A recent conversation at User talk:Kelly has made me far too angry to edit in a courteous and responsible manner, so I am going to turn off the computer and read a good book for the rest of the evening. Everything will look friendlier around here tomorrow, I'm sure. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
um u are so dead im telling all of ur students that u do al those things ahahahahahah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anole23 (talk • contribs)
Er, which things? Read comic books? Go to historical recreations? Edit Wikipedia? It's the beginning of the school year, but I'm confident that those students who haven't already figured out that I am a huge nerd will work that out before Halloween. Nerd Pride! Nerd Power! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
=) My apologies for removing that comment; I thought that you would have wanted it removed. Also, congrats on being in a better mood today...Cheers! the_ed17 18:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries; I'm a freak in that my abuse is highly entertaining to me. It's especially funny when I block them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Which one is more entertaining? XD the_ed17 18:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The blocked troll who has a deep grudge has filed bogus files against me several times. Would you also remove his craps from other users' pages? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they've already been removed from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse and WP:ANI. I hate taking stuff off of others' talk pages, though, because I know I like having abusive trolls post on my talk page, and never remove their hilarious comments, and I know there are people who feel the same way I do. (See above) I have every reason to believe that one of my favorite trolls is hard at work on having me desysopped right now; I wish I could read her OTRS file. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
FisherQueen, please look a little deeper at what is going on here. I am taking this matter very seriously.
It is not as obvious as it seems. Thank you. --121.118.83.186 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The troll still is evading the block. I believe range block would be necessary. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to do a range block, but I'm pretty sure there's a form for requesting them; give me a moment and I'll try to figure out where it is. Troll, unfortunately, your behavior, which you know is in grave violation of the rules, has the result of making no one take your case seriously. After all, a user who has no regard for the rules is very likely to not understand the rules well enough to know when someone else is breaking them. You can start being taken more seriously by respecting your block and refraining from editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right and I will continue to quite openly. This is a very serious matter which I can document extensively, and NOT as it is being manipulated. --118.16.243.112 (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Caspian blue, it looks like WP:ANI is the place to ask for a more tech-savvy admin to evaluate whether a rangeblock would solve this problem. I have not doubt that if I tried it, I'd end up blocking all of Thailand and getting my name in the newspaper, or something along those lines. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Documentingabuse, there are a number of admins who are participating in the WP:ANI discussion and examining the contribution histories of the people at Comfort women's complex dispute. I can see that what's going on is very confusing, and there are a number of people who have not acted well. You should stop evading your block; there are ways to resolve conflict without breaking the rules, but since you've already broken the rules so thoroughly, I think you're going to have to trust the community to make a fair judgement; you are not going to be able to edit Wikipedia any longer unless your original account is unblocked, which will never happen while you are still using anonymous ips to edit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked admins to ban him three days again when the troll reported the same bogus report including racist/personal attack. And also one month again, also I requested to range-block him but well, not much action taken except blocking him at the place. Would you watch ANI and AN to see if the vandal paste the same rambling as usually evading from the block sanction? I don't want to violate 3RR (I don't know I'm allowed to remove more than 3 times in this case just like other vandalism). Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Its a very serious matter Queen. Please. What we need is goodfaith and discussion here. You are playing right into Caspian's hands --118.18.198.56 (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is already happening. You are violating good faith by refusing to abide by your block. I don't know User:Caspian blue, I don't know you, I don't know anything about Comfort women, and I don't want either of you looking to me to be your private referee. There's already a discussion at ANI, which is the correct place for it. Your continued sockpuppetry is nothing but a distraction to the users who are spending time trying to block you when they could be looking at Caspian blue's edits, and your disruptions make you look like you must be in the wrong. Every time you violate your block, you make it less likely that User:Caspian blue will be punished for whatever it is you are trying to say he has done. Notice: I have no intention of trying to understand what it is you think he has done, because, as a blocked user, you have nothing more to say. If he really has done something terrible, then someone who is not blocked will also have noticed it. Every time you edit, you make it less likely that your goal will be achieved. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It is quite serious that you, troll still is hovering Wikipedia to damage for your fun. Get out of here.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue, if I want his comments removed from my talk page, I will move them to the archive myself. You do not need to do that for me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I still have no idea what this dispute is even about, because you two are filling my talk page with conversation, and I can't get through the ANI thread, which is also full of lots of overlong accusations. My personal inclination is to fully protect Comfort women for a year, block every editor in all of Korea, Japan, and Thailand, and then go on with my life in peace. So aren't you glad that I'm not the referee of this little match? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The user was not blocked for content disputes, but long-time disruptive sockpuppetry and harassment and overall disruptions. I'm one of the editors who reported his disruptions. block evasions, sockpuppetry, many 3RR violatons, racist/personal attacks. The user has a very weird way of thinking unlike common people can think of , so any conversation with people seem to be impossible for the troll.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ronz (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Honestly, you need to look a little deeper at this one. --58.94.56.254 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
/me sends FisherQueen WikiLove, hoping it gets through all the nonsensical chatter that isn't really for you :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Satyr. Whatever is going on, at this point, I have to assume that everyone is enjoying shouting at one another and that no one actually wants anyone outside the dispute to comprehend what is going on. Good luck to them, I guess. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
With that spammy a name, I encouraged him/her to get a new account and start over with a clean slate. I think we need to take a firm stand with anybody "marketing" anything. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
And since I was advocating for a mandatory name change, your approach works just as well as what I would have done. I agree that he doesn't want that name; he could never make an edit that wasn't reverted on general principles with 'marketing' in his username. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This user is requesting an unblock. As all of his edits have been disruptive and this one constitutes sexual harassment, can I suggest the block should, if anything, be extended? Ros0709 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Extending it would be reasonable, but since I already set it at 31 hours, I hate to extend it until he's done something more. From the looks of it, I'll be back tomorrow to indef block him, I suspect, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I am questioning why the link to www.franklincounty-pa.com has been removed from several entries. The site is devoted to the history, government and people of Franklin County, Pa. and yes, there is some advertising (the site has to get paid for somehow). It is a shame that has been removed, and yet other sites remain listed which are primarily advertising based (www.publicopiniononline.com). I just wanted to vent my frustration at the double-standard.
