Ah, vandals. They're actually not even 10% as amusing as they think they are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they realize how little effort is expended on 'our' side versus on 'theirs', minus conversations like this, which is really about keeping ourselves entertained. tedder (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. "Bwa ha ha! You cannot stop me! I will keep vandalizing 4EVA!" Okay, then, have fun with that. I'll bet you'll get bored before we do... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
FisherQueen You deleted my edit in the history section under intrapreneurship. I do not understand why you accused me of "changing my name" or creating another account. I have but one and I am a different person that the person I was writing about. True I do know that person, however, the update was still accurate. I have never self-promoted. Please undelete the reference and kindly refrain from false assumptions. Since my brand is my name, doing so may irreparably harm me and I do take that very seriously.Stephenlibman (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)stephenlibman
Yes, you'll recall that I was open to the possibility that you were either the same user as User:Intrapreneurshipdror a friend of his who was editing because he'd asked him to. He isn't allowed to use Wikipedia to promote himself, even if he does so by asking someone else to do the actual typing. If you are interested in editing Wikipedia for yourself, though, rather than on your friend's behalf, you're entirely welcome here. The question is not whether the fact that Edward Haller wrote a masters' thesis on the subject is true- it's whether it's important. I myself wrote a master's thesis on The Faerie Queene, but that doesn't mean that adding my name to the article on that subject would be helpful to the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
FisherQueen you need to unblock this IP they did nothing wrong. You know it, and you were so rude to them and I quote <Start Qoute>Since you can't understand why you are blocked, and won't believe that you really are blocked<End Quote>To me it sound like you are just playing with them and when you are done you block the talk page. You owe them a sorry letter and also you unblock the IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.99.83.3 .
I'm going to explain this to you just once more. We are not playing with you, this is not a game. You really are blocked. Stop changing ips to avoid your block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand, Hitler. You and your chronies have successfully raped the formerly free encyclopedia into your own ideal image. Maybe I was adding to my stub before it was marked for speedy delete within seconds of posting. Fucking WikiNazi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cancermustdie (talk • contribs)
What's funny about this is that she never even bothered to write the deleted article- it wasn't deleted for lack of notability, but for absence of content. She's made three different personal attacks but no attempt to actually write an article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Completely agreed. FisherDyke here declined my completely valid unblock request. Bitch. Fortunately, i was persistent in my fight for justice, and kind Beeblebrox accepted my request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beteskilla (talk • contribs)
Interesting edit after the warning from User:Beeblebrox that even one more vandal edit (like this one) would result in a permanent block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This is what I get for trying to be nice. Right now another person who I let talk me into unblocking them is trying to get ArbCom to clear his name and say his original blocking was unjustified. I'm getting the feeling that there may be a direct correlation between how cynical an admin is and how many unblock rerquests they have handled... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for blocking Cancermustdie: I was getting sick of their attacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by DylanIloveYou (talk • contribs) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
She had ample warning, and at no time did anyone even use the cheerful sarcasm that is sometimes directed at unhelpful editors; she saw only polite explanations, and responded with hateful attacks. Heaven knows what she'd do if she were in a really tense editing conflict, when she can't even deal with the idea that, in order to have an article published at Wikipedia, you do have to actually write an article. I just gave her a short block, though; if she wants to come back with better manners, she can.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with that. The personal attacks went beyond the user talk pages. It started with the deleted article talk page where they first reacted to the deletion. Sorry that they think you deleted the article and got some abuse for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me that the attacks continued. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Please try to maintain a professional tone when blocking editors. I understand that User:Cancermustdie was not editing productively and was engaging in personal attacks, and I have declined the request for unblocking. However, it's not difficult to understand why Cancermustdie was upset by the blocking message. When we respond to attacks with sarcasm (especially when we are using our buttons to limit their editing options), it does not have the effect of defusing the situation. A neutral block message is much more likely to convince the blocked editor to improve his behavior once the block ends. Dekimasuよ! 03:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I confess that I do have a template which I use on very rare occasions, on users who are behaving so outrageously badly that it seems unlikely that they will improve their behavior, who have failed to respond to politeness, and who have been blocked after making choices that they understood would lead to those blocks. It's a template I use rarely, and I've been often complimented on it by other editors and admins. However, I acknowledge that it is not helpful in situations which might be defused by politeness or reasonable discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the Talk Page of User:Tarman10 needs to be protected to prevent Tarman10 from editing.--Lamborghini man (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to protect the page right now, since he hasn't made excessive unblock requests or particularly disruptive edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A twice-banned user is assuming two new identities
FisherQueen, I need your help. There is a person who is vandalizing Wikipedia and trying to evade his block via sock puppets. I believe you are familiar with him. His original name was azayas4reel and he has since used the sock puppet HarabianNights (which has also been banned) and now HarabianNights1. I believe he has created another sock puppet based on my handle. He is now going by Tainotalisman2 and he is trying to prevent a deletion of an article on Anthony Zayas. I am not Tainotalisman2 nor want to be confused for him. Please advise. Thanks, Tainotalisman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tainotalisman (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You accidentally put your comment in the middle of someone else's, so I've moved it for you. Gay people are welcome on Wikipedia, obviously, but since most of your edits have been vandalism, I'm reluctant to invite you to join the LGBT WikiProject. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought I got it but I was sadly mistaken, too funny. Regardless, I am writing about a business and have a few questions if you could help me out. I understand the "circling" of Wiki pages already created i.e. bands, athletes, etc. but I'm wondering why I can't post the current list of signed licenses and reference them without an opinion to their current Wiki pages. Also, you deleted the whole page of content...are you able to review it first and let me know if any of it can be used? I wanted to post fees as there is a section about the company that is a false representation even stating that we are with MasterCard which is a direct violation of our contractual agreement and its written as an opinion. Simple Plan Does that make sense at all? =) I will rewrite the content and keep it more simple and in an encyclopedic format so to speak. I may reference you a bit if you don't mind as I do want to get this right. Thank you for your guidance, I really appreciate it. I will get a handle on this quickly. Everette M. (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Everette M.
Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, but since you put it at the top, not the bottom, of my talk page, I didn't notice it. There really isn't any correct way to write about your own company at Wikipedia, but if it truly is notable, someone else will write about it, using the best available sources in discussing it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The previously blocked IP 76.167.244.204 has started up again recently, editing similarly themed articles as those edited before the block. I also noticed this unreferenced IP 76.172.77.227 was getting in on the action as well. I had to revert some incorrect information added by this second IP, but nothing that can be called explicitly vandalism yet. Thought you might want to take a look since you have made posts on the 76.167.244.204 talk page. Cheers. GreyWyvern⚒ 05:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Blocked and blocked. I remember that last time, he didn't seem to understand that he was blocked as a human being, not just as an account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks for the swift response! GreyWyvern⚒ 13:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't want to block him if he actually does own the copyright on that bit of text; a reliable history would be useful on that page, and it's very generous of him to offer to release it to us. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
But we need CC-By-SA now, although GFDL is a nice extra. :) (Actually, essential from sole copyright owners, but joint copyright owners may at their discretion trailing away into technicalities....) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I missed that change! I support it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
LOL! :D Meanwhile, the martyrdom march continues.... --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I did tell him exactly what to say to get his block reduced to 24 hours, and he replied with some not very nice things rather than saying it, which indicates to me that he'd prefer to be blocked. Which is okay with me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Given his overall combative approach, best for everybody at this point. I had crafted a note for him myself, but waffled over language, and before I got the chance to post it he had already hauled aloft his flaming brands to burn the witch(es). At that point, my assumption of good faith grew alarmed and scurried away. I have not seen it since. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You will burn.
