high schools for deletion. I've never thought that there's any reason the encyclopedia needs so many articles about high schools. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's funny you should say that because that was completely one of the behaviors I was thinking of when I wrote this. I was once upon a time guilty of tilting at windmills at elementary school AFDs... fortunately I realized it was a losing battle and walked away with my sanity intact.--Isotope23talk 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
That was a great article that you just deleted for now reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebrpare (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see the sources that would show that this meets the notability criteria. If you can provide me with links to three magazine or newspaper articles on the subject of "midgitsu," I would be happy to undelete it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen, I saw your name on the WikiProject Cincinnati as I'm trolling around with a somewhat unusual request. I'm working on the article Sumatran Rhinoceros, hoping to eventually get the article to Featured Article status. Because the Sumatran Rhinoceros is extremely endangered there are very few available photos (that is to say, one photo). The Cincinnati Zoo has the only Sumatran Rhinos in America, so I wondered if you possibly had photos of them (or perhaps make occasional zoo trips yourself?) If you could help I would be deeply grateful and would certainly owe you a term of indentured servitude. --JayHenry 06:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any photos, but I have visited the rhinos a fair number of times; I'll try to remember to get some Sumatran rhino shots the next time I'm at the zoo. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be forever in your debt! Thanks! It's so sad, only a few hundred of those little rhinos left. --JayHenry 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
They're one of the reasons I like my zoo, but not the only one. Cincinnati rocks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You know, I was trying to think of something interesting to do on my upcoming day off... haven't actually been for a mosey around the zoo in a while. Maybe I'll use this assignment as an excuse to go visit the mouse deer and the okapi. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is probably the nicest zoo I've ever been to, and Cincy is a really nice city... as much as it kills be to say anything nice about Ohio. In my mind I'll just justify it by pretending Kentucky annexed the city. Ever get down around Lexington? I've always liked that town too.--Isotope23talk 17:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Kelley's Island is cool too. --But|seriously|folks 04:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The article that the students of NRHS wrote about Dr.Minkoff was deleted unfairly. It had 3 sources, 2 of which were internet sources and the last of which was taken directly from Dr.Minkoff himself. We aren't slandering him in any way in fact, this is more of a tribute to him being such a great techer to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piersandtrogdor (talk • contribs)
Did I say you were slandering him? No. I said he wasn't notable. And he isn't. A secondary school teacher is not usually notable; lots of good people exist, but most of them are not profiled in major encyclopedias. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm fast, I'm smart, and I'm pretty. As far as any of you know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
And modest to boot. The amount and quality of work you do are certainly an inspiration. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 21:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Many times during my life, I've had reason to pause and be thankful for my high school touch-typing teacher. Most useful skill I learned in school, I think. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I am so so sorry for all the Personal Insults[edit]
You are not a foreigner concerning Greek subjects and you were right to use a two second google search in English, and right to be insulted and seeing as you are not a foreigner thus correct to demand an appology, as you are not a foreigner to Greek subjects, you are correct - a wild and insulting idea I will end by telling you etsi einai zoi, Ellines eimaste panda anipomoni ala mono milostas logika tha hataferes na tous pises. Reaper7 13:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"such has life, we Greeks are always impatient but only by talking logically you would have succeeded [or you will succeed -see note] in convincing them." (translation requested at WT:GREECE). NikoSilver 14:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Note:
tha katafereis = "you will succeed"
tha katafernes = " you would have succeeded"
tha hataferes = not correct, could translate as: "you will [h]succeeded once"
I felt that I was logical and reasonable. I clearly am not familiar with this person, which is why the responsibility was on you, the person creating the article, to make it clear how he was important, and to provide the relevant sources, as is required of all Wikipedia articles. When I couldn't verify his importance, I used the {prod} tag, the simplest and lowest-confrontation tag, to tag it for deletion- the tag said clearly that you had five days to add the sources that were needed, and that if you removed the tag without satisfactorily showing the notability of the person, it would be sent on to AfD. You ignored that, and removed the tag without any explanation or sources. In that, the article looked exactly like hundreds of articles I see every day, posted by people about themselves or their friends, promoting people who are not notable. This person was not, but given the information I had, I had absolutely no way of knowing that. You had the information that would have made it clear, but you chose not to provide it. Then you insulted me by claiming that I was bigoted against people who are not from my country, and in your 'apology,' you do not in any way apologize for insulting me, and instead pretend that I felt insulted that you'd accused me of not being Greek. I am not Greek. I am also not a bigot. You have not withdrawn the insult you made, but have simply insulted me again, by accusing me of behaving in a way that was prejudiced and unreasonable. Your 'apology' is clearly nothing but sarcasm. I will not bother to invite you again to apologize; please, if you need an admin's assistance in the future, do not look to me to provide it.
Hey FisherQueen, I am positive Reaper7 doesn't know how all this works and took it too personally. Don't make the same mistake he did; after all he just [admittedly quite graphically] highlighted you couldn't have established non-notability (which is true, but still it doesn't deprive you of the right to contest it). Allow me to explain to him, will you? NikoSilver 18:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
If you like. I'm not planning on making him any further part of my life; I don't have any interest in feuding. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You are all fascist sympathizers who get cranky and throw tantrums whenever you don't get your way and feel you have a right to censor and moderate peoples participation in Wikipedia. People of different beliefs deserve their right to speak their minds, because we are not all subservient and respectful towards authority because we do not believe in hierarchy or authority but the content of a persons character and their conduct. Stop deleting peoples pages, and destroying their opinions. You people are involved in the occult. The conspiracy will be hunted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.10.101 (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! It's been days since some anonymous editor left a context-free comment accusing me of conspiracy and occultism without making it at all clear what they were talking about. As a reply, if you are correct that I am an occultist, then I am putting a hex on your entire family. However, if you are in error and I'm actually a Methodist, then obviously I won't be able to hex you. Have a nice day! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for evaluating my unblock request. Let me defend myself, please. First I'd like you to consider "in dubio pro reo" as you admit yourself that there is no overwhelming evidence that I am guilty of the accused sock puppetry. Anyway, I have been anonymously editing the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia and also "Simple English" Wikipedia verifiable (for me) at least since 2005. I am not a newbie, just because I felt forced to create an account a few days ago. I only contribute occasionally but yes I am undeniably familiar with Wikipedia. Further, simply put, I am not technically stupid albeit potentially stubborn but that's not the same. I have no problem in finding information, following hints and figuring out how things work. I am actually so aware of some policies because they were falsely hold against me. Please, this is all well documented in my contribution history. What is so difficult in finding the administrators' noticeboard? What does it prove to find it? It proves I am not dense, not more, not less. Also, please, check what I have written on my talk page. There is no coincidence regarding my account name. I picked it on purpose expressing sarcasm as I was repeatedly accused of being Sarenne. Thank your for your attention, --217.87.59.247 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered just creating a new username that is not designed to make others angry, and making useful contributions without continuing any content disputes that you're currently involved in? If you are a useful and nondisruptive contributor, then your fresh start won't even be noticed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw the above suggestion. Your recent IP contribution, in which you reveal the real names of Wikipedia editors, makes it clear that you are only here to disrupt the encyclopedia. Your best course of action is to remove Wikipedia from your bookmarks, turn off the computer, and go read a guide to right behavior within your chosen spiritual path. May I recommend the writings of the Desert Fathers? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow you're kind of a jerk. Well maybe, not so much of a jerk, but I do think people have a right to voice the opinions. You aslo deleted my Sensei battle page, which was an actual sport that our school plays. And I just think you tried it and were terrible. Eh. Leave a lame excuse under this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinWW (talk • contribs)
I don't need to leave a lame excuse. You already know why the article is deleted. Unless, of course, you don't know what an encyclopedia is, in which case you probably should not be attempting to write for one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the recent delete of User talk:NotSarenne because it showed some real life names of Wikipedia contributors. This change and this one also shows the same names being added by the IP user. Is it possible to purge that from the history? Fnagaton 22:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It's done. I hope she doesn't continue adding real names; it's not particularly difficult to delete them, but it's something of an annoyance. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. I have added a link to the version of this talk page showing the request to remove to this page User:Fnagaton/SarenneSockPuppetReport for evidence if in the future Sarenne decides to come back a third time. I hope that is OK? Fnagaton 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. The deleted edits still exist, and are viewable by admins; they just can't be seen by anyone else. I don't think that any admins will be using the information to show up at your house or call you on the phone... unless they just think you're cute. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi i just wanted you to know i understand what you mean and i guess that is the best way of resolve afd discussions. But everyone has the right to their opinion. Have a nice evening.--Zingostar 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You do have the right to your opinion... I think that FQ is just trying to point out that adding opinions that may be discounted because they are not supported with a reason may not be the best use of time. Taking the time to add some reasoning reduces the futility level of what you are doing.--Isotope23talk 15:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a right to hold the opinion that clouds are made of cotton candy and float six feet above the ground. But holding that opinion doesn't mean that I can pluck cotton candy from the sky. Your idea that AfD is a vote, isn't so much an 'opinion,' as a 'wrong fact.' You are welcome to continue being wrong, but I've always found that learning more and being right is, in the long run, more satisfying. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm, clouds. Once upon a time, when I was in 7th grade, a girl in my science class legitimately asked the teacher if it was possible to walk on clouds. I've always admired the way he didn't laugh out loud at her question. That took some serious self-control.--Isotope23talk 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if you frequent the Village Pump, but you may have heard that starting November 9th, anon IPs will be able to create new articles. I ... I don't know how people came to this decision, unless everyone involved has no idea what the firehose of crap is like. Anyway, now's a good time to seek out other conscientious editors and nominate them for adminship. I think all the people I interact with now are admins (ooh, a cabal), but you seem a lot more involved than I do.