I answered your question on your talk page already; what is it specifically you don't understand about my message to you? I'm reluctant to retype the whole thing here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you partially answered the question. I still don't understand why the www.publicopiniononline site is permitted to remain. That site is devoted to advertising (spam), which is the same thing that the www.franklincounty-pa.com is assued of, and has been removed for. Why not remove ALL sites containing spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklincounty-pa (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess you didn't understand my message, then. The content of the site- how good or bad, how much or little advertising there might be on it- is not relevant in this case. In this case, you, personally, are a spammer, because you are only at Wikipedia to promote your web site. Don't worry; if your web site really is the best source of information about Franklin County, then other users, users who are more objective, will find it in their searches for information and use it to cite. Or, you could suggest a link to the web site on an article talk page, to see if the community agrees that it should be there. But you can't add links to your own web site to articles, no matter how useful your web site might be. If you have found a different link that seems to violate the external links guidelines, feel free to remove it- many hundreds of people come here every day to promote their web sites, and so we can definitely use the help in keeping articles free of non-useful links. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the clarification. I meant no harm. The site is relatively new, and I simply wanted the people of my county to have a decent source of county-wide information. Because of the hundreds of government and historical links I though it would have been an excellent addition to many of the Wilipedia articles having to do with the county. But thank you for the clarification, I will have to find another way to get our residents access to the help they need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklincounty-pa (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No, and I can tell the difference between someone like you and a real spammer. You're still welcome here if you're interested in helping to write and improve articles; too- local people write most of our articles about places. And I have a certain fondness for Franklin County, PA, as my grandparents lived in Ellwood City, 'til Grandma retired to Franklin with my uncle, where she could easily visit my aunt in Mercer... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you FisherQueen, I'm sorry to have taken your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklincounty-pa (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ummmm....wow....I leave for an hour, and watch what happens.....sorry for supporting him, FQ. Cheers, the_ed17 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Meh. He was twelve years old at most, and didn't have the skills to be useful. I got bored with him. Let him come back at 17, if he's learned better manners. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't involved with the discussion, maybe we should have another one. What I said is true which is I and many others have to submit to the larger groups or organizations. Who are they to determine what information people should have access to. If you find fault with my article then feel free to make adjustments. The discussion has know merit to my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manleypciii (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
In general at Wikipedia, absolutely the worst way to get the version of an article you want into the encyclopedia is to start by making this kind of aggressive, combative comment. Yes, Wikipedia really does have rules, and isn't just free web space, so the community does have the right and the duty to decide together what will go into an article and what won't. That's what Wikipedia is. If you're looking for someplace where no one else will edit or change what you write, then you won't enjoy Wikipedia, where, just below the 'save page' button, you'll see the words, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." You would have been wiser to explain clearly what you were doing and why, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for not being clear on what I was doing. I have twice left Wikipedia as a contributor because of similar disputes. I have absolutely know problem with people editing an article, that's Wikipedia. Though I can write and encode an article, everything else I find to be very confusing, so I have made mistakes. My problem is the deleting and merging the article with no discussion at all, I find that very dismissive. I had read the discussion and felt that my article would avoid the previous problems, and was really no different then many other similar articles. I'm sorry that you took my statement as being aggressive or combative, I was merely stating the facts. Yes I was upset, because I'm no computer wiz and it takes me a very long time to create an article. I couldn't understand why you considered my article to be the same of the previous one, so I found the deletion and merger to be aggressive and combative as well. I will try to be clearer in the future. So are we at an understanding, will it be possible for me to post the article again? I did cite the United States House of Representatives elections in Maryland, 2008 as a main article for the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manleypciii (talk • contribs) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
As soon as I realized that this was an entirely different article, I restored it- it's already there. Wikipedia does depend on people communicating with each other, and sometimes involves having to work through disagreements; that isn't for everyone. You say that you've left Wikipedia before, but your account history shows that you're a brand new user. Wikipedia has some rules about running more than one account, because so many people try to use a new account to avoid the consequences of their actions (though I'm sure that's not you). I'd suggest that you just use one account rather than choosing a new username when you start over, even if you decide to take another break after this bit of editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The section of the text on the Groay page that you are wikifying is a copyvio from http://www.scotlandview.co.uk/outer_hebrides.htm. Since the article (without the copyvio section) is largely useless, I'm going to nominate it for speedy deletion as having no relevance, unless you can provide non-copyvio information.WikiDan61 (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well, that is a problem. No, I was just lending a hand to a new user, and if it's a copyvio, then off to csd it should go. Anyway, as he works more on it, it seems to be an individually owned private island, and I'm not sure where that fits in the grand scheme of notability. Might make an interesting deletion discussion, eh? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I was blocked without warning. Without due process. I'm trying to add to the discussion page, not the article itself, and you delete the pertinent points I made? sounds like you are trying to stifle debate, and mark my words, I'll be complaining higher up about your abuse of your coercive power. This discussion will continue, and eventually, the serious flaws in the homophobia article will be rectified. The whole thing is laced with POV statements, and this is my new pet project. So mark my words, I will not be coerced. You cannot block me without cause, and this discussion and a gradual rewrite of the whole article will occur, only in the coming days, a number of users will be working on it with me. And someone has read the whole study, me, I've got the PDF, and it clearly talks about disgust, and there is more material from different sources I am gathering, there will be a whole new bunch of stuff about disgust, the article does not mention disgust enough, as it clearly plays a role. Your sickening attempts to coerce and block and censor, and delete of all things, me making my case on the discussion page, will not stand, they really won't. You can expect to hear from me and various users all week on the homophobia page, as we make it more neutral together, and you will be remembered, and your coercive tactics will be planned for and complaints will continue to be made if you behave this way. --115.130.4.153 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would be happy to block you. Thank you for asking. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You used the wrong block template....why not this one?? =D the_ed17 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
All my templates broke when they were moved out of template space, and I haven't figured out how to make them work except by copy-pasting, which I didn't bother with. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
...Seems like it...why were they deleted, if I may ask? What was the point? What was wrong with them in template space? That seems dumb... the_ed17 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't understand either. People seemed to think that no templates other than 'official' Wikipedia templates should exist in template space, if I followed the conversation correctly, though I couldn't find a policy on it anywhere one way or another. Anyway, they don't work when they aren't in that space, as far as I can work out, so moving them all to my userspace wasn't all that helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe add a request somewhere asking to add them beck in? Is there even a place for that? If the deletion discussion was like that, someone will understand and say, "That was dumb." ...I kinda liked finding those templates everyone once in a while... the_ed17 17:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I wish I knew whether there was a rule against personal-use templates or not. This is the discussion, and most of the people in it didn't even understand what the template is or how I use it- none of them answered the question of whether it's okay to have templates for my own use. One of the deletion rationales- that one shouldn't use templates to prod an article- was legit, but I still don't know about the others. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You know, I just forgot to care enough to do anything about it, but now I think I may ask about it at the help desk. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, find the goofy block-fishy thing amusing. Every now and then it might just defuse some misdirected anger and steer a vandal into the paths or righteousness. Or not, but I grow tired of the notion that everything on a wiki (of all things) somehow needs official sanction from the humo(u)r police. Acroterion(talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree...but you describe it as "the goofy block-fishy thing"? How does that follow WP:MoS (more official sanctions for ya!) =D Just kidding! Cheers, the_ed17 21:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
But that's what I typed! Oh - wait. After some trial and error, it turns out the capitalization matters. So if you type {{subst:User:FisherQueen/fq-block}} it doesn't work, but {{subst:User:FisherQueen/Fq-block}} does. Try it and see! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, neat! I was typing it without the capital letter... maybe I'll use it again sometime. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
And how convenient is it to have someone request a block just now, so I could test it in practice? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Funny how things work out that way :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Although my custom block notice gets all the attention, my favorite personal template is my newbie-friendly notability deletion notice. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh I love seeing that block notice...I can't imagine what the vandals think when they see that... =D ...and maybe you have a softer heart than us, because the block template is my favorite. =) -talk-the_ed17-contribs- 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm rushing out the door, but am wondering whether one of WesternPacific's accounts should be indefblocked -- either the IP or the account? Exploding Boy (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I blocked the account for a little longer than the length of the block; I hope that'll be sufficient. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you blocked this user, I was wondering if you could take a look at the edit summary for this edit and consider whether a longer block is in order. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What, the user who was trying to insert anti-gay political statements into Homophobia turns out to be the kind of person who would use 'faggot' as an insult? Color me stunned. The problem is that he's an ip-hopper who has no problem with evading the block we put on him; protection on the article will work better. Reasonable people don't make all-caps threats, so I have to assume that this is not a reasonable person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I hate Wikipedia because I can't advertise on it, part 108
Wikipedia is becoming intellectually narcissistic. Your instructions are useless. Not everyone holds a degree of a researcher.I give up even trying to submit anything. First you accuse me of self-promoting and then delete the following re-write because it does not have significance?.. The service I wrote about has thousands of registered members and a growth of 90% a year. Tell it to them that it has no significance. Perhaps you can provide a dried-up editor to help the commoners like me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatecast (talk • contribs)
