I don't think you were involved. So, maybe you should not speak for the "consensus" if you are not part of it. Make sense? :) Donny417 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I think it's clear to anyone who read the talk page of that article that the consensus of the involved people is that the story you're trying to insert just isn't appropriate for that article. I've been watching the discussion and the history because I noticed how hard you were trying to add this rather distasteful but not especially important story, and am waiting to see if I need to protect the article or block anyone for edit-warring. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I understand. No edit-warring going on here (if you notice my edits). I'm actively trying to work with the entire group of editors until a consensus is reached. As for the "distasteful" information, I apologize if you're offended. Remember though, Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for children for people easily offended. Feel free to contribute to the discussion on the talk page. Donny417 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't object to the distastefulness of the information, but to the fact that it doesn't seem to have very much to do with explaining what an Arabian horse is, which is the purpose of that article. If you're especially interested in that story, you could always try creating a separate article about the incident. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
FisherQueen, thank you for your help with the article. I appreciate your help and constructive input in the face of the attention that this article has had in the last few days. Montanabw(talk) 19:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note edits and discussion at Horse. Montanabw(talk) 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, for god's sake. At this point, this user very clearly understands that the consensus of the community does not agree with him that articles explaining what horses are need any detail at all about having sex with them. It is no longer possible to assume that he is editing in good faith, and he'll doubtless be blocked for it soon if he doesn't shape up and get over his obsession with horse sex. If he wants to do it, let him go do it, and stop filling up Wikipedia with it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You are an admin, correct? (If you aren't, you should be) Montanabw(talk) 02:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am. -FisherQueen (Talk) 05:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
HAHAHA That made me laugh out loud. no, for real. not just a LOL, not the lolz and lulz, a real Scare-my-cats and wake the fert laugh. That ought to make ANY editor sit up and knock it off. ThuranX 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Sweet! At least, as long as I'm not the one on the receiving end of the can of whoopass you can unleash. Montanabw(talk) 07:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I opened a thread on Donny417 at WP:ANI a couple of days ago. Morven ran a checkuser and concludes that Donny's evaded 3RR using IP's, and recommends a block. Donny must have read your edit summary, though: he's been laying low ever since. Acroterion(talk) 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out to me; if he comes back, I'd be more than happy to lay a smackdown on him in the form of a block. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he'll be back for a while, and he'll be pretty easy to spot if he does show up, so all's well. Acroterion(talk) 15:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Every once in a while - say once a day or more - I get tickled by your edit summaries. I can only imagine what they're like on actual articles, but the ones on your talk page make me laugh. A lot. I'm just glad you don't have a sense of humor! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing duller than a page history with no amusing edit summaries, don't you think? -FisherQueen (Talk) 05:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi FQ, I was hoping you could give me a hand with AFD. I recently nominated Reginald James MacGregor. From my reading of the AFD debate, it looked like a pretty clear deletion - no sources beyond a list of books published, so everything except the list is unsourced or OR. Yet it got kept as a No Consensus. Makes it look like a vote. Where is my misunderstanding? The 'keep points' were basically 'It's hard to apply WP:BIO 'cause he's dead' (but no print sources are available) and 'he's got lots of books and they were re-published a bunch of times', the only source is a list of books from the British Library. Admins are people too, is this a mistake, or am I being overly zealous in my interpretation of WP:BIO?
I think the argument is that there are probably sources available in print and not online; but no one actually went looking for those sources. Kind of sloppy thinking on the part of some, though I understand the argument that if he had a significant number of books published by a significant publisher, he's probably notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for dropping a note to Adam Fendelman. I think that seeing an authority figure may work to get him to reconsider things. I appreciate it, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that sentiment. That said, I'm sure you reviewd the talk page, and waned to ask if I'd left hiim the 'right' sort of explanations about things here on wikipedia. ThuranX 19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you did just fine. He just didn't want to do what you were saying... I suspect he will come back to spam again, and I'll have to actually block him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Sthupp, FisherQueen. Sthupp is the cornerstone upon which a great nation had once arised. From these ashes he was born like a phoenix encompassing all that was good in lively in this shallow earth of great report and without the common distatute that i have been placed in period of homeostasis that must be uplifted IMMEDIATELY! you madame are an incoherent babbling brooke of where-with-all only to be dismayed by the force of reconcile to be shouted at the lungs of the great elders that once stood tall above the mountain tops with their scrolls crafted from the finest satin in this fair republic. Sthupp!
