u c im back under a new ip in under 3 minutes u think it was so difficult for me to have done this earlier if my sole intent was to vandalise? all i gotta do is click "disconnect" wait 2 seconds then click "connect". but thats not my motif ok?
Yucksss!!! i didn't know you r a lesbian.. damn i would never have talked to you had I known. Sorry girl, but are you soo awful that no boy wants you and you gotta release your sexual desire on other women??!! Whatta disgrace to Christianity!
Lev 20:13 says: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
You're so disgusting and unshameful that you even put it up in your userpage and a god damed HOMO like you is condemning Nazi, KKK, and me myself! I should have chacked your page before talking to you. Had I known 2 hours back itself Id have deduced your mother has not dont you a "favour" and so youre releasing your stress on me. No worries I know we are all warm blooded and we have to "release it". Moreover for a guy deprived girl like you, Im happy if I helped release a little of your pressure. As scouts say "Do a good deed everyday" - Ive done one for today.
No need to waste your tie blocking b'coz you wont hear from me anymore.
Hi! I've got a request for you... Could you delete my monobook page? Twinkle isn't working for me anymore, and it only died after I started playing with it, so I'm just want to start anew. Thanks and cheers! —the_ed17— 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
After your questions and decline of the unblock here: User talk:Homely Features, there are a few developments and a statement that leads me to believe that the user intends to continue their edits immediately after the block expires. I could use some help and advise. -MBK004 02:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't look like any action is needed at the moment. If he goes back to edit-warring after the block expires, though, re-blocking would be appropriate, I think. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
vandalism continues. Apparently, User:ARYAN818 does not seem to know what is going on or doesnt care or doesnt mind having it on his page.Docku:“what up?” 12:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Silly me; this message was a fake from the vandal, just like the message he put on his victim's page. That'll teach me not to edit Wikipedia early in the morning. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh no. I didnt realise that too. :) Docku:“what up?” 14:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Just to ask if people don't like they're account and the moment how do they like change it?
Thank You so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.89.144 (talk • contribs)
In your case, I'd hesitate to advise you. So far, you've created two accounts, User:TheOfficialSammyK and User:TheOfficialEmilyOsment, in which you claim to be various famous people whom you are not. At this point, my advice would be to just focus on your schoolwork and improve your research skills, and come back to Wikipedia when you're 16 or 17 and better able to write an encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice Wikipage but how do you get all the funky background colours —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.89.144 (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at the edit history of DFajrpua(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). It's a vandalism-only account, and, more specifically, a Beverly-Hills-Chihuahua-vandalism-only account. Not worth the electrons to reply to. I dropped a level 4 warning on his talk page due to his history, but I doubt anyone would shed a tear if you blocked before he vandalised again.—Kww(talk) 18:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Aw, that's kind of sweet. He asked for it to be unprotected so he could vandalize it some more. Adorable. I think he does need blocking, doesn't he? Thanks for noticing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me a chance to redeem myself. Sorry I didn't get a chance to do it. Cheers. (mksmothers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.118.6.146 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
If you've decided not to request an unblock, that means that you gracefully accept that you are blocked and stop using Wikipedia. Anything other than that- editing and avoiding your block- just guarantees that you will be blocked on sight, and that you'll never be unblocked legitimately. No one wants someone editing Wikipedia who has no respect for its rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The funny thing is, I can think of at least four different people/situations this barnstar might be referring to. In any case, thank you very much. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I will source it sometime if you let me enough time to do it. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I have no intention of speedy-deleting it; I'm waiting to see what you do with it. I think you're making a point, but I also think it might be possible to write articles on these subjects, if a person were inclined to do so. Of course, 'sometime' should probably be before the closing of the AfD that has already been filed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The "official website" that's linked to in the article says that Mike Stevens is 13 years old. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If the 13-year-old says that he's expecting his TV pilot to be aired nationally within two years, he must certainly have a signed contract from a major TV network. He must be pretty special, to be so successful at such a young age. Unless... you don't think his expectation could be mistaken, do you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for patrolling my new article, Enrique Nieto, a Spanish architect. Chergles (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I know what to do with vandalism and insults, but I'm not sure quite how to cope with a useful editor saying 'thank you.' Um... you're welcome. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
What does one do when one finds an article that could be an advertisement? What I am doing is to try to make it (someone else's article) more encyclopedic but I am not sure it is. Could be. Chergles (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Tag it using this template: {{advert}}. —the_ed17— 23:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! TheOfficialSammyK has loved you by placing a heart icon in the top-right corner of your userpage. Don't worry, it's not vandalism, but simply a small way to spread the WikiLove. If you don't really like it, feel free to revert it and make it go away, and no hard feelings; after all, it's just a small token of appreciation. If you like it, just add your name here, but again, there's no need to feel upset if you don't. Love and best wishes, TheOfficialSammyK (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Now she's forging talk page comments, like they are from other editors, include this barnstar from you.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Giving yourself barnstars is pretty lame. Giving fake barnstars with forged signatures is not just lame, it's blockable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you have more history with this user, but I was trying to balance the fact that she's 10 years old with the obvious Myspace issues and transparent false barnstars. I dunno if I would have blocked for a month, but I'll assume you know what you're doing ;-) Tan | 39 17:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This is one of two accounts that she has mainly used for claiming to be assorted celebrities. If she's ever made a useful edit, I couldn't point to it. My first instinct was to indef her for general uselessness and disruption, but given the factors you mention, I decided to be lenient. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Regan Mizrahi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Frank | talk 16:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I gave her one full, correctly spelled, unabbreviated word, and that's more than she gave me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
A valid point. - Philippe 22:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There's something off on the block template you placed there. I tried to fix it, but I forgot it doesn't work good with substed templates as MY signature goes in there, instead.