Seriously, though, what the hell. Friday's going to be a very interesting day. Oy. -- Merope 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Holy crap, what? This is going to be interesting. I need to find the discussions for this... LeeboT/C 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, how do I say this and retain a modicum of civility? Who was the individual why advanced that idea as a way to further the goals of the encyclopedia? One of the biggest problems with Wikipedia in my opinion is that organizationally it is promoting the idea of getting to another Million Milestone, without going back and cleaning up the preponderance of crap articles the last milestone was built on. I guess all I can say about this is that I'm assuming that Hanlon's razor is alive and well here.--Isotope23talk 17:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I can hardly wait..(sarcasm). Wikidudeman(talk) 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. I'm not so sure this will be a deluge out the gate, but I guarantee a lot more junk will fall through the cracks given a month or two.--Isotope23talk 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
One editor I think would be a good admin is User:ArielGold, but she says she isn't ready for RfA yet, and I respect that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed she has turned down a nom offer... otherwise I would have already offered. She's on my shortlist of about 5 editors I've been watching for a near future RFA.--Isotope23talk 17:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Since I have experienced taking RfA too early, I do understand why a person might want to wait until she's certain that she's ready. And of course, User:ArielGold does have all the vandalism she does, which might be a problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
~*Giggle*~ Allow me to explain my reasons for wishing to wait: Yes, I've had several admins ask if I'd be willing to do an RfA over the past few months. While I've been here for over two years, if one were to look at Kate's tool, they'd see an explosion of edits starting this summer, and I've seen multiple RfAs fail because people felt that 2-3 months of heavy editing was not enough. Granted, my reasons are because I had recently retired, so had tons of free time, and because I tend to wait and lurk until I've got a good grasp on policy, etc., so that was my main reason for wishing to wait. And, my final reason, was that my dear friend Phaedriel was to co-nominate me, but she's on a WikiBreak, and I have not heard from her. That being said, I've known about the change for a few weeks. For anyone who is curious what this will be like, take a look at the past few days of WP:AFC, and you'll get a good idea of what we're in for with anon page creation re-enabled. 90% or more of the submissions are declined, most of them are just utter junk, not serious submissions at all, and a lot of them are simply removed as personal attacks. A good portion of them are blatant copy/paste WP:COPY violations, and the rest are just non-notable entities, or obvious advertisements. I'm sure this coming month of "testing" will be a huge drain on admins, and the backlog that is CSD will grow to monumental proportions. I'll also wager that a fair amount of these new pages will slip through the cracks, going un-noticed for quite some time. I'll start thinking about it, but I do think that the "explosion" of edits may backfire on me, even though it was somewhat deliberate on my part, learning, reading, watching, prior to actually digging in. Ariel♥Gold 18:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to pressure you at all, but keep in mind that RFA is a nasty process -- I think it's safe to go into it thinking that you'll get anywhere from 2 to 12 oppose !votes based on the most arbitrary and ridiculous reasons. I got quite a few oppose votes because I had only three months of heavy editing before I nommed myself (though I'd been around for two years, just lurking quietly), plus I didn't have three featured articles or whatever the hell standards people have. I think you're a great editor and I understand your reticence, but it may be easier to go into RFA knowing that some people just aren't going to be happy with you, no matter what. Um. Maybe this didn't help. In conclusion, RFA is a ridiculously stupid and broken process, but that's not a reason not to go through with it. The extra buttons sure are nice! -- Merope 18:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yeah I'm more than aware of the issues that come up during RfAs, and that some people simply oppose based on reasons probably not truly relevant, as well as how stressful they can be. I've watched so many RfAs over the past year, I've seen how things go in the best of situations, and in the worst. I've never really had any big conflicts, and I've helped resolved more than a couple pretty heated debates, so that's a good thing. I have four GAs I've contributed to, but I've never had a big interest in doing FAs, so I'm sure that would possibly be something people object to. I ultimately don't think it makes a difference, but I realize some editors do have different criteria, and that's okay too, I can respect that. My editing style is to use the preview button extensively, so instead of having 50+ edits to an article, I would probably have much less, just because I tend to do my work in one fell swoop if possible, making good use of the edit summary box to detail all the changes I make. When the edit summary box fills up, then I hit enter, lol. I do appreciate your concern, and I respect your opinions, Merope, so thanks for the input! Ariel♥Gold 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I would support your RfA without hesitation. There aren't many users I can say that about. The length of time issue is often a factor of uncertainty related to ongoing dedication, but your article contributions show you're dedicated. Some people might say "Ariel will probably get burned out and stop contributing at this pace", but I don't see that as a reason to withhold useful tools, even if I thought it was true. Like Merope said, we wouldn't want to push you to do something you don't want to do. Impending newpage crisis or not, you're a trusted editor who would do good work with the tools. LeeboT/C 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Leebo. Of course I've seen you (and Merope) around quite a bit, and respect you both highly, even if we've never had the chance to actually "talk". I don't see burnout as a possibility, as I have my own personal rules I set down for myself, with regards to editing, and I learned a very, very long time ago about the value of counting to ten, or walking away, before replying when you're at all upset about something. I also preview about 20 times prior to replying to something heated, just to be sure I read it from the point of someone else, not associated with the issue, for clarity and for tone. As a former admin for a major IRC-based Gaming site, I have a good idea what admin stuff entails, lol. IRC was a challenge, what with flood-bots and the like, but some of the basics are the same. Another ArielVerbosity™ long-winded reply that is basically a thank you, for your confidence. I do appreciate it very much. Ariel♥Gold 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Erm, am I the only one who thought Ariel was already an admin? --But|seriously|folks 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL Hello to one of my favorite admins, BSF! How have you been? And nope, Ariel's not an admin! Ariel♥Gold 21:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello to you! I'm good, busy IRL but can't keep away from here, as usual. Hope all's well with you too! I just added your impending RfA to my watchlist. ;-) --But|seriously|folks 21:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Yep I'm doing better, was sick for a while, but getting back to feeling normal, lol. Glad to hear you're not too busy for us here! We'd miss you if you went away for long. (Queen is probably shaking her head at the takeover of her talk page lol). Ariel♥Gold 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Damn... and here I've been waiting all day to hit this page with an effigy at the right time :). Looks like you remembered though.--Isotope23talk 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, win/win eh? I've always been a fan of Guy Fawkes Night... Alan Moore just increased my appreciation for it.--Isotope23talk 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This time NotSarenne/Sarenne has created another sock puppet account called NotFnagaton in an obvious attempt to try to stir things up agin by contacting the admin who blocked them. *sigh* ;) Fnagaton 01:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Ariel and I thought my unblock denial here is very Queenie worthy, [1]. Do you agree? We don't think it's a school IP either. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
ROTFLMFAO! (Did I do that right?) Comedy! --But|seriously|folks 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for contributing to my article on High-rise syndrome, I am always slightly wary of starting new articles as I worry whether other users will approve XD PhilB ~ T/C 16:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem- It's an interesting subject, and there are references available... I know what you mean about starting new articles; I always worry that they'll be off to WP:AFD in the first ten minutes, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's meant to look like that. It's a joke! When you click on it it takes you to a subpage of mine. I willhowever remove it if you think I should. Harland1 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's entirely up to you. There's no rule against the fake new messages banner, but many users find them profoundly annoying. Whether you choose to remove it or not depends in part on whether you mind that other users are annoyed by your user page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes they are profoundly annoying. I can't think of anything that makes me less likely to want to help someone than seeing one of those fake new message banners...--Isotope23talk 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! As you're creating the new articles on towns in Burkina Faso, could you include a reference? It would save me the trouble of tagging them as unreferenced. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The articles I'm referring to are articles like Kouere; it would be really helpful if you included a source in these new articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Each article has a link to various maps through the co-ordinates link at the top right of the page. Might this be enough to show the info is true? Epbr123 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, if there is nothing more to say about a town than that it exists on a map, there's no real reason to have an article about that town. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be fairly tilted towards "if it is a real place and that can be verified on a map = article". Not that I necessarily agree with that, but along with Elementary school articles, it appears to be one of those cases where resistance is futile.--Isotope23talk 16:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And while I would really like to see at least one real reference (not just the coordinates page) on town articles, I have no intention of nominating them for deletion if they aren't what I would prefer. I would really like to see Salma Hayek come into the room with a basket full of kittens and a lasagna, but sometimes I don't get what I want. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
To eat the kittens (and Salma Hayek) and because the Lasagna is your pet? PhilB ~ T/C 16:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (sorry i have a wierd sense of humour...)
Yes, that's exactly correct. Kitten meat is very tender, and of course their furs make a lovely coat if you can collect enough of them. And lasagna makes a good pet because it's very easy to train to sit and stay, and it rarely pisses on the floor. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Dinner at the Queen household.
Somewhere I read that ArielGold eats kittens... Actually I'd like to see Salma Hayek come into the room as well, she wouldn't even need to bring anything, except maybe Jessica Alba.--Isotope23talk 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Meh. Jessica can stay home and make more lasagna; if Salma is lonely, she should bring Joan Jett with her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that would work too... I've got a thing for brunettes.--Isotope23talk 17:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm the cuter the kitten the tastier the meat... PhilB ~ T/C 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hehe New UBX:
You should publicize that widely. I think there are many thousands of Wikipedians who would find it useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL Do I hear facetiousness in that reply? (And to set the record straight: Ariel doesn't eat kittens!) Ariel♥Gold 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed it :-( but left it on my userpage PhilB ~ T/C 08:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to edit my Recom entry to try to make it acceptable. Can I please have access to it again? Thanks
Colinrichards 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd be glad to move it to your userspace. Just to verify that, despite the deletion discussion, it really does have a chance of meeting the notability criteria, can you give me one link to a newspaper or magazine article about this organization? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Those sources are not going to be enough to make it through a deletion discussion; one of them seems promotional, and the other is a dead link. But I'm willing to help you try to save it; the article is at User:Colinrichards/Recom, and when you finish, you should make your request at deletion review, which is where the community overturns deletion discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful advice. I can't understand why one of the sources I gave you was a dead link - they both worked yesterday when I checked them before responding to you. Which one didn't work?
I have edited my submission to hopefully make it acceptable. May I politely ask if you could please reconsider it and let me know what you think. Many thanks - I really appreciate all your assistance with this.