You should avoid writing about anything you are directly associated with - like your own web page. You should also avoid writing about anything that hasn't been written about in reliable sources. It's also a good idea to refrain from insulting me just because you're disappointed that Wikipedia has rules that we all follow, even our new users. You don't need the skills of a professional researcher to edit Wikipedia; you can just use the research skills you learned in your high school English class to cite your sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
First off, thank you for your hard work as the insults towards you are absurd-I believe there's a statement about if you're going to get your feelings hurt don't write anything. I was wondering if you could help me. You deleted my page as it's advertising (My feelings are not hurt-they are challenged). Wikipedia is truly a groundswell component in marketing and puts companies on the first page of search engines. With that being said, I need assistance as a few of our competitors have their articles posted. I posted us in April and only recently did it get deleted (competitors are still there). I wrote to the editor (nicely) who had deleted us asking for guidence as I didn't want to repost it until that person could give me some direction. I didn't receive a response. So I waited a few weeks posted it today boom you shot it. I stayed neutral and posted references of articles published about us. Any suggestions? Armoring Solutions is a topic of interest for many people. Thank you.Sshardwire (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I try hard to be nice to people, even though people who are disappointed that their articles have been deleted are not always nice to me. The reason I deleted your article was that I didn't see evidence that your company meets the notability criteria- they require that articles should be cited by independent sources, like newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books that clearly explain why the company is significant. Not all companies are so significant that an encyclopedia needs an article about them- in fact, most aren't. Our conflict of interest guidelines ask us all not to write about ourselves and our own businesses; if your business really is notable, it's inevitable that someone else will read about it and be interested enough to write an article. Of course, articles do sometimes slip through the cracks- if other companies have articles that don't appear to meet the notability criteria, feel free to nominate them for deletion using the Articles for Deletion process. Of course, I could be wrong- I sometimes am, even though I am extremely awesome. We have a process for asking the community to review the deletion, too, and you could send the article through that process to ask that it be undeleted. If you're sure the company meets the guidelines, and the community agrees with you, after it's undeleted through that process, it shouldn't be deleted again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. I had independant sources citing us but maybe I didn't post enough. So I will review, add and post again and then try the review company if I am deleted again. I feel the other companies I 'wined' about are noteable as is ours so nominating them isn't an option. Have a wonderful! (Oh if that's your Cat, adorable, it looks like my Flakes who just passed on this year :() 75.150.29.70 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
why did you block me but not User:CalendarWatcher ? CW has been going behind me reverting all of my edits and no matter who i report it to he keeps it up. Why isnt he getting a warning? or a block? since it is he who started this mess. is it because i am not registered? i have an account but if i make an edit on my name no matter what it is CW reverts it and accuses me of vandalism. i am not a vandal and i am not malicious out right.98.222.196.27 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that you aren't malicious. But Wikipedia's style guidelines discourage trivia sections in articles, and the other user asked you more than once to discuss your desired changes on the talk page, which you did not do. The Wikipedia way is to find the best version of the article by discussion and negotiation and consensus, not by edit-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
i looked through the log. he did not ask me to discuss anything that i saw. just reverting every edit i have made on wikipedia.. look man no prob. im sorry i bothered you. unfortunately i am done with wikipedia for now. i am as frustrated as i can be that one person can harass me EVERYDAY. and i get blocked because i agree with User:Killkola about something he originally wrote. have a wonderful life and thank you for at least being respectful on your message above.98.222.196.27 (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
He has stated "I ask you and all the people concerned to respect my wish and leave me in peace" -- I think we need to respect his wishes. Your comment on his talk page did not even appear to be addressed to him, I don't think we should be arguing with him right now over whether the block was fair or not. If he says he doesn't want you or others involved in his blocking to leave any more comments, we should probably respect that. Khoikhoi 02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I missed that part; I must have been distracted by the bit where he was accusing us all of putting dissident editors into concentration camps. For someone who doesn't want to participate any more, he sure posts on his talk page a lot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised, though, that you decided to remove my comment. Normally, we wouldn't edit other users' talk pages in that way. I'm concerned that the user who was approaching him was giving him inaccurate information about his block, and I wanted to make sure they both understood why he was blocked, since User:Faikpro seemed to be misleading him, intentionally or unintentionally, about it. My comment was, I think, polite and simple, and I'm not sure why you thought it was okay to blank it, even if you did disagree with me over whether I should have made it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well his response was exactly what I expected it to be, he has once again re-iterated his request to leave him alone. Khoikhoi 18:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, isn't it? He doesn't want the conversation to end; he just wants to be free to spread his abuse without anyone actually disagreeing with him. I've made him an absolutely sincere offer- to protect his talk page so that he won't be tempted to continue any longer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
He never asked to have his talk page protected as far as I can tell. Please unprotect it -- he obviously won't make any more comments if you stop talking to him. Khoikhoi 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Considering that he is indefinitely blocked, has specifically stated that he wants nothing more to do with Wikipedia, and is using his talk page only to insult, I do not think that unprotecting his talk page at this time would serve any useful purpose. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
He has emailed me asking to have the talk page unprotected (and to have you desysopped). I am inclined to grant the former request — if you, as Khoikhoi suggests, don't interact with him, there won't be a problem. With all due respect, your later messages could be seen as provoking him and weren't extremely helpful. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to unprotection; if the consensus is that I should be desysopped, I respect that as well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we can safely agree that desysopping isn't happening :) I'm going to unprotect now. Stifle (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so I can say that he was a heavy smoker? The 4 sources (newspaper articles) were admitted by the way, by two Romanian Wikipedia administrators as credible and verifiable. In English Wikipedia, in the articles about George Harrison, Winston Churchill, Richard Burton, Dwight Eisenhower, etc. it says that they were heavy smokers, without any proof being provided. So, at least I provided some proof. As to the link between his heavy smoking and his premature death due to prostate cancer, I will lay that to rest until I can prepare better. By the way, in Ernest Hemingway's Wikipedia article it says that "he was receiving treatment in Ketchum, Idaho for high blood pressure and liver problems — and also electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for depression and continued paranoia, although this may in fact have helped to precipitate his suicide..." So, that is not original research? While my formulation (It is ot unreasonable to believe that his heavy smoking contributed to his early demise) is? What proof was provided for the Hemingway conclusion? None whatsoever. So, can I use this expression: "His heavy smoking may have helped to precipitate his untimely death"? Mycomp 06:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia works on consensus; after you and the other writers of the article have agreed on what is best, then you or one of them can insert it. You were blocked because your frequent reverting of other users was disruptive; once you all agree, no one will have to revert anyone. If you think something could be better in a different article, it's better to try to bring that level up to Wikipedia's ideal, not to make other articles worse.
Thanks for your helpful intervention under the same-sex marriage article. I think the contributor made a mistake in assuming I had deleted their comments; even though I agree I found them irrelevant and vaguely insulting. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem; keeping articles reasonably neutral is one of the constant challenges of Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, did you say puppies? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I cannot be silenced by the cabal of oppressive nazi puppy-admins! The Truth must be told, no matter how many sockpuppets it takes! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am the author of the Jessica Cha wiki page. I dont see why you think she isnt notable. My friends and I found her music on imeem and wanted to know more, so we searched yahoo.com for her and she is all over the first few pages of the search... but we noticed she didnt have a wiki page, so i made one for her.
and sorry about not adding the Team Versus Sketch Comedy Troupe info the first go round, I was still trying to add things when you flagged the page. But i did go back and added it. Also if you search for it on yahoo, you will find its the top results. So it does seem quite notable.
Please work with me on this, looking forward to your response.
Seconded- just add links to three newspaper or magazine articles about her here, so I can add them to the article. NOT her MySpace page or things created by her or her group, but independent articles about why she's an important comedian. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello FisherQueen. You recently declined at unblock request at User talk:Pokemega32. (I did the block that was being appealed). Per the discussion at that user's talk, I think that an unblock could be in order if a couple of further questions are answered. Would you have any objection if I decide to do this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I have no problem with your unblocking. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious the guy hasn't actually "left" wikipedia, he's still angry and wants things to be fixed somehow, but is unsure how. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I think that if we ignore him long enough, he will get bored and wander away. Since he refuses to understand any comments that don't confirm his belief that he is being discriminated against, there really isn't anything more we can do for him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You could clear and the protect the page, which would stop the nonsense. He could still send an e-mail if he's ever interested in editing again. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 18:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried...like my examples? What a jerk.... -_- -talk-the_ed17-contribs- 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I did protect his page once; he demanded I be desysopped for abuse of authority. He's blocked, so if he wants to talk to himself for a while, he can. Engaging him seems to be not that helpful, I'm learning. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, best to just stay off his page until he gets bored and goes away. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I have to confess to a certain perverse curiosity about what he'll do next, anyway. Did he even notice, I wonder, that I supported his right to remove a warning from his talk page? I didn't hear a "Thank you, FisherQueen, did you? Sigh... I do still think that it would be better to protect the page, but as I tried once and met two users who thought that I was in the wrong, I'm not touching it again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, did you see his reply to me (it's in the history)? You are right, he does just want to disrupt. I thought that it was clear that 'we' referred to everyone who was on his talk page (though I guess that I could have been wrong on a few...I knida was assuming some things...oh well), but he took it completely differently! Wow. What a total reject... If I had hated Iranians, I would have stayed out of the fight, or else have been blocked for personal attacking... because I would have left an actually bad comment...just whatever. -talk-the_ed17-contribs- 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it matters what you post; he will find a way to pick a fight with it. Some part of me strongly wants to leave the message, "The sky is blue," or "Puppies are nice," just to see how he reacts. But probably, it wouldn't be helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You could always test his sense of humor:
Q: What did I do when I saw the terrorist headed my way?