Oh, and thanks for closing everything. MuZemike (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
'sokay, I fixed them :) - Alison❤ 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC) (now where's my k.d. lang CD and bottle of booze? :) )
After [1] (read the whole diff, including edit summaries), I regret to inform you of [2]. P.S. Love the kitten! Philip Trueman (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I applaud your good faith attempts at explanation, however the issue is probably moot. Several other administrators have realized it's just a troll willing to go to any lengths to push his agenda. See my direct reply here, and some background from two other admins here. Cheers! :-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Vandals are at least mildly entertaining. Warriors for Truth bore me to tears. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, could I ask you to remove or ammend the warning you gave here [3]? I believe that this user was confused by a double redirect that I had inadvertantly created, and in the interests of not biting the newcomers a different approach might have been better. :) --Deadly∀ssassin 22:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how confusion regarding a double redirect resulted in the edit to which I was referring. This user seems to be a simple vandal, surely? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. I'd only seen the other edit with them trying to put a formula onto the page. I stand corrected. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Hooray! I was just thinking it must surely be my turn to be right about something. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You are indeed correct. :) While you're on a roll, I wonder if you could have a look at this article Nailin' Paylin. I have taken it to AFD because I can't identify a speedy deletion category that covers non-notable products, and I don't think it falls into the category of attack page. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought about extending the block to longer, but the IP didn't make that many edits, they were all in talkspace, and none of them were edit warring as he was doing before. You're welcome to extend it if you like, but you have to say something clever about me in an edit summary ;-) Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 13:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I just wanted to point out to the user that he was getting off pretty light, and needs to knock off the edit-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh you're a sly one, FisherQueen! Maybe that's just the fact that I haven't had my morning coffee yet speaking, though. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 13:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
But like I pointed out on the Wild Arms talk page, she gets a few points for effort, this time around. Too bad that's what she decided to change about herself, but then again, I wasn't exactly optimistic... Erigu (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
What the heck are you going on about? My god, you have a serious problem, you know that? All I did was create an account to point out that XSEED Games officially cleared up the matter of the "Wild ARMs" title when I saw the huge debate about it going on. I even offered to forward the email they sent out. Next this I know, this person and some wierdo friend of hers are harassing me left and right. Is this kind of behavior acceptable on Wikipedia? If so, I'm glad I'm not sticking around to edit. I only joined here to point out that thing about the title, but it does kind of irritate me that people like them are allowed to harass new editors this way. WhenTheyCry (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
this person and some wierdo friend of hers
"Hers"? 'Still a man, Jade. 'Not sure how you manage to get confused about that every single time. Erigu (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
God, you're irritating! Stop calling me "Jade"! And how the heck was I supposed to know you're a guy? That just makes you all the more disturbed. WhenTheyCry (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Erigu, for pointing this out. I've blocked her - again. Now, I suppose, come the unblock requests insisting that she isn't herself, complete with lots of personal insults, until someone gets bored with her and protects the talk page, whereupon she creates a new sockpuppet and does it all again. I hope she gets bored with this game soon; I'm bored with it already. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to deal with this (again). Erigu (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I was debating whether or not to send this editor to AIV given that he's been warned multiple times, but I figured I'd give him one more chance. Thankfully, though, you saved me the effort of having to bring administrative attention. Good job. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 18:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone else put him on AI/V while you were mulling it over. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
For your un-relenting wit on the talk page when replying to or about trolls. You deserve this one for making sure we know that this isn't srs bsns Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
This is what we do to trolls at Wikipedia.
I love trolls. Creamed, on toast. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Guess what?
I'm really sorry to bother you with this again... Erigu (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
She's actually right about the Wild ARMs 5 official site... it does use her preferred capitalization. We need to stop her from disrupting, but we still want the article to be the most correct, too. I noticed her first edit last night but wasn't sure if it was the same user; I'll take a look at the contributions now that she has more of them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, looking at the discussion she's been having, it's clear that this is Jade. And I understand that the question she's so passionate about is a complicated one about which the publisher has been very inconsistent- I'm helping to keep the sockpuppetry down but feel unqualified to weigh in on the actual matter of the editing dispute. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the actual dispute is way too complicated for a capitalization issue. ^^;
Basically, the (Japanese) Wild Arms games have been released in English-speaking countries by four different publishers (five, if you consider SCEA (Sony America) and SCEE (Sony Europe) to be different entities... which they kinda are, really).
One of them (XSEED Games) is an US publisher that has been using the "Wild ARMs" capitalization almost consistently (they've also used "Wild Arms" and "Wild ARMS", occasionally) for its games (Wild Arms 4, Wild Arms 5 and Wild Arms XF... that's three out of the seven Wild Arms games that have been released in English-speaking countries).
Thing is, the other publishers simply use "Wild Arms" for their games. And that includes 505 Games, the European (and thus, UK) publisher of Wild Arms 4 and Wild Arms 5.
So the "Wild Arms" capitalization has been used for all games of the series except for Wild Arms XF, whereas the "Wild ARMs" capitalization can only be found on the three titles released by XSEED Games in North America.