It's interesting that you call me "incoherent." Please, don't create any more nonsense articles. Get a MySpace page if you just want to create funny web pages. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sthupp x2
Dude myspace is sweet! I get so many fine honies. But i can't spread the knowledge of sthupp with a repitoire of intellectuals like yourself. Why would you strike down the ceation of Sthupp so hastily? Good day to you madame and may your wildest encounters of pure fiction and desire come true! --Sthupp 16:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Wildest encounters of pure fiction and desire" doesn't even make sense. Unfortunately, fine intellectuals such as myself expect a higher degree of coherence than you appear to be able to provide right now, so I don't think Wikipedia is going to suit your needs at the present time. Should we discover that we do have a need for a semicomprehensible high school student, we have your resume on file. Thank you, and goodbye. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I've reinstated my very valid edits about this adorable girl. I'd appreciate it if you didn't remove them. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohcahtoa...baby (talk • contribs)
I see that someone has already blocked you before I got a chance. Do me a favor and bugger off, will you? -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I tell you what, why don't YOU FUCK OFF, you cunt. If you didn't delete all my fucking edits then I wouldn't need to leave messages on ur talking page asking u why. (u never actaully did justify why u removed them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobydick (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh for the love of God, FQ has been nothing but civil to you, quite beyond the bounds of what is required, actually. (Oh and she did justify the removal of the edits... something to do with personal opinion and referencable facts, but you appear to have ignored that. Your language is quite unnecessary, by the way - you can be snarky without being rude to ladies. I've resigned myself to you being snarky, but I will not resign myself to you being rude. - Philippe | Talk 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Meh. He's a troll. He'll only go away when he gets bored. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Id like to note the last reverts of user Francis Tyers [[1]] and [[2]]. It seems to be an edit war without any serious explanations. Please could you have a look at that reverts? Thanks in advance! Andranikpasha 21:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Users are allowed to remove messages from their talk pages; doing so is considered acknowledgement that they have read them. As for Khojaly Massacre, I'm afraid I don't understand the issues, and I'm having trouble understanding your comments on the talk page, too. You should continue seeking mutual understanding and consensus on the talk page. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyways thanks for your reply!Andranikpasha 22:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the Kirsten Kemp edit to Saved by the Bell. Please quit reversing it. Youngberry 13:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I reversed it only once, the version in which you claim that she "played the skin flute" on that show. If you have a citation for that fact, I'd be glad to see it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Message from Coordinator: It's been almost two months since the last newsletter came out, so there are a fair few people who haven't really been kept up with our project. I'd like to welcome all those who have joined and those who have returned, and strongly reccommend that you use the talkpage for any queries or problems you have. Happy editing!
Article News
The ongoing effort to create a comprehensive list of LGB people has begun to bear fruit - /A AND the /W-Z lists have been featured! Congratulations to Dev920 and SatyrTN who nominated them respectively. Please consider pitching in the the remaining lists to help us get them finished before the end of the year.
Project News
WP:LGBT now has an IRC channel! It is #LGBTProject on Freenode. Users without IRC or Xchat can use the java app at java.freenode.net to access the channel from their web browser. Hope to see you in there sometime!
David Shankbone has taken a LOT of photos. An idea has been mooted to create a page for listing people who are willing to take images in their area on request, please give your thoughts here.
Considerable discussion has recently been held on our coverage of same sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. You may be interested to read it.
The list of LGBT people to be sorted has now been reduced by over 30%. Please help us with it, all of us adding just one person a day would have a dramatic effect!
A gay cabal conspiracy ghost has been created to do with what you will. :)
Wooh, massive gay conspiracy...
Member News
Since the last newsletter was released, we have had more members been labelled inactive than who have signed up - please consider recruiting a few more people if you can, a WikiProject is only as good as its members. :)
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Note two lines of discussion in Talk:Arabian horse. Donny isn't over it and somehow got someone to dredge up an edit war that ended ages ago. Help! Article passed GA months ago. Concerns of the Andalusian/Iberian horse people were addressed in the controversies section. Article is sourced up the wazoo and critic presents no alternatives, only generalized breed-bashing. Need that can of whoopass, can you help? Montanabw(talk) 03:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Warned already, firmly, on his talk page. I don't feel great about a block based on that comment, although one more like it would do the trick. And someone else might feel differently; there are a fair number of admins watching my talk page who are welcome to look at it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You said, "...Since this article is very, very thoroughly cited, and since the talk page doesn't show the signs of "other editors challenging the objectiveness of the article" that you claim..." I say, yes, it is NOT cited thoroughly. Here are the answers to the following...