No endorsement of this rather tasteless joke... but the punchline goes "the pizza doesn't scream when you put it in the oven". Sorry you asked yet?--Isotope23talk 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I knew I would be sorry even before I asked... but not knowing was bothering me. And now, as I expected, I'm sorry I asked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I indef'd the editor. I'm not in the mood to coddle pre-teen hatemongers today.--Isotope23talk 17:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I just extended it to indefinite after abuse of unblock templates and a personal attack on an editor. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no, not that guy! And here I was so sure he'd grow up and make himself a useful editor some day... well, I guess we'll all just learn to carry on without him. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Would FQ or any other admin who sees this kindly take an independent (honestly!) look at the RFU at User talk:Fnagaton? I'm afraid I'm not quite uninvolved. Thanks! --But|seriously|folks 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been hoping someone else would review his contribs, since I'm sort of involved, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
nm, someone got it. Thanks! --But|seriously|folks 17:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Lorezjacket.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Lorezjacket.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, FisherQueen, I think I added the right template to this photo to stop it from being deleted, but I suggest that you check it because I don't have much experience where image licensing is concerned, Cheers PhilB ~ T/C 19:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks- my image use knowledge is far from 133t. This one, to be honest, I don't care as much about - it isn't actually a picture of the author, just a book jacket. The one below, though, I really hope I have corrected correctly, because the picture really is important to understanding the man's biography. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Fixed, disputed tag removed. Ariel♥Gold 20:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Ahh my good friend BetacommandBot. You're lucky he nailed me like 10 times in a 48 hour period. I've decided to no longer upload images because of it. Ridernyc 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just learning about those fair-use templates... I try to upload pictures I take myself, when I can- I know they're more useful than fair-use pictures anyway, and it's easier to tag them. I hope it won't be too cold this weekend for me to get my Sumatran rhino pictures at the zoo. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oooohhhh...... Shiny!
I can't wait to see those pictures! And here, put this somewhere you can get to it: {{Non-free use rationale}}, just copy the thing in the /pre box, and then fill in the sections when you upload an image. Ariel♥Gold 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, you'll just be disappointed when it's too cold for the rhinos to be out, and I can't get pictures of them. We might end up waiting for spring, you know. Thanks for the template- I've added it to the 'images' links section on my userpage, where I'll add some more links eventually so it doesn't look so lonely. I do need to learn more about image use eventually, I think. It's just so damned complicated. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I'd use the above one, over {{Non-free image rationale}}, as it has more fields and provides more information, but also, in case you don't know, don't wiki-link the "Article" field, or the template gets goobered up, lol. Ariel♥Gold 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops- I thought I had the same one, but I got distracted. I'm easily distract- oo! something shiny! <runs away> -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The one thing that drives me nuts is that the bot looks for a link to the article in the template, when there is already a list of articles automatically generated at the bottom of the page. Someone went through and fixed most of my images for me, which stopped them from being deleted when a human looked at them. But now I'm afraid the bot will just go through and tag them all over again. It's really discouraging working on something for days and then 3 weeks later being flooded by a bot.Ridernyc 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The link in the template is to indicate which article the use rationale is associated with. Use rationales are not generic across articles. All (I think) the non-free templates state that we need a use rationale for each article where the image is used. --But|seriously|folks 05:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Greenman.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Greenman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong license tag, but fixed it. The other would be for iconic images like this one. --But|seriously|folks 20:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the fix. He's of such localized importance that I feel like I may be the only person on Wiki who's paying attention to the article... and I would hate to lose the picture. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
that's really interesting article. Ridernyc 22:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
My family comes from the Ellwood City area, and my grandmother told me about Robinson the last time I visited with her. I couldn't get the story out of my head, so as soon as I got home, I looked him up to see if there were enough sources to write an article. I was afraid it would get AfD'ed for its local scope, but I was so fascinated by him that I had to give it a try. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It makes really interesting reading, Thanks! :-) PhilB ~ T/C 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep my first reaction reading it was thank god this has never been AFD'd. Well written, well researched article on topic that nothing else would ever really cover. I love wikipedia for things like this. I could spend hours digging up little interesting things like this. This is the reason I'm so active right now in trying to straighten out the wacky notability criteria. Articles on fringe topics like this get booted off constantly, really the odds of this making it past creation and not getting speedied are slim. Yet anyone can create a fictional bio for a videogame character and it takes 5 AFD nominations to boot it. I'm up to like 5 different musicians I've saved from being deleted because people were to lazy to research them. Ridernyc 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And I know the ropes, so I did what I could for the article by citing the hell out of it. But if someone does AfD it, while I'll be terribly sad, I won't stop liking them. I know it exists on the grey area of notability, but it was too good a story not to try to tell it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I just find it sad that policy is such a mess that fictional people are valued more then real people. Not that it's the consensus of the majority of editors, just the minority have taken over the guidelines. Ridernyc 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I just took a look at that article again, dead link, the ref for Piney Fork, [2]. I did a couple fixes to ref formatting. Ariel♥Gold 23:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I actually think the notability guidelines are sound; an encyclopedia should be about famous people, fictional or no. I even think this article might survive an AfD by the skin of its teeth, because Robinson is verifiably famous, and has been for fifty years, if only in a specific region of the US. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I fixed another one of the refs, should the invalid URL be removed, or can you find that article again, maybe it was moved? Ariel♥Gold 23:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure which link you mean. The one to Bridges and Tunnels of Allegheny County works for me; the article is about the tunnel, but the last paragraph gives details about the tunnel being haunted by the "Greenman." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That's strange. Because, the thing is, I'm looking at it right now, and I got there by following the link above. Can we get a third opinion from the peanut gallery? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Really odd. Did you do a hard refresh to be sure it isn't cached? Ariel♥Gold 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
link works fine for me. Ridernyc 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Pretend for a moment that I don't know any way to refresh other than hitting the 'refresh' button on my browser. Er, and doing that doesn't change my ability to view the page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry it worked for me and I;ve never been to the site . So it's not on your end. Ridernyc 23:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Odd. Very odd. I refreshed (That's ctrl-F5 on Firefox, for future ref) and nothing. And I can't get to the domain either, like I said, it tells me it is SmarterMail. Super odd. Ariel♥Gold 23:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Could SmarterMail have put some kind of... er... evil probe on your computer? (Insert accurate computer jargon here) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah, never even heard of them and I adware/spyware scan twice a day and virus scan daily. I think it might have to do with me being in PA. Ariel♥Gold 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you know about the manga magazine Super Jump!!! I saw you on my talk page talking about it!!! Where did you find out about my new Super Jump page I just started translating it from japanese. Do you like manga? Jump Guru 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed your article Super Jump (magazine) and tagged it for possible deletion, because it wasn't clear whether the magazine met our notability guidelines and because it didn't have any sources. I notice that, while you've made it longer and removed the deletion tag, it still isn't clear whether the magazine meets the notability guidelines, and it still doesn't have any sources. I encourage you to correct these problems as soon as you can, to avoid having the article sent to AfD for a deletion discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, hate to bore you with work stuff, but can you take a look at the RFU I declined at User_talk:Cosmona? I checked their contribs and it looks like Cosmona set up StarWars3001 as a strawman sock vandal and then reverted and warned his own sock. (Like an arsonist firefighter.) The edit timing is suspicious, and what are the chances that they would be editing from the same IP? Thanks! --But|seriously|folks 06:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Is that user even blocked? I don't see anything in the block log or the ipblock log. My name is on the request as blocking admin, but I haven't blocked that user- even double-checked my logs to make sure. It's weird, is what it is, and your theory seems as sound as any. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
My guess... the editor got hit by an autoblock on the IP, which is why your name came up on the block message, so BSF may be correct here.--Isotope23talk 13:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry for being vague. Cosmona was autoblocked based on StarWars3001's block, which means that they were using the same IP. --But|seriously|folks 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I feel it's time for a change on the old talk page, so I'm stealing this design. Good thing you freely licensed your contributions! YOU CANNOT STOP ME! -- Merope 13:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead, steal it. The entire design is an assembly of pieces that I stole from other places, including a bit that I stole from God Himself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I mistook this for a request to steal the userpage. The talk page, I stole from someone completely different. Still stolen, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
FisherQueen - I'm sorry you're taking some barbs from User:Callmebc, but I think you're handling the block review (and associated fallout) quite well. Hopefully my comments will help reinforce your position. Keep up the good work. Cheers Folic_Acid | talk 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Meh. I tried to give the dude some useful advice, aware that he probably wouldn't take it. I'll leave him alone now, and let him make his own choices on the road to a probably inevitable indefinite block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
He could always spend his off time writing a Wikipedia skewing play...--Isotope23talk 19:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
He did not appear to be a new user and was engaging in personal attacks at least thrice, and continued to do so. However, I beat your message to the unblock. :) east.718at 21:23, 11/7/2007
Cool. I acknowledge that this may well be a user who ends up ultimately indeffed anyway, and who is certainly not innocent, but I always prefer to hope for the best. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
However, I feel that this issue is quite important, as the admin in question (in my opinion, at least) misused the tools. Misuse of the tools is a fundamental problem, and I need a way to find out if potential admin candidates would or would not do the same in the given case. I tried to formulate a hypothetical, but it was so wordy as to be outrageously long. However, I am not averse to withdrawing the question, if it is deemed somehow unfair to the candidate. Personally, if I were up for an RfA, I would have no problem stating my opinion about a similar case, boldly, and unequivocally. K. Scott Bailey 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the question is not only unfair to the candidate, for the reasons that I explained on your talk page, but I think it also reflects badly on you; whatever your intentions, it looks like you're trying to fight against what the admin who blocked you did in an indirect way instead of through the appropriate channels- which I'm sure isn't what you intended. Frankly, I will respect and continue to support any deserving candidate who politely declines to answer the question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