My point being that, considering we're dealing with contradictory spellings and the original (Japanese) releases of the game aren't exactly helping (they write the title as "WILD ARMS"... thanks a bunch, guys!), we should go with the more common capitalization. Which also happens to be the simple one. That's a nice bonus.
That being said, I can see how one could argue that Wild Arms XF should be capitalized as "Wild ARMs XF" on Wikipedia, which is why I left that title as is and asked for other editors' opinions on the series' talk page.
In a (cumbersome) nutshell, that would be my argument. Erigu (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes me want to cry. And it's clearly not as simple as Jade believes it to be, and no version will be 100% right no matter what. Japanese people ruin everything. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
They do, don't they? 'Makes my job (translator) a nightmare, sometimes... Erigu (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
As for Jade, all we can really do is revert, block, and ignore her until she gets bored and goes away. At this point, there's not much point in engaging her in very much discussion, because we know that doesn't help to make her calm and helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
You're the person who spammed my talk page. I may be new here, but isn't that frowned upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.153.223 (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I may be new here
If only you were... Erigu (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Solved (for now). Sorry I bothered you with that... Erigu (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Aaand she's back... Erigu (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who you are, but I'm getting annoyed with you telling people I'm some sockpuppet. I've tried to be polite with you, but still you persist! Keep your insults and accusations to yourself! You keep reverting my edits, making snide little comments and ignoring references, and you've claimed on two user talk pages that I'm some person I'm not. I'll ask you once more: stop it. I don't know what you problem is with that person, and I don't care, but leave me out of it. Lamiroir (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I see the similarities, Erigu, but I'm not 100% sure yet, so I'm going to ask for a checkuser before blocking. Unless, of course, further edits make it more obvious to me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, she's been blocked already. Thank you anyway. I'm really sorry about all that.
Is there something I can do to avoid bothering you with this again and again? Can I just ask for a checkuser when she shows up? And if so, how does that work if she gets blocked and comes back? Should I recycle the old checkuser request? Make a new one? Erigu (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
You can ask for a checkuser at WP:RFCU. They prefer not to waste their checkuser batteries on obvious cases, so if the case is obvious, you can ask for help at the administrators' icident board. If this keeps going much longer, you can ask there for someone who's more technically proficient whether a rangeblock of the ips she is using would be effective in this situation; I'm afraid that I'm pretty good at the writing and personal interaction side of Wikipedia, but lack much technical expertise. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure as to what would be considered "obvious" or not anymore, considering my unfortunate familiarity with this case... ^^;
I'll try to keep it on the incident board. Thank you again. Erigu (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
And it's still fine to shout out to me or User:Black Kite if we're online, considering that we're both getting better at recognizing Jade, too. I can play whack-a-mole with her if that's her idea of a good time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Your unblock decline here had me laughing for a while! Xclamation point 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
To pile-on, I laughed reading that conclusion, too. And I agree, there's just so many inconsistencies in both his story and his previous edits. One of his students appearantly already has decent computer skills, and the accounts 4th edit was this? How did he even find that stillborn user? Darn, if I had a nickel for every troll/vandal I welcomed and tried to help along. Cheers, AmaltheaTalk 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
... or sockpuppet ... --AmaltheaTalk 23:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Visitors to my talk page are warmly welcomed with tasty pie.
Hi, as one of the admins who's been involved with this editor, I'm a bit concerned about the tone of his comments on his talk page after the block. Since the block is indef, and he seems to have no intent to amend his ways, I'm thinking that a protection of his talk page would be in line with WP:DENY. Thoughts? (And, BTW, I concur with your comments and assessments of his position as a Christian...I've been tempted several times to comment similarly, but felt that if I did so, I'd get carried away and lose my neutrality.) AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I really think at this point that he is a simple troll. I'd have no objection with talk page protection, since he doesn't need his talk page for any useful purpose any longer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Too bad we had to meet under these circumstances, but it was good to meet you. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
PIE??? How'd you know?? I crave it so much my teenage daughter made a T-shirt about it for me. Our favorite slogan is "P-I-E like a backwards 3 'cause I like pi, both kinds!" (Yes, we're math nerds, too). I see you're an English teacher, and for that you get a really big tip o' the hat from me...I do a fair amount of freelance writing and book editing, and I'm rather horrified at the state of the language amongst today's youth. A good friend recently resigned as a middle school English teacher because she just couldn't deal with the abuse from the kids and lack of support from the admin anymore. So, with that, hang in there...you're the proverbial kid with the finger in the hole in the dike keeping our civilization from drowning! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, FisherQueen, I notice you declined an unblock request from this user, warning him about sockpuppetry. Well, I am fairly certain anon User:93.85.48.186 is the same person - making edits that match the blocked users style, on pages where he has proven to be a troublesome editor. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. --Kaini (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for finding this. I've taken the appropriate actions, I think. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No, thank YOU. He's been a big headache for people who work on electronic music articles lately, he won't discuss any of the sweeping changes he makes to articles. ...aaaaaaaand he's back. 93.85.51.220 --Kaini (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I tried something new. (See the last entry in my log). Not sure if it will completely address the problem. Belarus is a big country. It may be time for semi-protection soon. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
what really troubles me about this user is that his intentions are good. it's just that he won't collaborate or discuss in the least. i've raised concerns at WP:AIN before, and sysop filelakeshoe has tried to reason with him too, amongst other editors. --Kaini (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Some people just can't do Wikipedia's style of collaborative editing, even people who would do just fine writing on their own. Some of them can't or won't learn no matter how much time we spend trying to help. Those people must be encouraged to create web sites, where they can write on their own, since the wiki style doens't work for them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