2) Lack of objectiveness displayed by other editors [4] and [5]
3) Obvious excessive applauding specific to Arabian Horse Breeds [6]
However, as I stated on the Arabian horse talk page, since some people feel my contributions are disruptive, I will not seek GA review myself, or ask any other editor to do so on my behalf. Just please don't restrict other users opinions based on how you feel about me, that is all I ask. I take your warning to heart and I'm going to make a good-faith effort to ensure you don't have to warm me again. Thanks for the feedback. Donny417 14:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your withdrawal from the question; it does show good faith. Regarding your cites:
1) This is not about Arabian horse, it is about Horses in warfare. I think that it's hard to say that an article with 85 sources is insufficiently cited.
2) The first source is about Horses in warfare, not Arabian horse. The second is from an anonymous user who has not made any other edits, and thus lacks the credibility of an established user. Since you yourself have used anonymous IPs in addition to your registered account, people may even suspect that you wrote this one yourself; that kind of suspicion is one disadvantage of choosing to edit without logging in.
3) The section could possibly be rephrased, but I didn't find the pov either obvious or excessive, and certainly not enough to delist the whole article from GA.
Please block my account, Donny417, indefinitely per user request. This will allow me time to re-evaluate my thinking without the temptation of disruptive editing. Plus, on the bright side, a lot of people with be happier :) It's been a pleasure, and one day I'm sure I'll be back. Happy editing! Donny417 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that policy doesn't allow me to block for that reason... you'll have to use your own willpower as you re-evaluate your Wikipedia experience. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no way I can block myself? You know, sometimes the best thing to do is eliminate the opportunity for disaster. I could have swore I've seen other user pages with a template that read "This user has been blocked indefinitely per his/her request", did that policy go out the window? Donny417 19:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked 24 hours--Hu12 20:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Er, and reblocked indef. I can't see a 24 hour block stopping this guy from calling another person a pathetic cunt, really... ~ Riana ⁂ 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You are a sad person who spends her whole life on wikipedia. You have no mates. Despite my edits I do actually have a life outside of wikipedia. I have lots of mates and lots of hobbies such as football and tennis. I'm also very intelligent as I have 9A*s in my GCSEs (all in proper subjects). So how dare YOU patronise me. From the timings of your edits (eg: 10:13, 14:39 etc) clearly all you do all day is edit wikipedia. It's all you have. Nothing else in your sad, pathetic life. (and u say ur a nerd). That's quite unhealthy if you ask me.
And yes I do think a little girl is sweet and cute. She's extreemly sweet and adorable. Nobody could possibly fail to think so. I also think rabbits are sweet and cute. It doesn't mean I want to f*** them up the arse. Ask most people whether
a)they think rabbits are cute and sweet b)if they fancy them
and most people would give an answer of yes to a) and no to b). (except AnemoneProjectors who'd say yes to both). My point is clear : you can think something/someone is sweet without fancying them. So how dare you acuse me of being a paedophile. I should sue you for slander (or is it libel...) but seeing as you probably live in a bedsit without a job there doesn't seem much point. At the very least you should be blocked for such a viscous personal attack and stopped from being an admin. By the way, adorableness is not a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddlyabi (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
However, a viscous personal attack would be profoundly messy. What's a bedsit? -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A viscous personal attack? Sounds sloppy >> ~ Riana ⁂ 03:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
What are the effects Of Plasma Parameters On Viscosity[citation needed]...lol--Hu12 03:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it pitiful to say that I'm a little bit sad that I didn't get trolled by this guy? He's ALWAYS trolled me first. There's a little empty spot in my heart. - Philippe | Talk 03:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you've been jilted, Philippe. I guess I'm just irresistable. I have to confess... I did say that there was something extremely creepy about his obsession with the little girl, and yes, I did use Wikilinks to imply that his edits were consistent with those of a pedophilic stalker. That may have annoyed him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You know, I will agree with your cheeky little un-fan on one point; I fancy rabbits too... especially if you stew an older one in red wine with mushrooms and onions ala coq au vin, yum!--Isotope23talk 12:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Mmm... bunny. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
...and this one meets criteria a) above. I hope you are armed.--Isotope23talk 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Are these the best comebacks that you sad admins can think of. HAHA. I'm sure my point about rabbits probably didn't achieve its intended effect as most of you probably are sexually attratcted to them. Adorableness is not in any other dictionary, therefore it isn't a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddlylorna (talk • contribs) 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please help stop that one person's edits on the RSK towns. He changed it again! (LAz17 14:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)).