How would you suggest I approach the issue then? As I said, being punitively blocked for harrassment that didn't occur angered me very much. It's important to me that I understand that I'm not voting for an admin who would take the same action, given the same circumstances. Can you think of a more fair way to get to the heart of that issue? K. Scott Bailey 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that the question is entirely unrelated to RfA, and you should simply use their edit histories to judge whether or not they can recognize appropriate and inappropriate edits. If I thought I was treated unfairly, I'd explain my reasons politely and request an apology from the editor who had misused me, and if I couldn't obtain one, I'd decide whether to just let it go or to appeal for a specific remedy at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I wouldn't expect anyone other than the editor who had behaved inappropriately to account for that editor's actions, even, I think, if I were very angry. But of course, you are free to act as seems wise to you -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that you're withdrawing the question. I think you made absolutely the correct decision, and I think it was graceful of you to be able to do it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think I have formulated a question that may ask something similar without putting such undue pressure on the candidates. What do you think of this phrasing: "Would you ever consider placing a 3-hour block as punishment for an editor involved in a usertalk-page disagreement with another editor?" It seems fair, balanced, and not inflammatory. K. Scott Bailey 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd consider using a three hour block for an editor in a talk-page disagreement in some situations- wouldn't you? But you might have asked the wrong person, because I'm not a big fan of specific-case questions in general, real or hypothetical, and think that the edit histories are a more useful way to interpret how an editor is likely to behave in any specific situation. After all, candidates aren't admins yet, and probably haven't evolved firm positions on what they will do after a year of admin experience. I like the Wikiphilosophy questions best, that allow a user to reflect more broadly on their interpretation of policy. "In what circumstances other than spamming and vandalism do you think blocking is useful?" is more of the direction I'd take it... the answer might not take the direction you had in mind, but it might reveal something interesting about the candidate. Just my opinion, feel free to ignore it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Actually, if I'm not misreading it, doesn't WP:BLOCK state that blocks aren't punitive but preventive? In that case, what preventive measure could an admin possibly have in mind by levying a 3 hour block in a usertalk disagreement? As for wikiphilosophy questions, I too find those interesting. I may even consider placing the one you came up with, as I particularly like it. I'd just like to be able to be sure that we don't have an army of punitive-blockers out there, if at all possible. I'm beginning to realize it's probably not possible to be certain of that, which is disappointing. K. Scott Bailey 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
And I fully agree with you- blocks should never be punitive, and it is important to choose admins who won't use their powers in ways that disrupt the encyclopedia. It's kind of frustrating to look at a candidate, knowing you can't ever predict for sure whether a little power will go to their heads in a bad way until they're tested. Of course, with some of them, it's sort of obvious... :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You have edited several articles to "remove backlink to Internationalised Curriculum which has beend speed-deleted". However, the Internationalised Curriculum article still exists, it hasn't been deleted yet. Maybe you should wait until it IS deleted before you remove wikilinks to it. Thanks. Truthanado 12:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I did delete a blatant advertisement with that name; didn't realize that the creator had made several redundant articles with similar titles. I've AfD'd the whole bunch of them as unsourced advertisements for one specific school in Thailand rather than speedying, though I do think they're speedy candidates. Feel free to weigh in, especially if you have access to any information that would verify that this is at all notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I am confused. After I wrote the above, I checked some earlier versions of the articles you edited and the the wikilink to Internationalised curriculum does not work, however a search for it (in the search box) takes you to the article. Huh? Sorry to cause any problems. Truthanado 12:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I got there by clicking that link- but two minutes ago, I was refreshing that page when filing the AfD and got an error. Maybe there's some access bug going on at Wiki right now? It puzzled me, too, but when I tried again, I got there. Weird stuff. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You deleted talk page comments here and now that same editor is listed at SSP. If you have an opinion on the SSP matter, please consider adding it. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 12:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure looks like the same user to me... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello again I have edited and removed as much of the links that seem to be offending as is logical and tried to change some of the terms to appear less glowing about this important educationi pice. Hope you agree Thanks ````
I'm not sure why you needed to change the colors on my header while leaving this message. I liked them the way they were. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and whatever changes you've made, they don't appear to include adding any reliable sources. As I told you at the deletion discussion, that really is the only thing that can demonstrate notability for this subject, which I don't think meets the guidelines. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Ioeth's RfA (question reformulated, and added in)[edit]
Let me know what you think of the following question:
4. User A and User B are having a dispute. The dispute is currently confined to the talk pages of the two users. User B tells User A not to post on his talk page anymore. User A posts another message to User B's talk page. User B approaches you (as an admin) asking you to block User A. What is your response? K. Scott Bailey 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)--Alternate question added.
A:
In my opinion, it removes all the problems of the original question, while still getting to the heart of the matter. Your thoughts? K. Scott Bailey 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that it is entirely up to you. My personal opinion is that you should let the whole thing go entirely, but since I don't think you're going to do that, this phrasing is certainly better than the original working. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that this type of thing (misusing the tools) goes to the heart of whether or not a candidate would be a good admin? Especially a candidate with as short of a track record as loeth.K. Scott Bailey 16:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but I think that you should let it go because your own personal stake is so clear. But you don't have to do what I think. Maybe you're even right; I was wrong once before. It was a Tuesday, the president was Clinton, and the weather was rainy... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
as i sayed im not interested in playing hes game. and please sign your messages.--Zingostar 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
he doesnt even have an explaination as you can see on hes talk page as he has reverted edits from me. that tells me something--Zingostar 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I did forget to sign that message, and I'm glad that SineBot caught it for me. If you are convinced that your articles are being tagged for deletion because of a personal vendetta, and not because they don't adequately assert notability, there's probably not anything I can say to persuade you differently. But I agree that these articles about actors whose only claim to notability is a reality show for which they gained no particular critial notice should be deleted, and I don't, as far as I know, have any particular vendetta against you; I just noticed the conversation because I made an edit on your talk page once and so have you still watchlisted. Assuming good faith can be a useful way to interact with other people on Wikipedia. As for him reverting edits from you, it's hard for me to understand how you can fairly resent that, since you have done the same thing. Still, it's entirely up to you to decide what kinds of behavior are most likely to lead to the results you want. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi no i havent claimed that you are having a vendetta against me. im claiming one night in hackney has that. and all those actors had done more then starring in a reality show so that claim is wrong.have a nice day.--Zingostar 16:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a pretty nice day. My students are starting research essays, which is fun, but my furnace is broken, and my home is cold, which makes me sad. And if those actors have gotten more notice than just the reality show, that's super. You should probably add something that says that, and some verifying sources other than IMDB, to the articles, so you can avoid deletion on them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the furnace FQ... happened to me once in late Winter. Nothing will motivate you to spend big $$ for a HVAC guy than a couple of nights at 11 C indoor temp.--Isotope23talk 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. yepp:) see ya!:)--Zingostar 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Zingo, the problem is that most actors who simply appear in a television show are not at all notable per WP:BIO. I think we've been down this road before; people are going to critically assess these articles per the guidelines and this seems to jump your frustration level exponentially. I'm not telling you what to do, but you might consider either not creating articles about marginal subjects without solid reliable sources cited in article, or accept the fact that a sizable portion of the stuff you create is going to be considered for deletion.--Isotope23talk 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You might want to consider changing your userpage. It currently says, "Hi. if you have any questions or suggestions just write to me!" But from what I can see, people who take you at your work and leave suggestions are met with pretty significant hostility, which isn't very nice for them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You are the only one being hostile right now it seems,and wants this to be abig fight but please dont involve me on your and one night in hackneys strange fight.--Zingostar 16:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that feel that you are being attacked. My experience with you, once before and now, has been that, although you do make useful edits, you find it difficult to understand when introduced to new ideas, like what constitutes a reasonable assertion of notability, or what kinds of contributions are helpful at Articles for deletion discussions. I am not sure whether this is because you are having trouble reading and understanding new information, or whether it's because you don't believe me and the other editors who try to explain. But this difficulty means that more and more people are occasionally checking on your edits to try to correct your errors, which can lead to your feeling further attacked. I hope you can find some way to deal with this problem; the path you are currently taking is one I have seen other editors take, and it rarely leads anywhere good. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
i dont agree with you but everyone has their own opinion:)--Zingostar 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's what you said that last time you were shown to be wrong. It's why I'm so concerned; I can't tell whether you understand that it is indeed possible for you to be wrong about Wikipedia policy, and that Wikipedia policy isn't a matter of opinion; it really does exist, and it really does say what it says. I'm concerned because if you don't understand that, it'll be hard for you to learn more. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to warn him... why don't they ever listen to me, when I am so wise, and so pretty as well? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Metoo. Good times, man, good times. -- Merope 03:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"Morope is a vanguard in Wikipedia's movement to censor the truth and restrict the knowledge available to the common man." Wow, Merope, a vanguard? Now I'm in awe of you. Again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone pulled out a thesaurus for that one. Vanguard? REALLY? I'm impressed. - Philippe | Talk 03:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Aw, your article kicks my article's ass. :-( Then again, I do have an award named after me! :-) --But|seriously|folks 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I got a message from Spartaz about unblocking 8-Hype, who I blocked and who's unblock request you declined. As Spartaz says, the users seems to have got the message. I'm OK with unblocking, but wanted to get your OK first. Is that alright?--chaser - t 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You're the blocking admin; if you think he is ready to try dispute resolution, I have no objection to your unblocking him. I do think he was in the right in that little edit-war, which I know is beside the point. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Read your entry properly after I'd saved mine. So it looks to my fevered brain like I'm taking the piss. I'm not. I was trying to say how stunned I was feeling (like you). The joys of having your boyfriend look over your shoulder and say "wow, you've really put that user in their place!". I know I haven't, and hopefully you know too.