For the vastly entertaining conversation with "Professor James Donald" on User talk:Zicraccozian. Seriously, that's the funniest thing I've seen all day. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I know it's wrong, but I toyed with him for quite a while simply because he was making me laugh. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha, very well played. Speaking of deception, have you noticed that Jonty is at it again? His current unblock includes and email he sent to you. OhNoitsJamieTalk 23:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I got that email, but just as I was getting ready to reply, I remembered that I didn't care. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict x2) I don't see anything wrong with it, personally. If someone's going to be an ass, we might as well get a kick out of it, huh? :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi...do you have a few minutes? A few days ago, I speedied a spam/coi article, but shortly thereafter, an enterprising newbie who believed the subject was notable asked to be allowed to work on the subject, and I set him up with a sandbox. He's getting close to wanting to go live, and since I've helped him a bit here and there (though I certainly don't consider myself invested in the effort), I thought I'd seek an outside observer to take a look and give a second opinion on the validity of the subject, refs, etc. The draft is at User:Raysfan2008/sandbox, and my conversations with the editor, in case you want background, are on my talk page. Many thanks! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that company is notable. The article is, I think, as neutral and sourced as it's ever going to be, so I'd say, put it up and see if someone AfDs it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I put a short block on the ip to help her remember that she's blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Samantha Kilford is a minor Disney starlet. So is Demi Lovato. This user isn't both of them. If she's going to claim to be a 'famous' person, she's going to need to verify that identity per WP:USERNAME. She's also going to need to decide which famous person she is. I've indef blocked her until she verifies her identity. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I do believe that you have it precisely backwards. I think Samantha Kilford is the real name of our little contributor, and that she has manufactured references to herself. There doesn't seem to be any sign of this name outside of Wikipedia-fueled sites. I've deleted the reference I found here. On a tangential note, any help you can give me with the Alis.Payan problem would be greatly appreciated.—Kww(talk) 13:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
...but her most recent edit says that she's a main actor in that movie! She wouldn't lie, surely? I'm so tired of dealing with this kid. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone else answered your actual question, I think, and I've added those two pages to my watchlist to help smack them if they reappear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded my request, and asked for four accounts to be blocked. Your opinion would be appreciated. —Kww(talk) 13:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi...remember JobXavier from last week? Maybe I'm being overly paranoid, but User:Innocent editor smells a little sockish to me...account created the day after the block, and this edit looks a bit fishy (no pun intended). And this one feels a lot like some of the comments made in your conversation with JX. Any thoughts other than giving this a close watch? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Never mind...looks like Nishkid already dealt with this. Thanks anyway!AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No offense meant, but Checkusers aren't reliable at all. I've heard of quite a large amount of people getting blocked unfairly because of those things. It's creating quite a stir on GameFAQs, among other places. I'm a little irritated at the accusations of "disruptive editing" as well. I feel it is those other two editors who are being disruptive. People on the NISA forums are getting a little ticked that they keep getting rid of the information about the glitches and fan-reaction. They're unwilling to do any discussion on the matter, and they're only deleting it because THEY don't think it is notable. I added an extra reference, so everything is backed up, so why am I being accused of disruptive editing? I even asked for help on the New Users page, but because one of them spammed my question, it never got answered. And you want me to just assume your Checkuser will magically know my identity when it's already failed a bunch of times in the past? I don't feel I should be going through this in the first place. Why not instead step in and speak up on the issue of their constantly undoing edits on that article only because THEY don't feel the information is important? TheScrappedPrincess (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that one of User:Fragments of Jade's responses to checkuser was to insist that it was unreliable and used unfairly even before the results were back. It's amazing, how much the two of you have in common. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously, Jade, the more you talk and the more I regret the time I spent typing that checkuser case. It all seems so unnecessary, now. Erigu (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
That's one thing, FQ. And it's not proof of anything. I've seen many people get blocked because of this Checkuser thing, and most of them are on forums or blogs complaining about it. I've even known one or two personally. It also makes the most sense. No machine is capable of telling if two editors are the same person, no matter what it can do. By the way, you're being awfully rude. Your snide attitude towards me is uncalled for. This may comes as a shock to you, but not every user who edits the same page as Erigu or Mr. T is a duplicate account. And before you ask how I know, it's becoming quite a scandal. GameFAQs is buzzing, people are blogging, and there's even a group trying to get charges pressed for slander on the 623. TheScrappedPrincess (talk) 11:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I did a search on the GameFAQs bulletin board, and couldn't find any discussion of this at all. Maybe I was using the wrong search terms. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Forum searches rarely work well, and no one posts about stuff like this on the Bulletin Boards-the mods will just delete it or it will just get spammed. People wanting a serious discussion will use the individual game forums or privately-owned forums. Most people have been moving their discussions to the latter, so they don't have to risk any mod trouble or slander. I'd be more worried about the case on 623. Wikipedia has a bad enough reputation as it is. TheScrappedPrincess (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The fact you keep going back to the same inane stories is alarming. Do you really think that's "normal"? That this all sounds "likely enough"? That people familiar with the sockpuppetry case won't go "hey, I've heard this stuff before"? Erigu (talk) 12:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's funny. The way she describes the internet, I'm so powerful that the whole internet is afraid to speak a word against me where I might hear it. I like her version of reality. She must be very brave, then, to come right to my user talk page and talk to me, when everyone else is hiding from me in terror. User:Fragments of Jade: Bravest Person on the InterNets! :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Amusing as this is, she's starting to be irritating on WP:AN, and as she's talked more, she's made it more obvious that she's just User:Fragments of Jade again. I have to go to work, so I've gone ahead and blocked her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Could you please tag the account as indefblocked as a sock in Template:Blockedsockpuppet, and keep on an on RCFU?--Tznkai (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Greetings! I've seen your User:FisherQueen/Fq-block template in use on a vandal's talk page a time or two. I like the wording of it, especially "your request to be blocked has been granted." I'd like to adapt it for a personalized block message to use in place of uw-voablock. Technically, I know that the template is GFDL, so I have the rights to take it and run with it, but do I have your permission to adapt it? —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Please, help yourself. I know that my happy fish image is sort of me-specific, so feel free to subsitute a different happy image there, or make any other changes that amuse you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if your username was random or does it have some meaning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaveRaiser (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not random; it is a literary reference. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
USER: Jimbo Herndan IS REALLY OCKENBOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!edit
HE WAS AT OCKENBOCKS IP BUT HE CHANGED IP's THAT IS OCKENBOCKS NEW ACCOUNT
Dear FisherQueen,
my name is NOT Samantha I only edit that thing because I heard this girl was gonnd be in it,it said in a newspaper about the roles of this show.