As part of the cabal, you too are going to burn. Like a tasty marshmallow for s'mores. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
←Biscuits and s'mores! This is so the page to be today! :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Mmmmmmm, chocolate This is all so unfair! It makes my gift look all pointed and teeth-breaking. Therefore, I see your s'mores and raise you a chocolate cake. ➜❝Redvers❞ 15:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
A cup of steaming chocolate goodness. Beverage? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
No matter where you live, a tasty biscuit is always welcome.
It wasn't the threat to sue Wikipedia I was worried about, the Foundation is big enough to take care of itself. But threatening to sue involved admins, well, takes the biscuit, doesn't it? Mjroots (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I like biscuits. Are we taking British biscuits, or US biscuits? Because I like both, but I think I'd prefer an American biscuit this morning. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
American biscuits are cookies, aren't they? Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we call those cookies, and I don't think our biscuits are widely eaten in Britain- they're like scones, but lighter, fluffier, and sweeter. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Block for legal threats was lifted as the threats were withdrawn. I take it you still have the school page watchlisted in case the copyvio is readded. I feel we've explained the situation fully now and further disruptive editing can only lead to an indef block, with removal of talk page rights if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes; I'm curious to see what happens when the 24-hour block expires. I'm not satisfied that he understands the difference between the information in the article, which is not copyrighted, and the text of the article, which is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Mjroots has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
User:Marcelgolfer Can we take a look at the four or five pages he has created and act accordingly to whatever is appropriate? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
We could, but since someone else just blocked him, it's probably pointless. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Im sorry but you told me that my edits were biased?
The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор; translation: death by starvation) refers to the famine of 1932–1933 in the Ukrainian SSR during which millions of people starved to death as a result of the economic and trade policies instituted by the government of Joseph Stalin. The famine was a part of wider Soviet famine of 1932–1933. There were no natural causes for starvation and in fact, Ukraine - unlike other Soviet Republics - enjoyed a bumper wheat crop in 1932.[1][2] The Holodomor is considered one of the greatest calamities to affect the Ukrainian nation in modern history. Millions of inhabitants of Ukraine died of starvation in an unprecedented peacetime catastrophe.[1][3][4][5] Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range mostly from 2.6 million[6][7] to 10 million.[8]
Denial of the Holodomor is the assertion that the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Soviet Ukraine did not occur.[58][59][60][61] This denial and suppression was made in official Soviet propaganda and was supported by some Western journalists and intellectuals.[59][60][62][63][64]
Denial of the famine by Soviet authorities, including President Mikhail Kalinin and Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, was immediate and continued into the 1980s. The Soviet party line was echoed at the time of the famine by some prominent Western journalists, including Walter Duranty and Louis Fischer. The denial of the famine was a highly successful and well orchestrated disinformation campaign by the Soviet government [58][59][60]. Stalin "had achieved the impossible: he had silenced all the talk of hunger... Millions were dying, but the nation hymned the praises of collectivization", said historian and writer Edvard Radzinsky[60]. That was the first major instance of Soviet authorities adopting Hitler's Big Lie propaganda technique to sway world opinion, to be followed by similar campaigns over the Moscow Trials and denial of the Gulag labor camp system, according to Robert Conquest [38]
The criticism is portrayed as an evil Soviet plot to brainwash its people.
This is all in a section that's titled "Denial of the Holodomor".