And now I really must go to bed and confine my incipient idiocy to a single room. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that meaning came through clearly; I didn't think you were 'taking the piss,' whatever the hell that means. Two nations, divided by a common language... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, my second tribute account in as many days. I must be developing a fan following. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha yeah I love these guys that try and copy your account name, I recently had User:Gomzo_fan2007, he actually copied my user page and talk page so it actually looked like me. I actually noticed your impostor just looking on the User creation log and I remembered seeing your name somewhere so I looked into it. Well hope your fan following doesnt keep on growing ;-) haha Gonzo fan2007talk ♦ contribs 22:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you were part of the ArielGoldTalkPageForce, so I thought I'd ask you. This AfD and this one were closed by someone who commented in the dicussion, and that shouldn't happen. He's also not an admin, and there iscontention as to whether or not non-admins can close deletion debates. Would you have an obejctive look? If not, that's ok. I'll just go to DRV. I(talk) 23:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the third terminal AfD was just closed, and I'm going to talk to that closer about it. Thanks anyways! I(talk) 00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL Look, more people coming to seek your wisdom! I would actually also like to know if that was acceptable of a non-admin to close them when they'd commented in the discussion. I don't think I've seen that before. Ariel♥Gold 06:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find the actual guidelines, though I'm sure they're out there (we have guidelines for everything, don't we?) My understanding is that non-admins can close keep discussions, but that in general, it's bad form to close a discussion you've participated in. In my opinion, that editor made an error in closing discussions that he had participated in, especially when the discussion wasn't unanimous and his reading of consensus agreed with his own vote. I can see from his talk page that several people are already talking with hiim about the circumstances under which he should close discussions, and there's also a conversation happening at WP:Deletion process, so I have confidence that it'll all be resolved happily. And then we can all do the happy dance. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a user named DarkFierceDeityLink who keeps making very nasty comments on my talk page. Don't block him, just try to talk to him.Green Kirby 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yuck. I left him a final warning notice, but users that unpleasant often end up needing a block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Dang Rhinos! Didn't they know I wanted pictures! Cute picture of the Gazelle, Queen! Maybe another time soon, the Rhinos will come out to play. Did you have a good time? Ariel♥Gold 01:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The Sumatran rhino was indoors with her baby (yay for captive breeding!) so I had to settle for the Rhim Gazelle and her friends.
I love the horns. Very Dr. Seuss. --But|seriously|folks 04:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I did have a nice day. I got a few good animal pictures, but most of them correspond to articles where there's already a better picture. I did see some video of the baby Sumatran rhino in her cage, and let me tell you, that baby rhino was extremely cute. Wobblin' around on her little rhino legs and all. She was "Cute Overload"-level cute. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If you think the Rhim Gazelle has Seussian horns, check out the Scimitar-horned oryx.This rhino is an Indian rhinoceros, not a Sumatran rhinoceros.
Oh, but thanks so much for even checking into it! I definitely still owe you the favor of your choosing. --JayHenry 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I won't forget about it; I do go to the zoo from time to time, and I'll nab that critter eventually. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what point you're trying to make on my talk page. I don't really care about whether or not someone's gay. There's nothing wrong with it. You're gay, Sukecchi's gay, I'm not gay. It's not a big deal.Green Kirby 16:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you don't understand why a gay person would be hurt by your reaction to being called gay. Clearly you don't really think it's "not a big deal." If it were no big deal, you wouldn't consider it such a terrible insult. Please don't bother telling me that you're only insulted because you aren't gay yourself... you don't start flame wars when someone mistakes you for a left-handed person, I'm guessing. But, as you say on your talk page, you "don't really care that much" whether you're being insulting or not, so there's really nothing more to say. I'm removing your page from my watchlist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Why must he bring my name up constantly...for pete's sake, buku... -Sukecchi 23:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute... aren't you that gay guy? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, I hadn't seen this edit before. If I hadn't already washed my hands of giving him any more help, that would have done it. Nasty. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes...that wasn't a very nice thing to wake up to in the morning... despite it really...really pissing me off, we've moved on from it... -Sukecchi 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
And yet, he was right... I find that your user page makes me feel inexplicably turned on. My God! This is it... the cure! If I am turned on by your userpage, I must have become straight! Quick, come over here, and bring your... er... you know, that man part, what are they called? That thing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Damn, now that's making me feel turned on. I'm on my way over! But do you really want me to bring my urinal? (I assume that's the man part you're referring to . . .) --But|seriously|folks 04:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just wanted your checkbook and your toolbox. The furnace is broken with something that not only is expensive, but may also require removing some of my closet wall in order to fix. Anybody here know how to plaster? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like you'll finally have that walk-in closet you've been dreaming about . . . --But|seriously|folks 04:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
<translation>I would reply to your comment offering me information that I appeared to need, but I can't, because the reply I have in mind would be uncivil. I decided to post this instead of nothing, though, because I wanted to make sure that you know I have something uncivil I want to say.</translation> -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Amusingly, that's what I had for supper tonight. And a couple of turkey dogs. By the way, I just blocked this user for being a vandalism-only account, and for having boring vandalism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol... I want more amusing vandals too! And you're making me hungry now. I think I will have another slice of teh pizaz ;) Gscshoyru 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny, that was a better rhyme than most rappers have nowadays... GlassCobra 02:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not often I get to laugh around here :D. The user doesn't seem to be a vandal. They make quite a few other edits, like this one, but they do appear to have a bee in their bonnet about non-US spelling. Their insistence that it's the first time they've done it does, however, concern me. MarkChovain 04:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid my fellow Americans can find it a little hard to believe that other countries, with their odd ways of doing things, might not be actually wrong in not being like Americans. We're a strange country in some ways. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, I put my reasoning for the split up. I think the original article was losing focus of the basic subject and was starting to get a sidetracked (see the talk page for evidence of that). The moral panic that has been caused (snopes, multiple law enforcement agencies, etc) is worthy of its own, separate article that should be referenced in the main article. The latter coverage was drowning out the original purpose. The fact that everyone was screaming hoax is evidence of that. The fact that the original article was semi-pp should probably mean the latter is as well. spryde | talk 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw your note on the talk page there; I respect that reasoning, and if it goes to AfD, it won't be me what sends it there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
And if it did go to AfD, I won't cry :). All this over fermented waste... :) spryde | talk 14:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, and here I thought that dung was only good for growing mushrooms, but apparently you can cut out the middle-man. Gives a whole new meaning to "Getting high on the shit".--Isotope23talk 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Peeps, it's that time of the month again (no not that time — get your mind out of the gutter): time for another monthly edition of the LGBT Project'sLove Boat newsletter from your cruise directorMiss Julie. So much has been happening this month and I just can't wait to tell you all about it!!!
Let's start with some good news: Alice and the project lost the bothersome sock puppet who had been disrupting many articles we monitor, and now most of us can edit in relative peace. Congratulations, Alice, for being able to come out of semi-retirement. Benjiboi, on the other hand, has gained an anonymous IP stalker who seems to be more Catholic than the Pope and who has a hard-on for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. We seem to have a sort of Yin and Yang thing going on here, which helps both to keep us in balance and on our toes <bright smiles all around>.
Albus Dumbledore got outed this month, and was immediately adopted by our project. The international brouhaha surrounding this disclosure reached all the way to Wikiland, and his article was briefly locked due to homophobic vandalism (as well as well meaning editors who just couldn't believe that that nice man could possibly be gay). This is a wonderful article to add to your watchlist, and will surely give you hours of reverting fun on cold winter days.
On a more serious note, Fireplace has suggested a new article series about LGBT rights in the United States, state by state. This ambitious topic will surely require many editors and a lot of research, but has the potential to add further prestige to our already prestigious project.
Same name, same sexuality: a riddle for the ages[edit]
Francis Bacon (not the new gay one, but the old gay one ... though they're actually both dead, now that I think about it) has also aroused passions here on Wikipedia, with editors opposing his sexuality being disclosed in his biography. The always helpful Haiduc has thoughtfully provided any number of sources, but it is slow going getting his point across. Anyone want to lend a hand?
And speaking of passions, Jack Kerouac has inflamed the senses once again with editors, including administrator Irishguy, mounting a spirited defense to keep him as heterosexual as possible for Wikipedia purposes. Why? I don't know. Perhaps some of you can drop by the talk page and ask your questions there. I feel certain a stimulating debate will ensue that will be enjoyed by all.
Did you know that one of our Featured articles, Lawrence v. Texas, lost its shiny gold star? That was a shocker. It has been suggested that we turn our attention to it in an effort to restore it to its former glory. I took a peek, and it does need our help badly. For our American editors, it would seem almost a civic duty to edit it (not that I'm hinting....).
Though it was far too intellectual a debate for a mere cruise director like myself to take part in, Intersexuality was certainly a hot topic a week or two ago. The thrust of the debate was over inclusion in our project. Lots of good editors had lots of good opinions. For those too lazy to check out the discussion, we decided to leave it out for now.
Peer review is, as always, short staffed and seemingly unloved. Wouldn't you feel better about yourself and the world in general if you took a few minutes to read one of the listed articles and offer some helpful advice? I know I'd feel better if you did.
The article LGBT movements in the United States certainly raised eyebrows last week, especially when it was discovered that copyrighted content had been added to our article. Tragedy was averted at the last minute, though, when the original hosts of the article where the material had been pilfered agreed to make it free to everyone. Our thanks to them, whoever they are. Busy Bee that I am, I haven't had time to read it, but I'm sure it's sensational.
Not content to run for Best Actress, plucky Bannon won a Best supporting actress Oscar... whoops, I meant to say Ann is also getting more than her share of womanly attention on the Good Article list. Joining her on this exalted plane are Freddy Mercury, Waylon Smithers and Lance Bass. Good articles indeed, and the last one mentioned just goes to show that one needn't admire the subject of an article to appreciate the effort put into making him worthwhile reading. What on earth Britney ever saw in him I'll never know. Truly a riddle cloaked in an enigma and wrapped around a puzzle.
On a personal note, your already overworked cruise director is being cyberly whipped almost daily by Nemissimo, who desperately wants to get the German BDSM translation copy edited and used as a replacement for the current one. It's such a ... err, stimulating topic that I am sure many of you will want to join the copy editing fun. Jump right in, folks! It's so lonely copy editing it all by my lonesome!
A little birdie just whispered in my ear that our noble collaboration project was delisted from the Community Portal due to inactivity. When asked how this scandalous turn of events could have occurred, the answer I received was "we suck at stuff like that". Well. In the first place, I disagree that sucking should be considered a negative, but to each his or her own. In the second place, I have full confidence that we can and will collaborate with other projects in the future. So let's not view this as a setback (even though it is), but rather a challenge to improve (and good Lord, I sound almost Wikipedian!).
Lastly, the holidays are rapidly approaching. Our American cousins are currently getting ready to slaughter masses of poultry in an effort to show their gratitude and generally peaceful demeanor, and those of the Canadian persuasion, trendsetters that they are, celebrated a bit early this year. I'm sure all us foreigners will join together in wishing them all a very happy Thanksgiving on their respective holidays, both already celebrated and forthcoming... though I would hope somebody would enlighten me as to why they don't celebrate it on the same day. I was awake all last night trying to figure that one out.