Sorry Thank You!
Hammy29Hamster —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC).
I want to request a block on User:Selenagomez101 , This user has been using a false identity saying that she is Selena Gomez(a disney celeb)
Please Look at the page
Thanks! Hammy29Hamster
--Hammy29Hamster (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
So the "do not feed the trolls" thing doesn't work, apparently. At least no one can say I didn't try. Well, they could—but they'd be mistaken. Precious Roy (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this one is really, truly mentally ill. There isn't anything we can do that will work. No point in engaging her, because the reality she inhabits appears to be only tangentially related to the one we live in. All we can do is keep patiently blocking her. There's no way it can go on for more than fifty or sixty years longer. Seventy, tops. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You know what I like about you? Your unflagging optimism. Precious Roy (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I am an optimist, you know. But I'm also a pragmatist. I don't know why some people find that combination improbable; quite a lot of the time, things do work out for the best eventually. I have occasionally wondered if contacting the London (Ontario) Public Library might help. Someone this crazy and using that library regularly might have come to the notice of the librarians there, who might recognize her if they saw her writing style, and possibly be able to revoke her library internet access privilege. I haven't tried it yet, though, and it is kind of a long shot. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I actually wasn't being sarcastic about the optimism thing. As for calling the library, she has invited you, albeit impolitely, to call them up. Thanks for all your hard work and put-up-with-it-ness. By the way, what's your favorite flavor of Doritos? I think I like Cool Ranch best, but only in moderation. Precious Roy (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool ranch is nice, though the classic nacho cheese flavor is my favorite. And, for the record, in moderation as well; she doesn't seem to understand that just because my user page mentions them whenever she looks at it, doesn't mean I'm enjoying tasty Doritos at that precise moment. I could swear that she gave her real name at one point, but I'm having trouble remembering which sockpuppet it was; I want to find time to dig through and find it, if I can, before emailing the library. The London Public Library is a multi-branch operation; I hope I can get the right branch. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Their IT department might be able to narrow by IP range? Cool ranch is my fave, too, but there's never enough cool-ranchiness on a single chip. <sigh> -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of reasons it may not work, of course- the library may well not have any idea who she is, and not be able to identify her by our data, or not care to take the time to try. Does she really speak 3 languages, though? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't know whether they'll be able to help or not, but I did email the London Public Library with as much information as we have, and links to the logs that would best help their it person track it down. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The multiple language thing is thanks to the magic of machine translation. Someone even complains about it. Precious Roy (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't read French, but I think I got the gist of the edit summary "traduction automatique, incompréhensible en l'état, blanchi". -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why did you delete my artical titled, "Christian Bible Club"edit
Hello my name is Angel Martinez. I would like to know why did you delete my artical about my program, Christian Bible Club. Now, if it didn't have any important stuff, that was because, when you deleted it I was still in the editing process. I would really appreciate it if you would please explain to me exactly why you deleted my artical. I would also like if you could even if it is possible please add my artical back. I added the artical becuase I wanted to help people understand why we have this program in the first place, and why it is so important to spread the word of God to especially teens today. Once again please understand why I need that artical on Wikipedia and why I added that artical. Please contact me ASAP.