All I did was neutrally present the leftist viewpoint and the criticism of the famine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakooza2 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my review of your contributions makes me think that you're at Wikipedia to promote a specific point of view, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. However, this is a subject I don't know very much about, so if the more knowledgeable editors who work on that article agree with you that these are accurate facts that would be part of the best possible version of the article, then that's fine. It will be easy to tell whether you're here to promote your point of view or not, as your time in Wikipedia continues, by looking at the overall pattern of your edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear fisherQueen, i would just like to say how i think your block on Beteskilla is absurd, and also how I am in no direct relationship to him/her. Thanks. Beteskiller (talk)-Beteskiller —Preceding undated comment added 14:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for reporting yourself and requesting the block, but I'm more likely to see new messages if they're at the bottom of the page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
FK U SON OF A BITH FOR REMOVING MY SHIT
UR A PIECE OF SHIT WIT UR CAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnterPass (talk • contribs)
Yes, I'd be happy to block you. Thank you for asking on my talk page rather than continuing to vandalize the encyclopedia. Have a lovely evening. As a side note, I am not in fact a son of a bitch; I am the bitch herself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I love your style; I see there was a queue to block this goon, but I came to the party too late. Much kudos to you. Rodhullandemu 01:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you appear to have dated but not signed your most recent comment on this AfD. Perhaps you would like to redo that signature? Cheers —Ash (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Would like your input here please. Note: This is a draft, to be kept in my namespace until the editor is off their block and their new contributions can be reviewed. Frmatt (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's true that she seems not to understand the concepts of edit-warring and consensus, and that an indefinite block is the most likely outcome. I'd like to believe that she can come to understand it, and I think she should get one more chance before the indef, but if the community wants to save itself time, I will understand. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing would make me happier than to delete that page unused...as it stands, nothing will happen with that page until they come off their current block and are back editing again at which point we can see if they've read and understood the policies. Thanks for the input. Frmatt (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried once more on her talk page to communicate to her what the best way to edit is, and how close she is to getting indeffed. My personal opinion is that the next edit-warring block should be a long one, to impress upon her the importance of the rule- say, two weeks, or a month- and that the following one should be indef. I'm all for helping confused users learn the rules, but people who cannot or will not learn the rules are a drain on the community's patience. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw that, and I hope that they get the message! Frmatt (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I already knew that new user patrol was a task that is repetitive, often boring, frequently drawing insults and vandalism, and something that not many editors would notice or express gratitude for. And that's fine. I have always been content to serve in this little way, because I enjoyed it, and I assumed that I was being helpful. This morning, after reading this and this, I find that I've lost my taste for the job for the moment. If new user patrollers are that much of a problem at Wikipedia, then I wish Wikipedia good luck in managing without them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. There is a bunch of crap that is published and some that can be saved. You have to take the dross out of gold for it to be pure....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realise that people were doing such a sick breaching experiment on my time. They should be ashamed of themselves. They've lost another NPP here too. Wikipedia can drown under the tide of crap for all I care. I assume that's what they wanted to achieve. ➜❝Redvers❞ 08:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I was watching recent changes and came across your talk page. I really liked the deleted articles FAQ. You just made my day!! Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear FisherQueen.
This has reference to my contributions to Wikipedia page "Indian Oil Corporation" that you did not find in order. Hence, I am making this personal appeal to you. Indian Oil Corporation Limited is the organisation that not only provided me the bread and butter for myself and my family for nearly three decades but also provided me an excellent opportunity to grow as a person. I hold my Indian Oil in high esteem and that is what I conveyed, in my emotional speech, to the Board of Directors and the Shareholders during the last Annual General Meeting of the Company held at Mumbai on 14th September 2009 also. I am not against my own organisation. I am not against any of the employees of my own organisation. Even the Board of Directors and Sr Management Personnel appreciate my crusade, albeit privately. What all I have been representing for more than a decade to Indian Oil and the Government of India authorities including the Prime Minister and the President of India, and continue to do it, is that there have been certain organisational irregularities that need to be corrected. However, if highlighting those irregularities and illegalities show my organisation in poor light, I cannot be blamed for it since IT IS CERTAINLY NOT MY INTENTION to show Indian Oil Corporation Limited in poor light. On the contrary, by highlighting the undesired act and putting them in public domain can help put societal pressure from the concerned persons of the Global village on Indian Oil Management to improve. I hope, you would appreciate my view point. However, if you are fully convinced that I should not put up those aspects on Indian Oil Corporation page on Wikipedia, I shall NOT DO IT. While concluding, I take the opportunity to request to correct the page name as Indian Oil Corporation Limited which is showing as Indian Oil Corporation.