I noticed that user Keharoshe keeps reverting the Pierre Pierce page to remove the content about Pierce's legal trouble. You seem to be more experienced in Wikipedia than me. Is there some action that needs to be taken to prevent Keharoshe from reverting the page again? stemperm 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I warned him again... if he continues, you can take it to WP:ANI to ask for help, especially if he won't discuss it on the talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
-talk-the_ed17-contribs- has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
dear fisherqueen. i am ian, i am big and bold as you may or may not have realised. you recently decided to block my account, due to the actions of one "John Kirkham". we are both Duke of Edinburgh troop leaders and thus share a computer, he is a lazy, incompetant, immature man. he is fresh out of university, and does not know the ways of the world yet. for you to block me, me full of insightful, important lifesaving information; such as how to succeed at an interview. I think it is obvious that you have gone mad with power, and see yourself as some sort of Messiah. well ive got news for you fisherqueen, youre no different to me or anybody else. dont punish me for what that fat lazy old man John did, and let me browse wikipedia, editing pages freely.
yours sincerely, Timo Hildebraand.
Bigboldian (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I have never blocked your account. In fact, your account has never been blocked. I did decline to lift the autoblock that affected you, because it did not look like unblocking you would lead to a better encyclopedia. Of course, I will block your account if you continue editing inappropriately now that your account is able to edit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
...Never mind; I see someone else indefinitely blocked you first. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a new contributor, sorry for my style, this could get imporved in the future. I've added sources to Griffon_(framework), i hope this provides a better overview over the framework. My new sources are presented here : Talk:Griffon_(framework)
Thanks; that does look much better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding offensive content on userpages, I tend to favor a fairly large amount of latitude, because if someone is a racist, it's helpful for them to identify as such on their userpage to let the rest of us know that they have a point of view that affect their ability to edit neutrally. Regarding that user's appallingly bad manners, though, which he's apparently been warned about several times but blanked the warnings, I did block the user for a short period of time, and will keep his talk page on my watchlist to see whether his manners improve after the block expires, or whether a longer block will be needed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that ...I thought about MFD, but Twinkle did something odd when I tried, so I think I removed it. As you know, I'm not a fan of racism BMW(drive) 16:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of racism, do you remember that issue I took to Wikiquette? I think people were afraid of it, and it was archived without any commentary. As that one involved me, I wanted a second opinion as to recommended next steps, seeing as the comments still exist on the user's page. BMW(drive) 13:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't read Arabic, but in general, messages are left on user talk pages- we don't replace people's userpages with messages. Er, and we don't usually call people names, either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he is widely recognised on Myspace, which is a website that is hugely popular, and thousands of people know who he is. WE WERE HAVING A BLOODY GOOD LAUGH!! I AM SO ANGRY RIGHT NOW! I AM NOT EVEN JOKING! I AM FUMING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellenconnie (talk • contribs) 11:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I assume that you read the notability criteria, which I linked to above, and are now familiar with how Wikipedia decides whether it needs an article. If you can provide me with links to three newspaper or magazine articles about this person, I'd be glad to undelete the article and add the sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
As his thousand strong following tends to be of 13 year old girls, they are on the most part not magazine or newspaper editors. If a magazine article gratifies someone's achievements, then this is not a website we wish to be a part of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellenconnie (talk • contribs) 12:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If you do not agree with the existence of notability requirements for inclusion in an encyclopedia, I agree that you won't want to be part of Wikipedia. I wish you luck in finding a web site that does welcome the inclusion of all people, notable and non-notable. I recommend MySpace, which is such a site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously so. I would however, like to inform you that most marks of popular culture need not be justified by magazine atricles. While, yes, it's a sad refelction of the world that anyone and everyone is famous to someone, your, and any magagazine editor's lack of knowledge of someone does not make them any more or less known and respected by their own fans. So, ultimatley, fuck this shit.
I think the problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia isn't a catalog of all the marks of popular culture. Coming to an encyclopedia and then getting angry at it for being an encyclopedia and not a social networking site is a little silly. If you wanted to visit a social networking site, you could have; you chose to visit an encyclopedia. Your behavior is a little bit like someone who goes to a movie theatre and then gets angry that you aren't allowed to play soccer there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If I was social networking, I would have 'networked' myself, not written an article about somebody else. And yes, an encyclopedia should mark popular culture, as it's purpose is to inform on a wide variety of subjects, and, to my current knowledge, popular culture is a subject that is very popular (obviously) As for your movie theather analogy, hillarious.
You've already read the notability criteria. So you know what our rules are, and why. Wikipedia has lots of articles about popular culture, all of them about subjects that meet the criteria. See? Lolcats. Hampster dance. lonelygirl15. What do those articles have that yours doesn't? reliable sources. You see, you haven't provided any evidence that the subject you want to write about is "popular culture." "Popular culture" does tend to get covered in reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
My favourite part is the "thousand strong following". There are people with "million strong" followings that don't qualify due to lack of notability. BMW(drive) 12:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I forgot to add: "MySpace" is part of popular culture, and hence, there is an article about it. Argument solved. Too bad you don't like Encyclopedias Mellenconnie, you have a rare gift of using spelling and grammar reasonably correctly - you could do well here :-) BMW(drive) 13:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
As long as s/he's not fuming. That was my favorite line :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh, not only is s/he "fuming", but "FUMING!" BMW(drive) 15:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahhhh, here's what happened: we were bored and tired and made a joke wikipedia page for a friend of ours that is vaguely known on a social networking site. You all lose for thinking we were being serious. Thank you for saying my grammar is good, I am, after all, awesome at English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellenconnie (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire, any attempt to create an article on an Encyclopedia is, by simple definition, serious, and will be treated as such by everybody involved in the project. If you want jokes, try the Uncyclopedia. BMW(drive) 11:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh my, this is quite the sticky situation. I am truly appalled at the disgusting language used by Mellenconnie, I am also astounded that such language is allowed to be displayed on a widely respected web page. All I can really say about this is Mellenconnie is wrong, and a big fishy twat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMysteryC (talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
And BMW takes it up the bum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMysteryC (talk • contribs) 20:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I would quote Dennis Miller right now, but I'll err on the side of caution. BMW(drive) 11:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
You might want to visit WP:UAA and close that report, too. I really wonder how stupid some of these vandals think we are.Kww (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
That darling helpbot got it already. I think that almost all vandals are children, and tend to not yet realize how much smarter the grownups are than they are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you take a look at this and this (maybe this too...) and tell me if I was in the right? Thanks... -talk-the_ed17-contribs- 21:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...perhaps you could have addressed those issues in the Wikiquette filing when it happened? BMW(drive) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you willing to explain why you have removed the POV tag from the Hulme Grammar School page?
The neutrality of the page is disputed, and it seems reasonable to indicate the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeWeller (talk • contribs)
?? I removed the recently added paragraph with the massive unsourced POV in it... feel free to restore the tag if that wasn't enough to solve the problem... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Don't restore the tag, since the article's pretty neutral at the moment. You and your school friends may well see things you think are wrong with the school, but please, only add the ones that have been reported in reliable sources like newspapers and magazines, and make sure to cite your sources. There's a request for more information about your perception of POV on the article talk page; you could participate in the discussion there and see if users who don't attend this school agree with you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
(1) Thank you for clarifying the matter. I fully accept that content that was not sourced has been removed, and that removing this is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It is also likely that this has sometimes been done without intention of suppressing a point of view. However, I also believe that, over the course of time, there has been an effort to present information about the school in a favourable way: effectively as an advertisement. I accept that the present form of the article does not contain any overtly biased matter, though.