Sincerly, Angel Martinez 21:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I deleted your article because I thought it was about a subject that didn't meet the notability criteria, but I'm open to the possibility that I was wrong. If you'll provide me with links to three articles that confirm this subject's notability, in newspapers, magazines, or significant online sources, I'd be happy to undelete the article, and I'll even add the sources to it so no one else will mistake it for an inappropriate article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Here are the links for my artical "Christian Bible Club"edit
Hello here are some liks that you have requested and hopefully you will put my article back adn I thank you for being so kind:
No, none of those are what we need. We need articles that aren't published by the club, but by newspapers and magazines, and which show how notable the club is- why it's important, how it's changed the world. Read the notability criteria and the reliable source criteria more carefully to see what we need. Quite a few of those links aren't even about the Christian Bible Club, and the ones that are are just the club's own web pages. If this is a notable club, it's probably been profiled by Christianity Today, or featured in Time magazine- those are the links we need.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I need help with the resources for my artical "Christian Bible Club"edit
I would like to say that Christian Bible Club is not really a local organization. We are only known in the city of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, so I don't know if I could get links and resources from major companies like the "New York Times" or "Christianity Today". Most of the links that I gave you but two are links that give examples of why I started Christian Bible Club. I put the Christian Bible Club artical on Wikipedia so we can get noticed and heard and hopefully get more member in our mission to spread the word of God to teens in public schools. So, please if you don't mind, please help me.Angel Martinez 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Angel Martinez 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbearer77 (talk • contribs)
I assume that you've read the notability criteria, so you understand that Wikipedia only needs articles about organizations that are so significant that a major encyclopedia would be incomplete without them, organizations whose significance has already been written about in multiple significant sources. If your organization isn't one of those, then you wouldn't expect an encyclopedia to need an article about it. If you were just looking for someplace to promote an organization that isn't notable yet, there are many places on the internet to do that, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I see that you have blocked people before for their username. There is a user named User:Yahoo. This is a corporate name. How should we handle it? Do nothing? Do something? Chergles (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The word 'yahoo' existed long before the corporation, and this user doesn't seem to be promoting the corporation in any way. Personally, I don't think it's a problem; it would be different if the user were representing herself as a Yahoo official. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand now about the "Christian Bible Club" article and why you deleted it. May you please if you don't mind give me some websites that would let me get my organization noticed.
Angel Martinez 21:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbearer77 (talk • contribs)
I don't have any real interest in helping you with your mission, because I'm gay, and organizations like yours are working very hard to strip me of my civil rights. If your organization isn't large and powerful yet, it's okay with me if it stays too small to effectively get me divorced, arrested, fired, disowned, or beaten to death. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
He did not make any personal attacks, so what r u saying that for? He did not even mention anything about gay people, negative or otherwise. I understand why you would be angry, because Christianity is all about being heterosexual, but get the whole story before you lash out. Also, you identify as Christian, so aren't you being just a tad bit hypocritical? All he asked for was a website. JJCoolD 21:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I suppose now would be as good of a time as any to thank you. You may not realize it, but you inspired me to begin editing on Wikipedia. I started out on Wikipedia as User:Twfora, writing the article All Night Production Studios about my film company, which you listed for deletion. I, of course, was angry at first, but through all the arguments with you and other users, I came to realize what Wikipedia is all about. I decided to begin a new life on Wikipedia with a new name, and here I am today with 765 edits, and even a couple of legitimate articles to my name! The film company is growing too and hopefully will be included someday! (Our Website) Thank you once again! Illinois2011 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, just so you don't think I'm using sockpuppets (I had multiple accounts in the beginning before I learned all the rules of Wikipedia), the only other accounts I remember having were User:Bethaltohistorian, and User:Altonwiki. If there is a way to delete these accounts, feel free to do so. Illinois2011 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yay! I think Wikipedia's mission is kinda beautiful, and I'm glad you agreed with me enough to come back. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It is really a neat thing, people from all walks of life, all across the world, coming together to spread knowledge. I wish more people could see this. Instead, I'm afraid most of them leave after their first article gets deleted. I wonder how we could better persuade them to stay? Illinois2011 (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Way to ask a 42 question... :) I got blocked back in '06 for spamming about the "WarWiki" (it's still around, surprisingly, though no one goes there!), and the comment below from Cyde started me on the way to being a good contributor...but I don't know if this would work for everyone. :D
"Alright, I just looked further through your contributions and apparently you have done some stuff for the encyclopedia, but ... please try to focus on that stuff and not the kind of stuff that gets you blocked, okay? Thanks. --Cyde↔Weys 13:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)"
Well, I do my best to be friendly to spammers, and let them know that there's more to Wikipedia than advertising. It's always nice when they embrace our idealism; after all, spammers are people, too. Some people really didn't want anything but a place to advertise, aren't particularly in need of an amusing hobby, and it's okay if they decide that Wikipedia isn't for them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
FQ, I do so love reading your user page :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
You Might Have Misunderstood Christian Bible Clubedit
I would like to say that I am actually offended that you said that organizations like mine are trying to end gay rights. I may be a Christian but my program is nothing like that, actually I am all for gay right I have many friends that are gay and I don't want to change how they are. The reason I want CBC to become a big organization is so that we coud stop VIOLENCE not gay rights. I believe that have have the right to live how ever we choose. In Christian Bible Club we are a very peaceful prganization who believes thast the way to get to someone is to talk to them calm and peaceful. Because if Christian Bible Club becomes like any of those organizations than I wouldn't be following any of the teachings of Jesus Christ. He told us to love our neighbors no matter what. On your user home page if I remember it correctly it said tht you yourself are a Christian. Now, I am not saying this to critisize you becuae by all mean live your life, but if you are supposedly a Christian that you should want to help a teenager that is a fellow Christian trying to spread the god to other teens like myself. Angel Martinez 21:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I assume, then, that your club welcomes gay teenagers as fully equal members, teaches them that God made them gay and loves them just as they are, and supports them in becoming fully equal participants in their churches, able to become members, marry in their churches, and be ordained as pastors in their churches. Congratulations; you are certainly different from other Christian Bible clubs. But you should advertise that more on your web site, or the gay teenagers won't know that your group is a safe place to go. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
My advice to you would be to avoid interacting with only one user regarding content in the project. The decision to delete an article is about policies and guidelines, not about how a particular user feels about a topic. You'll note above that FisherQueen was completely open to the idea that the article in question might actually be about a notable topic. It happens around here that people make mistakes, and it also happens - probably more frequently regarding article deletions - that people (or groups) become notable later and then it becomes appropriate to write an article. This seems particularly true for athletes, such as football players (both kinds) who are young and have yet to play a professional game.