I'm aware of the situation, and I've drawn it to the attention of other editors. We're working on it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I see that, while I was out shopping for comic books, one of those other editors verified my judgment (I didn't like to make decisions unilaterally on a subject I'm unfamiliar with) and protected the page, so that the anon cannot edit it right now. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Lord knows I understand the temptation, but edit summaries with all caps and lots of exclamation points usually make the situation worse, rarely better. We have to remain calm, so as to make it clear which person is the unreasonable one. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm, yes, you are right about the caps lock stuff. I used to be into comics. I'd recommend the series called The Adventures of Tintin... so check those comics out if you can. They made only like 23 er so of them, and they're about 62 pages long so I guess they're graphic novels. (LAz17 04:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)).
Hi, FisherQueen. I understand why you removed the comments at Talk:Fun Home, but I actually wasn't sure whether the anon was complaining about the article or its subject matter. (I sort of doubt he had considered the distinction himself.) I tried to address both in my reply. Of course, it's likely that the anon won't look at that talk page again, but my reasoning was that it was better to address the comment than ignore it. I'm generally uncomfortable with removing talk page comments myself, although I don't have a problem with those who do. Anyway, I wanted to touch base with you about that. No biggie. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's no big deal; with the article on the main page, and considering the nature of the comments, I thought that they ought to be treated as simple vandalism. If you think they ought to be restored, though, I won't revert you. To be honest, I didn't even check to see who you were; if I'd realized that you were a fellow admin and the one who brought the article to FA in the first place, rather than just a Wandering Editor, I might have left it alone. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Nah, now that it's gone I don't feel the need to restore it. I dropped a note on the anon's talk page, which should suffice. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the speedy tag. I didn't know streets were not candidate for speedy. Can you please explain this is written? --Edcolins 18:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The exact criteria are at WP:CSD. A7 (that's the one for failure to assert notability) applies to people, bands, groups, companies, and web content, but not to city streets. Or to movies, annoyingly. I see you've already added a prod, which is exactly the right thing to do with an article like this; then, if the creator disputes it, you add it to Articles for Deletion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Very good point. Thanks. I had never noticed that "sub-condition". --Edcolins 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure about this. This article was speedily deleted without notice and much explanation... can an admin do that? I am just surprised. --Edcolins 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I restored the article. --Edcolins 19:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There does seem to be a assertion of notability there; I'm not sure if he'll actually pass AfD, but that seems like the more appropriate forum to decide the question. I think I would have waited for a response from Tregoweth before restoration, just to avoid wheel-warring, if it were me, but I'm a naturally cautious soul, you know. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure about this. This article was speedily deleted without notice and much explanation... can an admin do that? I am just surprised. RealTimeBattle is a well known open source programming game packaged in major Linux repositories. moxon 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it truly a well known programming game, one that meets the notability guidelines? There was nothing in the article that would show how it meets them, and yes, speedy deletion is specifically for articles which don't include any information about how the subject is important. Can you provide three reliable sources- articles about this subject in sources that are significant, that have editorial review of some kind, and that are independent of the subject itself? I did a google search, but I couldn't find any reliable sources; just download sites and similar. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way- it is odd that you just copied the comment above yours, which was about a very different situation, an article in which notability was clearly asserted and there was a real question about whether the deleting admin was right. Deletion of articles that meet the criteria is a big part of an admin's job. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I attached my references to the Chris McIntosh article and have verified all information as correct to the best of my knowledge and sources available. The original article isn't even close to being correct - Mike Holmaker isn't a coach it is Mike Holmgren, Chris McIntosh played for the Wisconsin Badgers, there isn't a midfield position in football (let alone an midfield). Please present my article.