In the spirit of this peculiarly North American holiday, let me take a moment to thank all of our editors for their contributions to this project. It's people like you who make people like me...well, a "people person"! May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your Love Boat never turn into a Poseidon.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Why on earth are you not an admin? you certainly have the talent for it. You'd have my support if you ever decided to go for it. Jeffpw 20:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Er, FQ is an admin.--Isotope23talk 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Shall I invite Jeffpw to go ahead and nominate me? (What would happen if I didn't pass? Would I be desysopped, I wonder?) I'm ready for my RfA, Mr. DeMille. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You should request to be desysop'd, then have Jeff nominate you... just to see how popular you still are!--Isotope23talk 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, See this and this for exhibits A and B on why that is a bad ideaspryde | talk 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe I will just stay as I am, on second thought. I have zero plans for applying for bureaucrat in the next... ever. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well how the hell did that one pass me by? On the other hand, this thread just points to my inate good taste in Wikipedians (and you really should get one of those little wiki admin ball thingies for your userpage, my dear--I hear they cost practically nothing!). And thank you for that lovely compliment on my talk page. As a struggling writer who is probably destined to die unpublished (though I am hard at work on James Robert Baker|James Robert Baker's biography), I find compliments an even harder currency than actual money at this point. Jeffpw 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an advert since I'm not affiliated with this site, but there is always lulu.com... where we can all say we are published.--Isotope23talk 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
My userpage says that I'm an admin. It just says it the old fashioned way, using words. I'm such a Luddite. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Your edit here seems to have taken note of a user that I suspect is an indef banned troublemaker by the name, SixStrng1965. He has also socked through Mindguerilla and an anon user account: 24.168.17.212. the key to this particular account is that JO Gunderson, an admin was key to discovering and subsequently blocking him, removing a number of images that were suspect from the John Lennon article. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you an admin? If not, then where wight I find one? --Gp75motorsports 21:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I am an admin. Or, as your friend Greenwood1010 might put it, I am a member of the "People's Communist Republic of Wikipedia, where liberal power hungry administators contol and watch everything you do." Or, as your friend Goodshoped35110s so elegantly said to me just last night, "never mind." What can I do to help you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What's with all the sockish activity there? --But|seriously|folks 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they're actually sockpuppets. They're a group of (my best guess, teenaged) editors who created a club to give each other awards and write little manifestos. Picture a cross between Esperanza and the Anti-Vandalism Patrol, if it were just four or five teenaged boys. It got deleted through MfD as non-useful, and even though it's been at least a month, several of them are still pissed about it. This one, as far as I can remember, hasn't been one of the ones doing the admin-bashing, at least. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was looking at the little club and its history. (Or lack thereof, as it lasted about three days.) Facebook has a nifty group feature . . . --But|seriously|folks 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I need a page protected. Here it is. It's a historical page in my userspace. Best, --Gp75motorsports 01:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Page protection is for pages that are being vandalized too much for simple reversion to be effective. As far as I can tell from the edit history, that page has never been vandalized, so there's no real reason to protect it. Is there vandalism that I am not seeing? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have oft admired from afar, your wit and enchanting repartee, after being introduced to the divine contents of thine lovely talk page by my Lady ArielGold. Methought (or perhaps that shoudest beeith, "methinks") thou should knoweth that thine divinely accurate comedic wit and charm are rubbing off on m'lady Ariel, she hath maketh me laugh in the FisherQueen style of photographic capitional hilariousness, to wit, the dogsocks affair. Many thanks for the inspiration. Dreadstar† 06:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is true. The Queen's reign has far-reaching influence! Ariel♥Gold 06:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, FQ, Ariel often recommends your talk pages as amusing reading; I admit, I went through your October archive and was laughing out loud at several points. Hope you don't mind if I drop a line in now and then! :) GlassCobra 06:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not a gang, it's a club.And so another editor wanders helplessly into the Queen's snare . . . --But|seriously|folks 06:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There are always the lurkers, of course. Hmm. If I save this, I guess I'm not lurking anymore. :p --AliceJMarkham 10:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
All are welcome in my cabal; I require only courtesy tempered with humor, and of course, a full knowledge of the difference between 'their,' 'they're,' and 'there.' I'll even tell you a secret- sometimes I read through my old archives for laughs, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I bid welcome to the latest victims, er contributors.--Isotope23talk 13:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here!
SPIDER! AAAAAAAAAAH! -- Merope 13:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So who's making a boob of themselves now?
There, there. Spiders are reasonably harmless as long as they're squashed before they get their fangs into you. :) --AliceJMarkham 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Or if you bite them before they bite you...--Isotope23talk 17:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your most kind welcome to the cabal..uh..club...and although my one fear of bugs is indeed giant spiders from hell (or even itty-bitty ones) , I had to laugh out loud at this spider-humor. Now to..um..well..run away until the spiders are gone... Dreadstar† 21:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies about re-adding the information. My intent was not to advertise the web journal, but rather to demonstrate that criticism of O'Reilly has even popped up on the level of populist "limerick"-esque verse...suggesting that he's not merely targeting by high-brow journalists, but also by sort of low-brow pot-shots. For this reason, I felt that this perspective of criticism added to the other, more high-brow, criticisms. Honestly, it surprised me to come across his name in the poem, and I just thought it should be mentioned as a pop-cultural reference, even if unflattering. I won't re-add the edit, but if you have any suggestions on incorporating the topic of low-brow criticism to the article, I'd appreciate a note on my talk page. Cheers. Townshonor 23:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem isn't the lowbrowness, it's the obscurity; I just don't see that this information is important. But I'm not the Boss of Wikipedia; you can make your argument on the talk page of that article, and seek consensus to add it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes I nurse the suspicion that Jimbo, other than having had and implemented a really good idea, is just this guy, like the rest of us. Don't tell anyone; I'd hate to be prosecuted for blasphemy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny... I actually said something along those lines in a discussion on here once (in regards to "Founder" status and what it means practically in terms of authority), then I quickly deleted the diff before the Inquisition could get a hold of it. Honestly though, Jimbo has always come across as a rather congenial & sensible fellow; it's his sycophants that tend to worry me.--Isotope23talk 16:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, I'll confess that the Zscout thing shook my faith a bit. That was sort of unnecessary. GlassCobra 16:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
We all make mistakes, even Jimbo.--Isotope23talk 16:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Added {{advert}} to [[WP::-)|Friendly]]'s tagging feature[edit]
Thought you might like to know. I've been using it a bit lately, and I saw you had as well, so I decided to add it. It's under the "Problem templates" section. Ctrl + F5 to get the latest version! Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 16:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Good addition. I like the way you've reorganized the tags, too- at least I think I do; I'm still getting used to it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
User:AA made the suggestion to arrange the tags in columns with minimum or no descriptions (but with tooltips), which I would really love to do. I talked to User:AzaToth about adding some functionality to morebits.js that would support it, and he seems to be on board. Hopefully I'll be able to do that in the future, as it would really clean up the interface. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Cool I just added this script. it will really useful. Ridernyc 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Because we do not need any more vandalism today; if you are interested in vandalism, please apply in your high school principal's office for a job drawing genitalia on bathroom walls. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
we werent vadalizing we were putting true information. We atten berkmar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofo08 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Then I assume that you are gay, and have AIDS, since that's what you posted is the case of Berkmar students. A school with such a large percentage of gay teens living with AIDS is very interesting, but you'll need to include links to some of the newspaper and magazine articles that have been written about that subject, so that we can verify that it is accurate. Then we'll be able to help you with your poor writing skills, so we can put the information into a form that's appropriate for an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am gay but I do not have aids or hiv, but i am how ever concerned about other students who attend school with me, but i will look for the pages and magazines in which it does state this, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofo08 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
He's blocked indef now. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, what a shame. And I was so convinced that he was going to provide that source for his edits any day now. I'm sure he was entirely innocent, and this high school really is a place where gay students with AIDS routinely acknowledge their inferiority in sports to their rival high school, whose name I don't care enough to look back for. Please, won't you consider an unconditional unblock? :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for adding a smile to my day :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Engaging with them like you did only encouraged them. See WP:RBI. Daniel Case 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
But notice- he did not make a single additional vandalism edit after being distracted to this page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there's no universal rule, so it's a judgment call. --But|seriously|folks 18:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, every situation is different. There is no one easy solution to all situations. WP:RBI is very effective in some situations; less so in others.--Isotope23talk 19:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Would the above page, be appropriate for prodding? Regards, Rudgetzŋ 16:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You probably could, but I think, because of its length and history, that I would probably choose an AfD discussion on it. It's a judgement call, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Rudgetzŋ 16:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
List of English words difficult to translate into French[edit]
Hmmm... It seems to violate WP:OR and WP:V. It's interesting, yes, but not exactly encyclopedic. -- Merope 16:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be a reasonable {prod} candidate, but if you're already having conflicts with the creator, you could also choose AfD in order to show that you're not the only editor who finds the article nonuseful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My purely selfish motives are the other author possibly deciding to re-open a conflict on another page, which I'm more attached to. It doesn't help that I came upon this page through the magic 'User contributions' link; I've been wikistalked before, even though this is a rather loose interpretation of the term, and it's not pleasant. I think I'll take the cowards way out and post a message on the article's talk page. WLU 16:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Aww, you're feeding my cowardice. Thanks FQ, I'll still post my message on the talk and deal with any potential fall-out like a grown up. WLU 16:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, well. That's what I did. You can still weigh in on the discussion if you like. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Done, I just hope the guy doesn't think I'm holding a grudge and vice versa. Thanks, as always. WLU 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
May I know why did you block the user with the reason of the name? Can you please explain how inappropriate is the username? Thank you! --Edmund the King of the Woods! 18:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It was intended as an attack. The same user posted an article with content "dan is gay" and the title was someone named Dan's full name. I suppose it's remotely possible that Dan has chosen this method of disclosing his own sexual orientation to the world, but in that unlikely case Dan can request to be unblocked. --But|seriously|folks 19:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