(2) For some reason you seem to assume I am a pupil at the school ("You and your school friends", "see if users who don't attend this school agree with you"). I am not, and never have been. Incidentally, do you have any connection with the school? I see from your user page that you teach English. My guess is that you do not teach at Hulme Grammar School, but if by any chance you did it might be reasonable to "declare an interest".
(3) I apologise for not signing my earlier comment: this was an oversight.
If the present form of the article is unbiased, then there's no need to include a pov tag on the article- we remove those tags when the problem is solved, after all. I have no conflict of interest; I am in no way affiliated with this school. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to say - I love your fq-block template - it's great! It made me laugh the first time I saw it, and I've seen it around a few times - good work! Booglamay (talk) - 17:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I do my part to add joy to Wikipedia. And mercilessly delete articles about garage bands. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, don't get me started on garage bands. Fortunately you can spot them a mile off! Booglamay (talk) - 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen. That article is a hoax, copy of Endhiran. The author also created a fake bio him as director :P De728631 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I thought there was something odd about that article, and hadn't yet gone back to look more closely at it. Thank you so much. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you should block that guy. He created another hoax page, Carol Voidhiva. De728631 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone else has beaten me to it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Honest truth- when I looked at that, I said, "Isn't Justin Timberlake on that list already?" :) Guess not... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose to move SAMEER KOLKATA to SAMEER, as an alternative to deleting it. See also my notes here and here (look inside the deletion template).
Bwrs (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure how a change in name would solve the problem of the lack of sources demonstrating notability for this company. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is also a copyvio, as it is a direct copy of this and there is no assertion of permission. Could I suggest to Bwrs that you retain your previous text on the SAMEER page as it was in your own words and would form a better basis for an article on the Society provided reliable sources can be found to demonstrate notability. Euryalus (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Sorry I assumed the worst of you, but I'm glad we kept your classmate from doing any real damage using your account. I've heard the 'someone else used my account!' so many times from people who were lying; it's kind of refreshing to have it be true this time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes Mam that is a good thing and yes it is refreshing that this time it was true, but made even more frsh by my banned being lifted thanks again. Oh and one more thing is it ok to take the blocked indefinetly banner off my talk page, because that makes me seem like a unhelpful, evil, and bad user, you know? Happy editing to you.
Yes, you can take the blocked banner off, if you like. Me, I generally archive my old stuff, but you can just remove it, too, if you prefer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok Mam i guess my next question would be how do you archive something?
That link has instructions on how to do it; you can see my archives linked in my talk page header to see codes for one way to do it in practice, though there are other ways to set them up. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? I feel stupid, as I've used the long version every time I've linked that. Annoying... =) And you know what? I'm going to AN/I right this second! (Well, if it were April Fool's Day I would. =D) -talk-the_ed17-contribs- 16:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
sorry for reverting a huggle mistake ;)
Alexnia(If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 16:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I did it all the time back when I was using VandalProof. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok Mam once again I greatly appreciate you lifting the block on me and hopefully we don't have to have this conversation again, I will make sure 09jcsherrad is not looking this time. I'm gonna go try to set up the archive and get that banner off my page so in that case I will let you go because you probably have more important stuff to do, and by the way I am going to put you on my userpage under Users I'm cool with, ok. Happy Editing to you.
HairyPerry (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If you need any more help, you can ask me too...I don't have too much extra stuff to do. (Actually, less than I thought!) Cheers, -talk-the_ed17-contribs- 16:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added as much information as I could about BAICA and made sure that they were independent sources. Could you please consider reviewing the "request for expansion" tag and the "reliable sources" issue?
Thank you in advance,
Vivilob (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Vivilob (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There was little information about a school in Argentina called BAICA (Buenos Aires International Christian Academy). I know the school and tried to add some information in the most objective way. A few days ago somebody calling her/him self "truthaboutbaica" or some other name, deleted parts of the article and changed it to basically trash it. I tried to put warnings up that it was biased and not accurate. Being new to this whole editing experience, I might have done something wrong. But I read the guidelines and the information I am trying to provide is accurate, objective and relevant. There are articles about other schools in Argentina. This is not a form of self-promotion, it is trying to give information about it, nothing more.
Please guide me through whatever I need to do to keep the article as it should. Expanded but accurate. That is all I want.
Thanks so much,
Vivilob Vivilob (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The article needs information that's verified in reliable sources, like newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books. Until those are added, the article still has weaknesses in its references. The article also needs to be expanded, assuming that the sources give enough information to explain more about the school's history and significance. The only changes I've made lately are to restore the maintenance tags that point out those needs, and to give a friendly warning to an anonymous user who was removing them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear FisherQueen:
I have added as much information as I could about BAICA and made sure that they were independent sources. Could you please consider reviewing the "request for expansion" tag and the "reliable sources" issue? I think I just posted this note somewhere else instead of under the right title. Have patience with this poor newbie.
Thank you in advance, Vivilob (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Vivilob Vivilob (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Could you suggest any improvements to the page as to get the tags removed? I have cited external resources and about its history too. It is quite long. Is it still considered a stub? Would you please tell me what else I can do to get the tags reviewed?
Thanks,ah and by the way I never thanked you by the "welcome cookies"
--Vivilob (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind running by Sally Kern? I'm extremely frustrated and want someone else's opinion on whether I'm being silly overly opinionated or not. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Given the definition on the category, I think you're probably right, though my first reaction was to agree with your opponents. "Sally Kern? She's that homophobe from Oklahoma, isn't she?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Notice that your recent block of this user flushed an apparent sockpuppet, User:NeoCoronis, as well. Way to catch two birds with one stone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't even looking for socking, though in looking through the contribs, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Just out of curiosity, how did you discover it? (I'm implressed.) - jc37 21:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could boast about how clever I am... when the autoblock kept him from switching to the sockpuppet account, he requested an unblock of that account. It took about fifteen seconds to recognize the obvious sockpuppetry of it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I was just posting here that I had just found it.
(Though I'm still impressed : )
I'd like to say I'm surprised at the user's audacity, but... - jc37 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was a stunning display of a lack of respect for my intelligence. To actually claim that it was coincidence, and there was no relationship between the accounts at all, I thought showed some real gall. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, am I missing something in B's comments? - jc37 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
My paraphrase: "Dude, you were involved in the dispute, so you were wrong to block him instead of putting it on ANI first. Oh, hey- death threats! Block away, dude, block away." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
(Hey, no fair being funny in a serious discussion, and here I thought adminship was supposed to be serious bizniz - And I have to admit the image at the top of this page (Image:ANI lolcat.jpg) is among the funniest of those images I have ever seen : )
Anyway, what I was asking was whether there was merit in his comments that I was missing. - jc37 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure; by the time I got involved, the user was behaving so badly that the question of the merits of the original block didn't interest me enough to really look into. Moot point, donchaknow. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess I'm just a big fan of 3PO, and feedback, and am not shy from requesting it : )
Thanks again. - jc37 21:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah you beat me to it. I think I edited the checkuser page correctly, and added the listing category back so if you could advise me on how I messed up that would be great; I had used sections but it broke the checkuser page. Thanks, --Blowdart | talk 21:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
But I am very cute *grin* I think it was because I'd used new section; which is too high level; it's all rather new to me venturing into that space. --Blowdart | talk 22:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I had not seen anything on her talk pages about autism, but then, I hadn't read any of them in depth, other than the ones I'd come involved to in the blocking (and the IP). I defer to your recommendations entirely with regard to that.