Thank you for adding the sources. Wow! I wonder how the article went so far wrong? I withdraw my accusation of vandalism; as you can imagine, when you see uncited changes of facts, they are often high school kids trying to be funny. I'm glad the article is more accurate now. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, I am. But I'm afraid I don't date girls who write in all caps, I don't date high-school girls, and I don't date people who vandalize Wikipedia, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline your oh-so-appealing offer. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see previous comment. In general, lesbians don't suck nearly as much dick as porn would have you believe.-FisherQueen (Talk) 15:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
ROFL! Quality response :o) Guy (Help!) 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It's here on Wikipedia that you really learn how tragically lacking American sex-education programs are. That's really the sort of thing a person ought to know, by high school. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for injecting a dose of reality here to crush my ill-gotten fantasies... 8P --Isotope23talk 15:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Isotope23. You'll have to settle for hot girl-reverting-girl action here at Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Scissor me timbers?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chino sti (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
so how do you .. you know.. what is it.. like.. scissoring??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chino sti (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
if you're going to delete pages that you deem are unnecessary less than a minute after i've begun the article, please have the courtesy to include a link to the content so that i don't have to start over. I understand you mistook Apparition_(software) for a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it is an open source community developed project, one of only 3 open source PDF viewers available for windows, as you could have seen by following any of the links on the article i began creating. thanks.Brinerustle 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll tell you what; I'll recreate it if you can point me toward three newspaper articles, magazine articles, or articles about the program in significant online sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Aren't you a generous wikicop. With that criteria you could wipe out 3/4 of the wikipedia articles about open source software. Get a little humility, and recreate the article. I'll restate WHY its notable. its a tool people can use for free to do a very common task - read PDFs - that few software programs do. Since you are unable to understand that, listen, why don't you go ahead and delete the existence of this program from wikipedia entirely:
The next time people are looking for an open source alternative to the multinational ADOBE Acrobat i guess theyll be unable to find one because what really counts is not that somethings notable, its that its popular.Brinerustle 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the criteria of multiple, independent reliable sources is part of the notability guideline, which is indeed a criteria that all articles must meet. But since you're taken such an uncivil tone, I don't feel like helping you out any more, and will let you use the usual process of taking your sources to deletion review if they exist. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, i was being uncivil, i apologise. By deleting the article while i was working on it and refusing so pointedly to give me the benefit of the doubt, you were not following any of the recommendations given in the deletion guide. Please reread it. Brinerustle 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I get very focused, on new page patrol, and this article showed all the signs of being just like the hundreds of similar articles that get created every day by people who want to advertise their non-notable products. We have to be very assertive in deleting them, or Wikipedia would quickly become an enormous collection of spam. But I will apologize most sincerely to you, after I learn that this really is a notable product. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the talk page of the Chris McIntosh article with references and edits. I do appreciate being called a vandal, a little bit of infamy sounds fun - perhaps someday I'll deserve the title.
Hi, I've noticed your prod on Dog horn publishing - and I agree that the article should be deleted; but I wonder if you could assist. Earlier this evening I nominated that article for speedy deletion (there is no such company at Companies House and the claims made are not verified but linked back to the company website). However, there is no such record of me nominating this for a speedy deletion in the edit history? Do you know what might have caused that?
Alongside Dog horn publishing / Polluto we have been "walking together" on CrossLoop (people will talk ;-) ) - thanks for your gentle way of easing people through. I tend to come across quite agressive or, at the very least, stubborn. Keep up the good work. B1atv 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've enjoyed sharing newpages patrol with you this evening. I think we see the subject of notability quite similarly. I see that the Dog Horn situation was taken care of while I was at church choir practice, so I will simply weigh in on the AfD discussion and consider it taken care of. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I got your note of speedy deletion warning, do I need to remove the information of this page until its all finished, and then save it? I'm guessing that's what I should have done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilateral comm (talk • contribs) 12:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with the article right now is that it gives absolutely no indication of whether or not this is a notable person. In fact, when I read it, I assumed that it was written by a college student named Sean Stewart, trying to make himself sound impressive. If this is a real philosopher/physicist/mystic who meets the notability criteria, it needs some specific information about why he is important, and some reliable sources verifying his importance. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol yea I guess it's unfounded right now..I 'saved' before it was done. I wonder if I should take it down, and just put up the finished product. I've got to gather the sources and put it all together I guess. I've edited pages before, just never created my own, I was in an area that I figured he'd show up in, and he wasn't in here yet. Thanks for the info FisherQueen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trilateral comm (talk • contribs) 13:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What is this, some sort of super-secret code? The eagle has landed at midnight...." - Philippe | Talk 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hooray, hooray for the spinster's sister's daughter. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Good morning, Have a quick minute for a question?edit