Regarding your article in particular, you should work on finding evidence that the group is notable. Another editor's personal life and beliefs are really not the point. I can say for sure that there are topics in this encyclopedia that I find distasteful, but it's an encyclopedia, and we don't just go around deleting things we find distasteful. We do, however, need to make sure that a topic is notable. Otherwise, we'd be on our way to having a few billion articles for individual people, companies, streets, towns, etc... and that would be...one of many things that Wikipedia is not. Frank | talk 21:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely true; my personal feelings have zero to do with deletion or undeletion. I'm not a big fan of broccoli, either, but I'd oppose deleting the article about it. Yuck, broccoli. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to commend you on your work with Zicraccozian. I go to Fairview High School in Boulder, CO with him. We are friends, and I STILL get a laugh out of that conversation you two had. There ARE a lot of hispanic gangs in our area, though.JJCoolD 20:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a minor situation over at physician. Wishuponsarah (talk·contribs) has been reverting to the same text again and again on physician. S/he has been reverted every single time and a multitude of notes posted on his/her talk page and a discussion started on talk:physician, with absolutely no engagement (and every single talk page posting is blanked without reply). We've been completely unable to even get a response and the changes do not appear to be helping the page (certainly not in the opinion of the I count six or seven other editors who have repeatedly reverted and left messages). Suggestions? WUS has also been blocked but has returned to previous pattern. My thought was report to AIV the next time it happens, but it's a bit more sophisticated than a single line would require. Your patient and fair guidance would be appreciated. I'm ever frustrated by editors who do mediocre work but completely refuse to discuss. WLU(t)(c)(rules - simple rules) 12:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
And I left a friendly-yet-menacing note on his/her talk page to inform. WLU(t)(c)(rules - simple rules) 12:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
She doesn't seem to have edited Physician since her recent block for edit-warring. She hasn't started discussion, either. I'll add the article and her talk page to my watchlist in case of further difficulty. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if it were a one to three reverts per day with no 3RR violation but the same complete lack of engagement on talk pages, what would you do? As a non-admin, what could/would/should I do? An AN/I posting seems overkill and likely to be ignored, AIV is for clear vandalism, 3RR isn't quite right. WLU(t)(c)(rules - simple rules) 16:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
A person can still be edit-warring at fewer than three reverts, and the policy says that pretty clearly. I'd do the same thing: polite warning, then short block. If I weren't an admin, and asking them to talk didn't work over a period of time, I would take it to WP:ANI. There's always admins there looking for a nice easy problem to solve. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Overkill it is then! I'll assail ANI with all my problems hence forth WLU(t)(c)(rules - simple rules) 19:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
And of course, for little stuff, it's usually okay to drop a note to any admins you know are online and willing to deal with that particular sort of problem. You know I'm always happy to block vandals, edit-warriors, and obvious sockpuppets, and that I hesitate to get involved with image use policy because it scares me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I confess that I have started simply deleting image use bot-tags from my talk page and the images in question. I've never seen a bot do anything good regards image use, and it's so obscure I keep failing to understand what I am doing wrong. Oh, and I eat broccoli every day and will live forever because of it. Cruciferous vegetables rule! WLU(t)(c)(rules - simple rules) 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I just only upload pictures I've taken myself. That way, I'm clear on what the legal rights are, and can cheerfully license them under the GDFL. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I know about the rules but all I need is AT LEAST a day or two so I can get my recources of importance ready. That is all I am asking for while my article is still on Wikipedia that is why if you people would read it I had on my article that I was still working on it and I put it there thinking that you people would give it consideration.--Angel Martinez 22:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbearer77 (talk • contribs)
Why don't you get your resources in order, and then write the article, so that it complies with Wikipedia policy? Tan | 39 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you ask an experienced editor to help you verify that your sources really do show that the club is notable, so you don't have any trouble when you create the page. I'm not sure how this club, which, from its web site, appears to have four members, is going to become notable in just a few days, but if you say it will be, then I'm sure you're right. Please don't go on a killing spree just to get the club's name into the newspapers, though. It really isn't worth it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL x 2 :-) Frank | talk 01:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this guy is the founder of the club, so COI should preclude him from writing it regardless of notability, IMvHO. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a misconception about WP:COI, personally, although COI does tend to preclude objectivity, especially in teenagers (among whom a great many things are precluded, in my experience). Frank | talk 13:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Boy, it'd be a real waste of time if she went on a killing spree and the article was still deleted because of the conflict of interest, wouldn't it? What a waste of bullets. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have it on good authority that this is what they drink in Ireland.