With warm regards,
Babubhai Vaghela, Retired Senior Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited residing at C-202, Shrinandnagar No. V, Makarba Road, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051, India, Mobile - 91 94276 08632Vaghelabd (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaghelabd (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The editor may agree to not edit the MonaVie and Acai articles. If he does this, I would like your support to get him unblocked. I will try to work with him to show him how to properly edit an article, add references, start a new article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything on his talk page indicating he's considering that... maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You may or may not think it worth your while spending a minute or so reading an answer to IP69.226.103.13's suggestion which I have posted at ANI. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think he's even remotely interested in editing Wikipedia, for sure. But User:IP69.226.103.13 wants to do everything he can for a new user, and I don't mind letting him see for himself what I see from long experience with similar editors. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I assume you're correct, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt from looking at how quickly he was jumped on rather than helped. It's no loss to me if I try this, being civil and helpful and assuming good faith with a new editor, and he shows he's just here for MonaVie promotion and winds up getting blocked again. If this turns out not to be the case, no matter how improbable, there's nothing but wins all around.
I have also told him that he has to request being unblocked with the stipulation that he not edit MonaVie or Acai and warned him about sock puppets, and, as he has not officially requested unblocking yet, there's nothing for you to do, except support it when he does. He may not be totally clear, but I see no hurry in the discussion and working out details stage.
Being wrong in this case won't bother me in the least bit for having tried. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello FisherQueen. I happened to see your name at ANI regarding the MonaVie issue, which seems to concern long-term POV editing. A possibly-similar case is sitting at WP:AN3 which I am planning to close soon, where an enthusiastic editor, Mindgladiator, is promoting the cause of J. Z. Knight, a sort of a medium who has many publications and a large following. Mindgladiator probably deserves 31 hours for edit warring, but since he is an SPA, this will likely only produce a short pause in his activities. In a case like this, do you think an editing restriction would be justified? Instead of giving a block, I was thinking of a 30-day ban from editing the article, but such things usually need consensus, perhaps at AN. What is your own opinion of article bans for a case like this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Although you didn't ask me, my opinion is that an article ban is a good way to start. It will be about as effective for a spa as a 31 hour block (zero), but it makes a more appropriate point from the community to spa editing for promotional purposes at wikipedia. The editor will probably just go to similar articles and try to add the exact same information to other articles, so it should be the article and topic, imo. I think an article (and topic) ban defines the problem in a way that a short term block doesn't. I hope you do propose this with appropriate diffs instead of going for a 31hour block. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello FQ: The AN3 is now closed, but I am still curious to know how you would handle this, in the general case. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:132.3.1.68, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or shared IP header templates (for unregistered editors). However, it should be noted that these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thank you for your time and consideration. Your fellow admin, — Kralizec! (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
And mine. I also think the criteria you set for your wikibreak return have already been met. Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Most definitely come back. New page patroil is very important, those that disagree haven't spent a few hours seeing the amazing amount of crap published. We clean it up before they can see it...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I count you among my most respected editors, and I'm on the same page; there is a constant deluge of crap pouring in that someone has to clean up. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm also very sad to see you leaving, even for a while. Sometimes when my frustration with wikipedia peaks, I like to go back to the basics - ignore the source of my frustration either start a new page, expand an old one, or even just throw in some citations. Or, may I suggest an extended visit to an exotic foreign destination? Filled with soothing massage, endless beverages, a chair on the beach and a stack of good books to read.
For any of her talk page stalkers, I had originally come by to ask a question about deletion review - if anyone wouldn't mind dropping into my talk page, I'd like a bit of perspective regarding a recent deletion discussion. Yes, it's shameless and inappropriate begging, but without FQ as my wikicompass, to whom shall I turn? WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of male performers in gay porn films. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