Ignoring that, I nearly protected User talk:Standingout today, since the duplicate unblock request seemed to be...in my profession, we call it opinion shopping, trying to get a different answer of different people. And regardless of the cause, I think the best thing for that user is to spend some time doing something else other than Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I note that you've been looking through the far end of the newpages log (since you PRODded a couple of pages there). This is useful. However, you haven't been actually marking them as patrolled, either good or bad. This means that they're left for other people to take care of, which leads to duplication of effort. Please make more of an effort to use the patrol feature. Thank you. DS (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Me = confused. I thought that making an edit to the page automatically marked it as 'patrolled,' and you only had to mark it on pages you didn't edit? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No. Making an edit quite specifically does not mark it as patrolled. If you're going to edit it, mark it patrolled first. DS (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just learned something. Neat! I like learning things. I'll do it properly next time I go to that list; I added it to my patrol page, so I'm sure I'll be back at it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I request you ublock RepublicanJacobite, he has apologized, and I accept it. My goal was not to get him blocked. Arzel (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear FisherQueen,
We from Archives and Mike Hamilton (guitarist) appreciate and respect all the hard work, skill and effort you devote to keeping Wikipedia a proper and top notch institution. Keep up the good work! In your last entry in the AfD of Mike Hamilton (guitarist) yesterday 9/17/08 about 3 pm pacific standard time, you mentioned that if there are magazine and/or newpaper articles written about Mike Hamilton, some one from our camp should know about it. YES there have been articles written on MH and/or that give special mention to MH that we want very much for you to view. We implore you to take just a few minutes and see very real photo scans of these in the "Press" link of www.mikehamiltonmusic.com.
The page is a scroll up and down type page. The arrangement of them is a little random. Two full exclusive feature articles appear down the page a ways whereas the first group are some Loggins concert reviews where Mike got lucky and the reviewers gave him some compliments on his guitar work (one is from Variety when they played Radio City Music Hall). See for yourself. Its pretty good reading and it gives you an overall picture. (there are more clips not yet in the database) It has been a little frustrating because almost all of your entries have asked "Where's Press?" and/or verifiable "evidence" of this career. We believe you will be satisfied. While you're at it, go to "Photos"- Loggins and the guys - Mike w/ Stevie Nicks at Anaheim Convention Center - Max Bennett and Band, etc. And please feel free to email Mike or us or all of us at the contact email address in "Contacts". Thank you, Sincerely, Archiveula, Archivist and Mike Hamilton.Archiveula (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Now it's gone up; I'm guessing that you were adding it even as you were posting here. Thank you very much for the work you did scanning those; I've presented your link to the community at the deletion discussion, and I personally have changed my vote on the merits of those sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
One would presume however that this is another socky of Mikes. Whilst that doesn't influence the vote; yet another SPA account just smells of bad faith, especially as the original account only had a short block. But then I may be overly paranoid. *shrug* --Blowdart | talk 12:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, he shouldn't be editing the article about himself. But he's new here and doesn't understand that. Meanwhile, the sources he provided do seem to show notability, and that's what the AfD discussion is about. It would be wrong to delete the article just because the person annoyed us a little bit. George W Bush annoys me a great deal, but I'm not supporting deleting the article about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm not saying the article should be deleted out of spite because of sock puppet behaviour; however the sockpuppets should still be banned and the user gently pushed back to his original account, no? (I ended up adding the new user to the checkuser page. The constant talking in the 3rd person and adding keep votes is, to my mind, bad faith, regardless of the adding of references. --Blowdart | talk 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
At home, on my MacBook, my userpage looks neat and appealing, and fits my internet browser (Safari) window. At school, on my PC (Firefox), my userboxes stick out over the side of the border, and I have to scroll to the right to see the whole userpage. Given that I don't really speak hmtl or wikimarkup fluently, can someone give me a hand in working out (a) why and (b) how to make my userpage look nice from anyone's computer? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe make that box thinner, I have a problem formatting my page too.--res2216firestar 21:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me in firefox. It is your screen size at school. There is nothing in Wikipedia to change. You need to change the screen at school (which I doubt they allow). GtstrickyTalk or C 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Echoes of Gtstricky...in 1280 x 800 in Firefox it is fine for me... -talk-the_ed17-contribs- 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me too in Firefox. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
A fine future Wikipedian. I've seen so many misspellings, it makes me depressed for the future vandals of the Wiki-world. "Mariwana" appeared recently, and there's always "masterbate". Acroterion(talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I get really depressed when they misspell "fuk." It's not a long or difficult word. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree: short words ought to be easy, but someone recently claimed that one of their little friends was a "rappist". Acroterion(talk) 00:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kindness and support. You or you and some of the other magic Wiki-elves jumped right in and performed miracles on our article. We Really appreciate It! Can you guide us to how to place category listings at the bottom of an article. In our case we think it should be: Musicians, American Session Guitarists, Guitarists, etc.(we don't know all the categories yet). Right now our only category is: AfD (woe are us). By the way, I think you should know. Back when we got ourselves into this jam by removing citation templates and AfD templates etc., we had no idea what was going on. We just thought we were randomly being attacked by any one who decided to hate and destroy us with far superior computer and internet skills. Of course now we see this intricate system of checks and balances in the grand Wiki- beehive. It is truly amazing to us. Your credentials as AfD administrator, Recent Change Patrol etc. (we can't see the titles right now as we type) are very impressive! We think you are a genius, seriously. Here we were thinking we were trying to battle with unseen spammers and hackers or whatever and it was really Big Brother and Sister (in the good sense- not like the evil "1984" sense) trying to monitor the lost and confused primitive earthlings before they blew up the Wiki- universe. Some very gracious anonymous computer pros have added things to our article that we wouldn't have known how to do. Maybe you can let us know how to connect with them. Sorry this note is so long. It started out short. We hope you figure out how to get the PC at school to work right for you. THANK YOU!, Sincerely, Archivist, Archiveula, and the Mike Hamilton (guitarist) group.Archiveula (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia's rules are pretty complex sometimes, but it's a system of checks and balances, so to speak, that helps us keep the encyclopedia at its best quality. It's taken me years to learn my way around these rules, and there are corners where I still am uncertain- image use policy, for example, still sort of baffles me. If you're adding categories (which is a very good thing), you might find this tree of all the existing categories helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
When you edit an article and there is numbers beside it such examples as (-5) or (+5), green means good and red means bad, but what do they actually mean?
Red means removing and green means adding, and the number is how much was added or removed. So when I see something like (-15000), I know that someone has removed a huge chunk of an article, and can check to see who removed a large section and why. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok that makes much more sense now, thanks and happy editing.
You properly asked User:Oxyman42 to seek help.[2]. However, if I'm correct, "911" doesn't work outside the U.S. and Canada and a few other places, and this user geolocates to the London area. I think the EU standard number is "112," see 9-1-1. --Abd (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's 999. Given that the user appears to be UK based; as am I and there is some identifying information in their user page history I have taken it upon myself to report it, as indicated on Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm --Blowdart | talk 19:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
According to 9-1-1 both work in the U.K., i.e., 1-1-2 (EU standard) and the older 9-9-9. A recent IP address is also known, see WP:Suspected sock puppets/Oxyman42. --Abd (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
My mistake; I didn't realize that this user was in the UK. For the record, I do not believe for a moment that this user is genuinely suicidal, but I do agree that it's good to pretend that he is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the vandalism revert, and my apologies for sullying your sparklingly clean page with a non-post! WLU(t)(c)(rules - simple rules) 16:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I only clean it to make room for the new drama; you're welcome to dirty-up my talk page any time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, I value your judgement. this "wall of shame" offends WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and a heck of a lot more ... or perhaps you disagree? BMW(drive) 22:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that it's pretty unnecessary. I also think that, as this user does more vandal-fighting, he may find that there are WAY too many vandals to make it worth the effort to categorize them; I'd be surprised if he's still keeping this list in a few months' time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I worry that since some/many people who are originally vandals change their stripes, they're being permanently painted with a big brush. Have a look at the WP:WQA that he opened that was caused partly by his "Wall of Shame" BMW(drive) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Good; WP:WQA is probably the right place for the discussion of this, so it's good that it's already there. The community will be able to weigh in a bit on what they're thinking about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the funny thing is that he filed a WQA against someone. The other editor insisted on being removed from the wall, and he declined to remove them, and it got..."hostile". He doesn't feel that anyone really has an issue with the wall, but will remove it on advice of an admin. Not sure what the diff is between a long-time editor and an admin is in this specific case...BMW(drive) 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
...and it's down. I thought it was inevitable that he would realize it wasn't all that useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen. I'd like to thank you for the kind posts on my talk page. This was very refreshing to see, esp. after the recent experiences I had unfortunately sustained here on Wikipedia (Its nice to finally come across a kind administrator). I see you are a Christian, and a Democrat... That's 2 things we have in common ;) . I look forward to becoming more involved with Wikipedia. Once again, thanks for taking the time to post all that information on my talk page. It is very appreciated :) Allen32130 (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to check over the page Temwa. This page is produced for the charity Temwa and as such contains copy taken directly from their site with Permission. Is that not possible?