Actually, after reading your unblock decline message, there is already consensus; which is why Ben & I kept reverting and trying to stop him starting the whole mess off again. It's even in the comments of Derry for editors to see. Mind you it is the typical NI compromise; no-one actually likes it, but everyone dislikes it equally *grin* --Blowdart | talk 13:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. There are so many more things for nationalists to argue about than the names of things. Or, then again, maybe the names of things are the most important issue there is. It's nice that the folks in Northern Ireland don't have any more serious problems than what to call the name of their towns. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well we can't run around kneecapping each other any more; so I guess wikipedia will have to be a new battlezone *halo* Actually the fact that the name of things is such an high up issue may be a good thing, if all we're doing is a pissing match, well rather than than revert to what was there before. Interestingly it's an issue which politics now tries to avoid. The (London)Derry electoral zone is called Foyle in order to avoid this type of silliness. --Blowdart | talk 15:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you've stopped running around kneecapping each other? Well, that's good news! Congratulations! This calls for a beer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear god no. Guinness in cans is an abomination. You must be American :p --Blowdart | talk 16:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm an American. We have a tragic shortage of drinkable beer here. I generally just drink wine in preference over any beer you can get in a US bar. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I like your response to AliG'2008's unblock request. I have just copied the end of your reply to the guide for appealing blocks - in the section on sockpuppetry, I added a section for repenting sockpuppets, and this sentence of yours is perfect for this. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been quoted in an important, oft-cited essay, for as long as it stays there. Wow! Now I'm really part of the cabal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Give me a minute. I'm still deciding whether I'd eat that or not. I want to be the kind of person who would at least try it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A very good introduction or opening sentence has been removed by user Makrakis from the Greek cuisine, wich was a citation. It left the article a bit empty.
Makrakis motivated it like this : (remove (distorted!) plagiarism from Mackley)
But a citation is not plagiarism. If it is a cutation than it has to refer to the conteent of that book in some way, no? Othervise what is acitation? Or am I getting this wrong??
The citation sounded like this:
Typical Greek food is simple, colorful and packed with robust flavours. Many dishes show influences from the Greek past, having a distinctive style of their own which has not changed much over the years. Greek cuisine has a long tradition of fine cooking and the full range of Greek dishes usually remains undiscovered by the tourist.[1]
A 'citation' is identifying the source of information. 'Plaigiarism' is copying words from another source. I can't tell, from your question, which this is. Did you try asking him? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
No, M is not online since than. But I think ( guess) that he means that the words are an more or less the same as the ones from the book written by McKley.
If that is the case, is it a citation or is it a McKley Plaigiaris? marked ref name="McKley">The Book of Greek Cooking, Lesley Mackley p. 8</ref....
To communicate with the other user, just leave a note on his talk page or on the article talk page, for him to see when he's next online. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I left him a message already.
But i need to understand this matter myself. That is why I was asking you, because I still don't understand this citation stuff fully .
If somebody uses a book X, cite something from it, and uses more or less similar words like the bookX, and marks it with [2], is that a citation or a plaigiaris, this is what I need to understand before I start talking to Stavros, so I know what I am talking about with him...
Blocked again. I have a sinking feeling that I'll be spending my life on this. Picture me, in the nursing home, still monitoring these ips... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
On the upside you'll have a flying car [4] by then and will browse the Internet Mk. XVIII with the power of your mind. Acroterion(talk) 22:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've filed a new CU request. [ roux ] [x] 21:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This seems like a case of WP:DUCK to me, but a CU doesn't hurt.
Oh yeah, there's feathers and beaks everywhere... I just want the CU because of how large the sockfarm it turned up last time was. I wish we could narrow down the range. Or can't we contact his ISP, have them block access to WP from his ISP account? [ roux ] [x] 21:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought really hard, but I couldn't think of a reason. For vandals, I tend to go for one-year rather than indef blocks, because I believe strongly that this year's fifteen-year-old vandal may well be next year's sixteen-year-old credit to the project. Vandals are mostly kids, and kids have a delightful habit of growing up. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
In cleaning up one article (Gangsta Boo), I discovered an article that had been deleted via prod, Both Worlds *69, actually passes notability with ease (it's an album that charted pretty well: #8 R&B/Hip-Hop, #29 Billboard 200). I queried the deleting admin but he is apparently ignoring his talk page. Would it be out of line for me to ask you to undelete it? If you don't want to, I'll understand. It's just that I'm not familiar with the artist in question so a quick clean-up would be easier for me than writing it from scratch. If it's nothing more than a track listing, let me know and I can handle that on my own. Either way, thanks for your time. (And I promise not to think less of you if you won't eat the maggoty cheese.) —Hello, ControlHello, Tony 14:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
If you think you can write a version of this article that doesn't have to be deleted, go for it! The complete deleted article follows.
Oh boy; no wonder it was deleted. OK, I'll bang up something on my own. Thanks for peeking at it for me. —Hello, ControlHello, Tony 15:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want to check it out, it's done. Man, I know way more about this album and artist than I ever wanted to. And I still haven't heard a bar of it. Damn you Wikipedia!! (shakes fist) —Hello, ControlHello, Tony 17:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey, look at that. Information. And sources, even. Neat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your words. My intention really is to improve the article "Spirituality", I wanted to discuss just another approach to re-equip the topic, and wanted to be part of the project related to this. I felt without inclusion of the aspect Spirituality is another approach (just like science) to explore the universe, the nature and the life", the article cannot be completed.
It seems I chose the wrong way with right intention. Thanks to correct me.
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Spirituality are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesonofuniverse (talk • contribs)