What he said (I got edit conflicted).--Isotope23talk 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, what they said. On a personal note, it pisses me off when people use 'the woman' as an insult. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Do as you wish, removing the items is fine, or just delete them. It will be easy to see which ones have been deleted due to the link turning red. However sectioning it and making it so that they can be marked is always an option. Just keep in mind the goal is to cleanup wikipedia. :) —— Eagle101Need help? 21:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering the same thing, I've fixed a few of the articles, should I remove them from the list when I do so? They aren't CSD worthy, but did need work. Ariel♥Gold 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've put some arbitrary section breaks in at the beginning and have been working through the first section, removing articles if they're deleted, or if I judge that they should not be deleted. That's how I've been approaching it; that way, future editors don't have to waste time reviewing the same articles that have already been reviewed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
They are sockpuppets of User:Ln of x. This is an attention-seeking troll, so we've been blocking while giving a minimum of attention to him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking of creating a vandal fighter barnstar for "First Username Spoof".--Isotope23talk 19:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess [3] would apply then. spryde | talk 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
FisherQueen what happened to your talk page! -- Jump Guru (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
She archives it frequently to keep us on our toes. --But|seriously|folks 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
It gets filled up so fast, that I generally archive every morning, over breakfast (hot tea and tuna fish on saltines). It all still exists in my endlessly entertaining archives, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Eww. I like Tea, but canned tuna is only suitable for cats (and even they shouldn't eat it because of the ash). Now lox & cream cheese on a bagel is suitable for breakfast... as is Shanklish, cucumbers, mint and olive oil in a pita.--Isotope23talk 21:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I realize that my preferred breakfast is indefensible, but I just eat it without trying to defend it. It tastes good, and makes me not hungry. And I likes the salty. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't have to justify it to me... Canned tuna fish is, I think, the only normally consumed food that I find so appalling I won't eat it ever. Just a personal thing; of course this is coming from someone who enjoys Uni, Unagi, .Foie gras, and Chili Dogs...--Isotope23talk 21:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Mmm... chili
Yes, exactly... I actually have eaten coney's and cheese fries for breakfast before... :) --Isotope23talk 21:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Here in Cincinnati, we believe very strongly in the power of chili, though we don't mean the same thing by the word as the rest of the world. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Eat me.I love canned tuna. Chunk light, swimming in mayo, with a little chili powder, minced onions and chervil. Oh shit, I just gave up my secret tuna recipe. Good thing nobody reads this page. Anyway, the mayo's completely bad for me, but I have yet to find a suitable substitute, so I still indulge, just not as often as I would like. Man, I'm suddenly craving a good luncheonettetuna melt! Mmmmmmmmm . . . melty. --But|seriously|folks 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"Because of the large amount of cheese piled on top, the first few bites often consist entirely of cheese, at least for inexperienced diners." And that, my friends, is why I love Wikipedia. Well, sometimes. -- Merope 22:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Helpful tip for new chili eaters- don't twirl the fork, as some people do with spaghetti. Use the side of the fork to cut through all the layers of chili. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Cincy-style chili... the core ingredient in so many good things... chili-cheese fries, chili omelettes, coney dogs, chili nachos, chili mac & cheese... so much tastiness starts there.--Isotope23talk 01:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Because I like you... Spread a package of cream cheese into a baking pan. Add chopped onions, or not, as you like. Cover it with a can of Cincinnati chili. Bake until hot and squishy. Top with shredded cheddar cheese. Serve with tortilla chips. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 05:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Bah, I wish I had jumped into the conversation back during the tuna part. Then I could have made a lesbian eating fish joke. Oh well. GlassCobra 08:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, too easy. It's probably better that you missed it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Completely changing conversational direction here: You live in Cincinnati??? I LOVE Cincinnati! I've never been there, but I have always thought it was a very mysterious, sin-filled place filled with nefarious goings on, ever since I was exposed to The Edge Of Night as a child. They used your beautiful skyline as the backdrop for the opener, complete with sinister organ music. You're so lucky to live there! Jeffpw (talk) 13:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is a mysterious, sin-filled city. And we really do have a beautiful skyline; I'm lucky enough to live where I can see the skyline from my living-room window. If you walk through Fountain Square as the sun is setting, you can indeed sometimes hear sinister organ music. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
My, but you archive quickly! I usually let my stuff stagnate on my page until it hits 50 topics. GlassCobra 17:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I do archive quickly; I tend to archive every few days, and keep my topics to the ones that are actually active- rarely more than five or six. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
If she lets us go too long, we tend to descend from witty repartee into mind-numbingly infantile potty humor. (At least I do.) --But|seriously|folks 17:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think my comment at the end was the cue to wrap up that last one... GlassCobra 17:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Might want to protect this page against recreation. Orpheus (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Meh. One recreation ain't hardly nothin'. If he recreates it again, I'd rather start with blocking the user than protecting the article. Jes' my personal opinion, of course. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
There, I've blocked him now. Happy to salt it if he tries sockpuppetry; he's a tenacious li'l bugger, ain't he? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that was well-stated. I'm not familiar with the case, but I thought that was a level-headed explanation (and a lot better than I could have provided). Good Job. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, would you mind watchlisting Arabian horse again for a week or so? Just to fend off trouble before it starts?? There were a number of POV edits by User:Seblini that I reverted, and then was promptly reverted myself by an anon IP, 68.42.94.190, who was probably the same individual. Another editor fixed it, but I'd like to have some admin eyes over there just in case there is trouble or a need for warnings. If you compare the diffs here, it is obvious why these edits were not helpful (added peacock words, removed some sourced material), and looking over the individual's user page, the POV angle becomes apparent. (I've made a couple minor edits since this diff, just FYI) Anyway, having survived that troll who was adding the horse sex stuff to the article, the infamous shetland pony spat (and I haven't had a shetland pony since I was 9!) and then that ridiculous blowup over wikiproject agri, I am not in the mood for an edit war over yet another person who wants to trash an article that has Good Article status, but I know that I am too close to the article to be fully objective and would greatly appreciate some neutral eyes on it for a bit. (Friends help me keep my sense of humor) Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I happen to know from personal experience that Arabians are the most outstandingly excellent horses in the universe, and that no other kind of horse can even come close to comparing, so I will lend spectacular assistance there as well. --But|seriously|folks 06:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL! This may be the only article in Wikipedia where people ADD peacock words! It's weird how the breed really polarizes people, the vandalism is seldom in the middle. Montanabw(talk) 18:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Arabian, shmarabian. A horse is a horse. Four legs, big teeth, a tail. Why do we bother keeping them alive now that we have cars, anyway? :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Because they taste so good, silly! Here in Europe the horse steaks fly out of the butcher shops! Jeffpw (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you people! Why don't you just eat rattlesnake and rocky mountain oysters like normal people? :-D FYI gang, FQ's archives DO reveal she herself inserted a cute pony photo a while back, don't be fooled by the snarky commentary, she DOES in fact have a heart in there somewhere! That's why I whine to her periodically! Montanabw(talk) 05:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my user page I had not realised until now that it had been vandalised. Harland1 (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You know you're doing good work on the encyclopedia when vandals come by to comment on your sex life. It's their way of saying 'good work fighting vandalism!' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for showing me how to undo multiple edits. Germanic tribes beware!Munci (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
But is one of Wikipedia's rules forbids such an action? Also that's easier sad then done, but some of the stuff I found I can no longer find what i've gathered in those examples you mentioned. Even when I have cited from one of those sources my work is still seen to be discarded.--SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not familiar with your editing history. I don't know why you perceive yourself as being picked on. Yes, you created several articles that weren't appropriate, and they were deleted. That is what I commented on, and no, there's no rule against deleting articles; in fact, the rules say that we should. But I don't see any recent pattern of unreasonable undoings of your edits in the last few days. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia; we all have our contributions changed and removed all the time. We talk about it on the talk pages, we negotiate, sometimes we get our way and sometimes we don't. I'm not really sure what's making you so unhappy, but whatever it is, picking a random article to blank is an unacceptable way to cope with it, and it's also ineffective, because it just gives you a reputation as a vandal without affecting the articles you're interested in. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
On terms of appeal those deletions, i've done so in the past and yet they have gone ahead regardless of my protesting. This has happened on such a regular occurence that i've realised i'm just wasting my breath so to speak.
As i've said before it's difficult when it comes to finding plausable citings that would be deemed acceptable. I know, I know of course dissrupting Wikipedia only makes someone like me seem petty. It's just that whenever I try to help out in contributing to something intresting/useful/factual my infomation is edited out.
Sigh...makes no difference what I do, somehow someone will continue to deny my —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCOCSOOCSOSC (talk • contribs)
Hi Scoc. Next time you make an article, why don't you drop it on my talk page first, and I can help you to wikify it? We can look together to see if it is possible to make something you like that won't get deleted. Happy to help, you only have to ask me. Jeffpw (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Kentucky_Writing_Portfolio they claim they don't want the article deleted because it's part of a university project. As far I can tell there is nothing that would let them just create random test pages in the mainspace. Ridernyc (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
No idea. Kind of looks like they're trying to use Wiki as free web space for their writing class, doesn't it? I don't see where they're actually creating encyclopedia content. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
figured it out there is a project space we allow them to use for this type thing. I actually see type of thing all the time, just never saw anything organized like this. Most professors just ell the to create an article which just ends up being deleted. Glad we have a place for them just think it's needs to be made clear to professors on how it needs to be setup. Funny that professors think learning how to use a wiki is important, but they have no concept of what's allowed here and what we go through in trying to maintain this place. Ridernyc (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I moved their pages to a subpage of WP:SUP, which is where WP:WPCC says they should be. If you want to review it further, you can take a look at their pages from the contribs of users Jsmira2 (talk·contribs) and Ljstok2 (talk·contribs).
Unfortunately I didn't see your note to me about deleting my article in time to respond. (E-mailing me would have been better.)
I was afraid that people would probably want to delete it. But I don't agree that it is "research", original or not. It was simply a list, for people to add to. And I don't agree with the person who said there should be a list of all English words that are hard to translate, not just those hard to translate into French. It is more a characteristic of French than of English that these concepts are hard to translate from English into French. There are many languages into which one can translate these concepts.
Of course the list was a matter of opinion, but if someone knew of a good way to translate any of the items, he could have deleted it from the list and put his translation in the Edit summary.