It wouldn't be possible without proof that they had licensed their words under the GDFL, but even if they had, it wouldn't be appropriate to publish promotional material in a neutral encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is my favorite piece of vandalism all day. "Same-sex marriage is fucking gay?" Well, yes. Yes, it is. "What kind of dude would want to marry another dude?" Er, a gay dude, as you said. The fundamental disconnect of possessing all the relevant information and just. not. getting. it. makes me smile. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, I didn't realize that the image in the cluelessly-vandalized article was Jeffpw and Isaac, which was a pleasant surprise. Acroterion(talk) 16:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it nice that it's there as the lead image? I remember when Jeff donated that image. Jeez, I miss him. Couldn't quite bring myself to put his image on my talk page in this context, so I scrolled down for a different one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia may not be a memorial, but it's fitting to have it there. And it is a nice picture: they had that gleeful/scared silly look. Acroterion(talk) 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely- it's good to have it there. God help the new user who doesn't know its context and suggests a replacement, though. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Awesome piece of vandalism, and awesome response. That made me chuckle :) (and yes, I miss Jeff, too :( happy/sad moment ... ) - Alison❤ 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
hi, what I meant to say on my talk page was I am itching to write parts from articles and plan to be heaps prolific on the encyclopedia that any one can edits Me Love You Short Time (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be a question that requires an answer, so good luck to you as you make all those useful edits to make the encyclopedia better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks FishingQueen PLEASE DON"T BAN MY BOTTOM for using the helpme, you can ban the rest but not my bum Me Love You Short Time (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be mainly making yourself laugh. That's fine; I make myself laugh, too, sometimes, and I doubt anyone will block you unless you disrupt the encyclopedia in some way or aren't making yourself useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, now, that's a different matter. That just makes you an annoyance to be blocked, I'm afraid. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-- look under Mr.Flamtatic's edits. As a fellow teacher, any help is appreciated.
Redguy999 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)RG999
What is wrong with his edits? —the_ed17— 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see the problem. That's cute- very subtle vandalism. I see that it's already been reverted; I've added the article to my watchlist so that I can remove it if it's restored, and I'll warn the vandal in question. Thanks for noticing- one of the big problems with the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is, of course, the enormous number of jackasses in the world. That particular one doesn't seem to be using the encyclopedia any more; maybe he got bored and moved on to doing his homework. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You aren't retarded. I had to look twice to get it, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that I shoulda used Google to see if th eook was real! Oh well, it's a lesson learned! —the_ed17— 23:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Is there anyway to remove the "history" links in question?
Redguy999 (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)RC999
There is (administrators can do it), but it's generally not done in these cases...it's normally just left it in the history as vandalism, and everyone forgets about it after a time. Cheers! —the_ed17— 04:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
If you could remove I would appreciate it immensely.
Redguy999 (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)RG999
No, there's no reason to remove simple vandalism from the history; that's something we'd only do if there were information there that were harmful (like your phone number and home address). Most articles get vandalized at one time or another, and the vandalism is simply removed; nothing more is needed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Swamilive is back, not exactly contrite, asking at my talk page that their current sock not be blocked. Whaddaya think? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
RBI is my opinion, repeat until this user grows up, discovers girls, and gets bored with sockpuppeting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"Discovers girls"? Really? FisherQueen, was this truly necessary? I sense that this may have just been for your own amusement. I won't entertain this comment beyond saying that I'm happily married. Frankly, don't make personal attacks. It's not civil. I spent a good portion of today doing nothing but reverting vandalism with this account. Obviously, this went unnoticed. If you or DelCarb would like to see my vandalism sprees and sockpuppetry discontinue, I'd suggest not assuming bad faith just because I'm a bit sarcastic at times. I urge you...review my edits from today. Point out something wrong with them. Extra points awarded if you can actually do so. Stanley Jacobsen (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry; I've been dealing with three different users who keep coming back with obvious sockpuppets, and confused you with the one who is twelve years old. It wasn't intended as a personal attack; that kid really is just sockpuppeting because he isn't old enough to understand the importance of working within the rules, and the vast majority of our sockpuppeting editors are kids. Most grownups have learned that it's more effective to work within the rules than to try to get around them. The community is actually pretty reasonable about unblocking people who show that they understand the rules they broke, and can make a persuasive claim that they won't break them in the future. But folks who try to avoid their blocks, requiring the rest of us to waste our time blocking the same person over and over again, exhaust our patience quite a bit- every new account you create makes it less likely that you'll get to edit Wikipedia. My advice is that you take a nice long break, at least a few months, then request unblock on the original account, acknowledging what you did wrong and committing to a specific plan to avoid doing it again. I was tired last night and forgot to block you, for which I apologize, but I've fixed it now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. GilfordJames (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen. It's too bad you're unwilling to let one of these sockpuppets prove itself as a fresh start for Swamilive. Stanley Jacobsen was off to a great start, buy you had him blocked. I must reiterate that I do not wish to hinder the productivity of Wikipedia. About a month ago (or somewhere around there) I had mentioned to Delicious carbuncle that I'd discovered a loophole within Wikipedia which would allow me to create new accounts during a block period. I'm not sure whether or not he believed me, but I've done a good job of proving it since then. The main drawback I was facing was that although I discovered a way to create new accounts during a block, I was still having trouble figuring out a way to edit from these new accounts during the block. But, as you can see from this edit, and the one from GilfordJames, I've discovered a loophole for this purpose too. Understandably, this could become a back and forth game of creating new accounts and having you block them since both parts of the equation have now been solved. But, neither of us want that. I would suggest that you simply allow this (or some other name...not sure if I really care for "Stanley Collins") to edit freely, assuming good faith edits. How does that sound? Stanley Collins (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like you should expect to keep getting blocked. If you wanted to edit without getting blocked you could very easily just do that and no one would be the wiser, but you seem to need a lot of attention and don't seem to want to follow the same rules as everyone else. Take FisherQueen's advice if you ever expect to edit constructively here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It's against the rules to avoid a block with new accounts. No one will believe that you want to edit within the rules while you are actively breaking them. Follow my advice above if you want to edit constructively. The more sockpuppets you create, the harder it is for anyone to believe that you will follow the rules, and the less likely it is that you will be unblocked. As a general rule of thumb, I suggest that you stay away from Wikipedia for one week for each sockpuppet you create. How long that is depends, of course, on how many sockpuppets you need to make before you finally believe that the rules exist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand why the article 'James Yeates' keeps on being deleted by you? As his manager I feel that the page is appropriate and as such do not understand the problem? please let me know.
Do you remember our discussion on the talk page of your first version of this article? If you'll just add links to three newspaper or magazine articles about James Yeates to my talk page here, I'll be glad to undelete the article and add the sources to it so that other users will see that he does, after all, meet the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not recieve your message. (I am fairly new to this!) When I am in the office tomorrow I will find the information you require, although I must ask, what per say if a new artiste was emerging and did not have 3 articles in newspapers or magazines about them? surely they deserve as much right to be on Wikipedia as an established artiste? It is I feel these hurdles that make it very difficult for new artistes to make a name for themsleves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthahix (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It is very difficult for a new artist to make a name for himself. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it only needs articles about subjects that are notable in some way. If you were looking for a wiki which wants articles about everyone, not just the notable people, you might try Wikipopuli, which welcomes articles about non-notable people. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I do understand that, and I am sure I will be able to find the relevent articles you require, but if I can not then I really do believe that James deserves a place on Wikipedia. Not only for his music but also for the fact that his family is the only family in history to colonise a foreign country and rule it as a private reserve, surely this is worthy? The Brooke dynasty is renowned world wide and James is highly regarded in Sarawak due to his many state visits. Is there anything else in the unlikely event of me being unable to find the required documentation that will alloq James a space on Wikipedia. Without wanting to sound pushy James has done many magazine interviews in the USA namely in Febuary, with an article in LA magazine titled an English Malaysian Prince. The problem being that as these magazines have a vast output turnaround articles over 3 months old are taken from their server. This as I am sure you can imagine is impossible for me to change!--Samantha Hix (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It's very strange that someone who has done many magazine interviews in the USA gets zero hits with a google news search and no relevant hits on google itself. Am I spelling his name incorrectly? Even his own web site has strangely little information; no tour schedule or way to purchase music, even. What's the name of the label that publishes his music? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not deal with James' interests in the USA, he has a seperate publishing company in Inwood, New York working for him that department. I know that James will now only be known as James Yeates as certain family members do not want their Sarawakian status known in the media. Please feel free to contact the Borneo Project based in San Fransisco to verify James' heritage. As stated, James is currently creating his first album due to be released under the Sony BMG label early 2009. As such apart from what is currently on the website there is at this stage not much more that can be added. While James does not want this information published or indeed even advertised in the slightest there is a group on facebook that might appeal to you: facebook group --Samantha Hix (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you not think that this is all a little extream should I only be adding James to Wikipedia as some sort of joke! He really is who I say he is, by all means contact Zac Efron who as close friends with James will also be able to verify what I am telling you.--Samantha Hix (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Strange. There's no mention of him on Sony BMG's web site. His Facebook fan group only has 21 members, which is a tiny fraction of my own list of friends on Facebook, and I'm not even remotely notable. If he doesn't want any publicity yet, and is actively avoiding having anyone hear about him, then it will probably be better to wait until his album is released and reviewed; then, his many fans will be certain to create an article about him, and you'll be able to focus on furthering his career. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
No, the Zac Efron search you suggested doesn't yield any hits at all, either, unless he's the same James Yeates who was in charge of transportation on one of Efron's movies. If he's trying to avoid having anyone hear about him, he's succeeding brilliantly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I feel that this conversation is going nowhere, could you please provide me with contact details of a 'higher' rated individual at wikipedia. While I am sure you know what you are talking about in relation to certain things, number 1, you are from the USA so would potentially nt know of UK happenings and number 2 i feel that no matter what I now tell you, yu are not going to change your mind. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanthahix (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, I found his own facebook page. The only person who has registered as a fan appears to be his manager. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware that even existed. As stated numerous times, James is in production of his album, of course he is not going to have a fansite with thousands of people on it. But I am sure Wikipedia is available to offer information to people, so surely by having an upcoming artiste on the site is in accordance with what that site was designed before. I suggest that instead of looking for holes in the story you look at the contacts I have given you. The Borneo Project in SFC and Zac Efron (a friend not work colleague, so there would not be any reference to James and Zac online) As also mentioned above, please provide me with contact details for somebody else at Wikipedia. --Samantha Hix (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't really have a hierarchy of administrators. You're welcome to appeal to another administrator. Actually, there's a fair number of administrators monitoring my talk page, so any one of them who thinks that the person you're describing meets the notability criteria could step in if they felt it was warranted. You can even take your request for undeletion to Deletion Review, where the community will discuss whether or not the evidence you've provided supports your claim that this is a notable person. I freely admit that I don't believe you when you claim that he meets the notability criteria, but that's only because, so far, the evidence you've provided not only doesn't support your claims, but it's evidence against notability- like the tiny, tiny number of facebook fan, or the absence of any record of him at his supposed record label. Of course, you can come back and prove me wrong at any time, but you're right that, until you have some actual sources, there isn't anywhere for this conversation to go. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't have Zac Efron's personal email handy right now, but even if I verified that they were friends, that wouldn't make Yeates notable. Notability isn't contagious. There's no point in finding out who his ancestors were, since notability isn't inheritable, either. I assume that you have read the notability criteria, right? I've linked to them half a dozen times at least, and that's the only standard that's relevant. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If I can give you some professional advice, though, your organization really ought to at least finish its web site, and get your client a decent web site. What if I was actually a club manager looking to book him? His web site is clearly labeled as coming from a 'free web site' space, there's no place to even hear his music, no email contact, and hitting the 'back' button navigates you away from his site completely. I've seen high school garage bands with better internet presence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm reading these comments, and I think I may have been a little hard on you. So I'm going to do this to atone: periodically, I look through my old talk archives to review what's happened and tie up any loose ends. If Yeates really does have an album scheduled for release on Sony BMG, it's practically certain to be reviewed at least a little bit. In early 2009, when his album has been out for a month or so and the reviewers have had a proper shot at it, I'll search for him again. If I can make a good case that he meets the notability criteria, I'll write the article about him myself, by way of apology if I was too tough on you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thats OK, to be honest I was a little moody also, had been a long busy weekend and was nearly 1am when we were talking yesterday! I have spoken to James' PR firm this morning and they are arranging numerous radio, tv, newspaper and magazine interviews over the coming weeks, so as I get them, I will post them to you on here. After reading the notability criteria, I believe this will be sufficiant for you to re-add James? (also I might still take you up on writing it, this thing confuses the living daylight out me!)--Samantha Hix (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking that user, he was becoming a tad annoying. Thanks again...NeutralHomer • Talk 12:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Is he really the same user, or a school friend in the same computer lab screwing around? Not that it matters much; his contributions don't seem to include a lot of useful work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
From what was said in the ANI post, it was the same person, same IP, and the same computer. How they can tell it is the same computer, I don't know. For more, please see here. The whole checkuser process is a mystery to me, to be honest with ya. - NeutralHomer • Talk 12:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm convinced that our checkusers have psychic powers. How else could they know so much? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me....then again, nothing on Wikipedia does :) Take Care and Have a Great Day...NeutralHomer • Talk 12:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You may or may not remember TheOfficialSammyK(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), but you blocked her a couple of weeks ago for attempting to hoax people into believing that she was Demi Lovato through a sock account. I noticed an anonymous IP editing her user page, checked its contributions, and lo and behold ... we now have TheOfficialEmilyOsment(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) added to the group. If you aren't up on your mouseketeer trivia, Emily Osment is another Disney Channel creation that stars in one of its shows. The IP seems semi-static: it's been her since at least Sept 1, and probably since July 17.Kww (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked it for now; if Ms. Osment cares to verify her identity through WikiMedia, she is welcome to do so. If she is not Ms. Osment, she really shouldn't be using her name. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
So, RoomDownUnitStage went and added the SOCKBLOCK tag on FMBlogger's talk page (I think this is before he was blocked). I undid his edit since he's been blocked, but want to know if indeed there should be a blocked tag on FMBlogger's pages? Thx! ←Signed:→Mr. E. SánchezGet to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
FMBlogger is not, at this moment in time, blocked. I don't know if there was ever a consensus on whether he should be blocked reached at WP:ANI; the block on RoomDownUnitStage was easier because he was behaving very badly. I'm confused by the whole situation, to be honest, but haven't looked that closely at it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Dude, you are really getting on my nerves, do you spend all your free time just looking for me to make a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumpster Lid 79 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. I just wanted to spare you the embarrassment of an AfD discussion of the article, and that's the next step in the process now that you've removed the deletion tag. My administrative powers are limited by the rules, though, and now that I've given you a fair chance, I'll go ahead and send the article on to AfD. I hope it's not too awful for you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I do know how that happened. It wasnt me, but to be honest, going into it in great detail would be pointless. It wont happen again. JFBurton (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. I can see that paprikas now goes directly to Goulash, but I have to admit that I do not understand were exactly I should put [Goulash#paprikash]], to make it work. Into the Goulash article or the Pörkölt? Or somewhwere else? it is not working for me.
Thanks. Now I understand. Since you are so good at explaining this. I have one more question. Chicken paprikash is not redirected to Pörkölt, in fact, you get to a blank page, No article title matches
No page with that title exists.
How can I make Chicken paprikash to end up on Goulash?
You can create a new page as a redirect page; just copy the code from one of the pages you've already created onto the blank page and save it, making a new redirect page. Also, I love chicken paprikash. My mother makes the best chicken paprikash... and we're not even Hungarian. Mmm... paprikash. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that one had me convinced I must be an idiot. "Where's the subtle vandalism here? Why can't I find it?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