The only objection I find valid is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a guidebook or manual, but that's too bad!
I assume that you've read through the deletion discussion page; if you think you can demonstrate that it is an encyclopedia article, is verifiable, and isn't original research, you have the right to appeal the deletion at deletion review. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
So you were prodding it... while I accidentally deleted it when I meant to tag it A7 so another admin reviewed it... I take it since you were prodding it, then deleted it... you are another admin reviewing it and I stand by my deletion... if that makes any sort of sense whatsoever...--Isotope23talk 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Anyone care for some tea?
I was prodding it. But there wasn't any real assertion of notability, so when I saw that you had deleted it, I didn't think it was useful for me to recreate and prod it. If she can direct us to, say, three newspaper or magazine articles about herself, we can always recreated it. And yes, thank you, I will have another cup of tea. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on both the article and another cup. I just recently found a rather nice Green Tea with Jasmine at Kroger.--Isotope23talk 16:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This user accidentally blanked the talk page to tell me this[edit]
Hi, I'm not quite sure why there's a sudden interest in this article, which has been next to dormant for some time since I started it. We seem to have two first-time WP editors who are very enthusiastic about Conner (and why not? she's a fabulous photographer) but who have no idea how WP works (technically or procedurally). If it's of any interest to you, would you mind keeping an eye on this article with me so that it doesn't become unmanageably mangled? When you (correctly) added the unreferenced and wikify tags, today's edits had already wiped out the original article that provided these in conformance with Wikipedia standards (albeit, as a stub). Thanks for any help you can give! Pinkville (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
PS This is the version with references and links that ought to be built upon. Pinkville (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even think to check for earlier edits; thanks for catching and reverting that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've got it watchlisted as well... along with the 500 other pages I watch...--Isotope23talk 20:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I doing something wrong? I only have 3,719 pages on my watchlist... anemoneIprojectors 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow! 3000+? I obsessively keep mine below 300, and even that number seems excessive to me lol. And I thought I had a high watchlist count... guess not! Ariel♥Gold 14:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
2,233. I autowatch everything I edit, though, and just periodically cut the whole list back to ten articles and five editors and start over. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I have it set to auto-watch, but I hit the "unwatch" on just about everything new I do, maintenance work, warnings, reverts, stuff like that (usually, at least), so it doesn't get too big. I don't know what I'd do with more than 300, much less 3000+ lol. Ariel♥Gold 14:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, am I the only one who has articles not show up on their watchlist? I think if the list is too long, sometimes the program gets confused. I mean, is it possible nobody posts to ANI in 3 days????? Hmmmmmmmm? Jeffpw (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a bug that sometimes removes pages from your watchlist if they get protected, could this be what causes your issues? Although, I'm not sure that AN/ANI has ever been protected, has it? That's the only bug about watchlists that I've read of, anyway. Ariel♥Gold 15:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny occurence, please be careful with the autolocks[edit]
You recently autoblocked a vandalism only account. Unfortunatly, his ip is shared by about 10,000 customers of 3 mobile broadband here in Ireland, I'm one of them. I found myself unable to edit for a while untill I got User:Animum to remove the autoblock via irc. Please be less liberal with you autoblocks, thanks--Phoenix-wiki(talk·contribs) 22:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Didn't realise you were an admin there. AIV has not all that much use then. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No big deal... the bots automatically remove blocked users from AIV. Just a frustrated kid who isn't getting her own way throwing a little tantrum. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
For some reason, I think that it'll cool down fast enough. I don't expect to see this as a future problem account. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you; that's why I only made it a 24 hour. We can always smack her down again if she comes back to start trouble tomorrow. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a few months away, and I miss both your and Ryan's successful AfDs. Belated congrats, and a Approve from me. Best wishes! How's adminning going? Tonywalton | Talk 23:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI, Ryan is currently up for ArbCom member. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It's all good. Pretty much the same as nonadminning... every day, fresh vandals to smack down, some of whom call me funny names. It's nice to be able to block them myself, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I think perhaps you may be a bit harsh. I really was not aware of creating a nonsense article. Also, not aware that there was a history behind this article. If so, should it have been highlighted in the discussion page to keep anyone such as myself from calling the attention of administrators? Perhaps. Certainly not aware that I was re-creating an article. You have my track record for verifying that, hopefully, I am not prone to nonsense contributions. My edit summary and 'entry' clearly called for the delition of this article since the person who had created it must have been joking - there is no such concept in the history of the world. Always willing to hear the other person's point and to clarify any querries. This has obviously been a mistake. Thanks.Politis (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the history behind your creation of this account, and I've never encountered you before, but your history seemed to indicate that you had been around for a while, so when I saw the creation of an article that was clearly nonsense and requested its own deletion, I thought your account might have been used by someone else; maybe you forgot to log off at the library or something. I wanted to protect you from having your account used for purposes that would get you in trouble, so I was ready to block the account until you realized what had happened. I still don't understand why you created a nonsense article, but if you're not planning to do it again, that's good enough for me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the issue has been clarified. I inadvertanly re-activated the article by readinig a talk page and finding the link on it. Once re-activated, I made a series of assumptions. It seems quite funny looking back on it... I was arguing with my own ghosts :-) Politis (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I've drafted what turned into an enormous attempt at a new user's overview of wikipedia. I take a couple digs at Jimbo along the way, affectionately I hope. It was in response to me seening different noobs making the same mistakes, so I tried to draft something quick that would help them avoid it. I think I fell into the same trap as all the other help that noobs are supposed to get - it's just too damn long. Anyway, any feedback or expansion that you or your many fans would be willing to provide would be gratefully accepted. Plus, you know, if I did trample WP:BLP at Jimbo's expense, you can delete it :) I'm also open to it being merged into something pre-existing. There's also a Cthulu reference, which is alwasy fun. WLU (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Fun! I like it! I don't entirely agree with your description of the minimum standards for an article in this section- I think you may have set the bar too low, as the article you're describing is one that I'd be likely to take to AfD, though I wouldn't speedy it. But then, we don't have to agree about everything, and it's possible that I'm wrong. I like your friendly, funny tone, which I think is very user-friendly, and I think you've done a good job of breaking down the basics of common mistakes and useful things to know without drowning the reader in Wikicruft. (Do you like that word? I just invented it.) I even made one major change to the essay, because I'm a Wikipedian, and I can't read anything without needing to screw with it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Your wikicruft comment is a lie, lo! No belted robes for you! Isotope'll get the joke.
The article creation section is probably a stretch, I agree, but I've seen AFD's that passed on less in my mind. However, you're the admin so I bow before you. If it goes anywhere, I'll look for opinions on the section.
Notice that in this edit, I also edited your wikilink to the section. I think I'm adding the tinkering point to the essay.
I'll leave it for a bit, see if it gets any good feedback, then if it gets some support, I may look into moving it somewhere official-like for broader comment. WLU (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I did make it up. Just because someone else also made it up, doesn't mean I didn't make it up. And don't bow before me because I'm the admin. As you say in the essay, we're all equal but Jimbo. Of course, if you want to bow to me just because I'm the Queen, I respect your decision. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I bow down before you because you are so popular, the best way to advertise a page for high-quality comments is apparently your talk page. And your user pages are definitely the prettiest I've ever seen. WLU (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that she didn't pay any attention to the warnings, and got herself blocked while I was at work. Well, that happens to people who can't learn the easy way. Since her only purpose seems to have been to create some sort of hate site about her workplace, good riddance to her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI She Who Photographs appears to have a drawer containing socks. Tonywalton | Talk 10:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. If it does get nominated, I'm just going to sit on the side. I learned my lesson about developing emotional attatchments to my pages after the deletion of SPCMDCON.SYS. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I wanted to give you a chance to delete it yourself before nominating it. Please know that there are no personal hard feelings. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I would delete it, but I'm not an admin. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Does the creator of a page have a say in what happens to it in a deletion discussion? --Gp75motorsports (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can always request deletion, and since the ones are under discussion are in your own userspace, that would generally be done. If you favor not deleting, then you have a say, but have to make a good argument. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Notice of request for deletion of editor FisherQueen :)[edit]
FisherQueen, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:R/EFD#FisherQueen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the editors for deletion template from the top of your userpage; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). -Goodshoped 05:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's true. Both of those articles are kind of short, given the long history and cultural importance of the subjects, and a user who wanted to be useful and needed to get out of the kitchen for a while could probably develop either into a truly fascinating feature article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
lol. I came here to say the same thing as Coren. – Steel 17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh. I wasn't contesting your selection, simply noting that the non sequitur was... innocuous and friendly and happy in particularly evil and devious way. Admiring your handiwork as it were. :-) — Coren(talk) 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
He just removed the sentence, which sort of lends credence to the theory that he has been unnecessarily removing comments which weren't personal attacks. I don't think that was even particularly harsh, though I did intend it to strongly imply that those who edit controversial articles have to deal with a certain amount of controversy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I upgraded your semi-protection of User talk:Joeseth1992 to full protection after another futile unblock request. Feel free to change back or change the period if you think that was a bad idea. Regards, BencherliteTalk 19:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That's odd; I thought I'd done that. Damn you, wrong buttons! You have foiled me again! Thanks for the catch. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought that was your intention. The block has been lengthened for block evasion, incidentally... sigh. BencherliteTalk 21:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you reverted the edit by Goodshoped35110s, nominating you for "editor deletion". I'd never heard of "editor deletion" so I went and had a look at the alleged nomination page. Hope you did too; User:R/EFD/Editor_deletion_policy (and the rest of it) is truly excellent! I think you meet criteria 2, 8 and 9 at least! Cheers Tonywalton | Talk 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no objection to the nomination; I just thought it interfered with the prettitude of my userpage, so I undid it there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking (part of) your advice and curling up in bed with Atonement. The movie was great (have you seen it?) and I heard the book is even better. Thanks for the caring suggestion to disengage. Jeffpw 22:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't even mean for that to sound like 'you should disengage,' sorry. I was going more for, 'you look kind of irritated, and I can sympathize.' But I'm planning to take my own advice- I have a whole pile of new library books, including Jo Walton's latest, and a bottle of wine, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