Could you please take a look at this user's page for me? At first glance, it seems to qualify for G-11, and it appears it may be the same person as User:Sandlercomm who was banned for adding promotional pages with the promotional username. This user just removed the tag from the blocked user's page, so I'd just like someone to take a peek. They've uploaded an unsourced image with the same company name, Image:Sandler Communications.gif, so it seems they have promotional intentions, and that's also why I think it is the same person. I appreciate it if you can help! Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 11:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That's just adorable. I deleted the userpage as a blatant advertisement for a non-notable company, then blocked Djgps for sockpuppetry. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I loved your edit summaries! And thank you so much for taking care of that so quickly! Excellently done, and I'm glad my suspicions were valid. Thanks again! Ariel♥Gold 11:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello FisherQueen. You deleted the Bag of Toys page I created yesterdayedit
The reason was because "No assertion of notability" which is incorrect. I forgot to list the fact that their original song "Share" from their Nooner album was licensed in late 2006 by Microsoft for use in a national television commericial for their Zune media player. The commercial was in heavy prime time rotation in all major media markets and can be seen here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WGq--cfd8PA
Please put the page back and add this assertion of notability. Thank you! ~David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicoman98 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
A YouTube video by itself does not demonstrate notability. You'll need multiple reliable sources- like newspaper and magazine articles, or reviews of the band in significant online sources- in order to show that the band is notable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern FisherQueen, about the article on WolfTeamedit
But I can asure you that all the information I give is relivent. I am now aware that I should put references on the page. I am a noob at editing pages for as this is the first article I have been working on. I thank you for making me aware of the need for references. Also I am a curent player of the game WolfTeam and use knoledge from there to help make the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleman 64 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
But I see that you have only added links to the game's pages as references, which does not do anything to demonstrate the notability that I questioned. I'm really, really tired right now, so I'll wait and refer it to AfD in the morning, assuming no one has added reliable sources in the meantime. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
You re-deleted the page Flash Flash Revolution under CSD G4. G4 does not apply here: it only applies to pages where "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted." The article was re-written from scratch after the deletion, meaning that it was not "substantially identical" to the deleted version. Furthermore, the re-created article addressed the problems brought up at AfD, including the problems about notability and original research. The talk page which you deleted contained discussion that explained all of this.
I ask that you please restore this page immediately, and that you nominate the article for AfD if you think it deserves deletion. Thank you! - Chardish 19:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Argh. I'm on my way out the door right now, could some admin who sees this look into this? Thanks. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The latest version didn't establish any notability through coverage in reliable sources. Instead of forcing these through recreation and AfD, I recommend you take it to deletion review, Chardish. LeeboT/C 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The other key part to the G4 criterion is the above and that "any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted." Looks like there still weren't reliable sources and it still didn't meet WP:V. Another DRV would be in order. -- Merope 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There were reliable sources - I recall a couple links to news articles on ZDNet about the site and a scan from a European gaming magazine that listed it as one of the 10 best flash games online. It would be nice to have access to those so that I could point them out to you, but I can't, as they're deleted.
I can understand if your opinion is that the sources found are not sufficient to maintain the article, but it simply can't be argued that the notability and verifiability concerns weren't addressed. G4 only applies if the people who recreated the article did nothing to remedy the problems with it. - Chardish 07:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you to my colleagues for looking at this one. I feel okay about letting it go to deletion review for the community to judge the sources again. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you please explain first how your interpretation of G4 is correct, in light of the facts I have brought to your attention? - Chardish 17:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, it's all right; you don't have to take it to deletion review if you don't want to. It's entirely your choice. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. User:Bazaryakov is continuing to disrupt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitri Novgorodsky with continued screeds, after I have made several attempts to reason with him, and to rescue this mess of an article. At several points, I tried to respond, but his edit conflicts blocked me, so I had to fix the glitches there. I can no longer objectively "vote" on this, as I have made some technical edits to the article, so I changed my comment at the AfD page to Neutral. See the talk page for my additional comments. Bearian 13:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to get the way our deletion conversations work, and is doing a lot of damage to his argument with his long and frequent comments. Too bad, too, because this really is a tricky one that could go either way in discussion. I've rearranged the discussion just a little bit so that it's easier to tell the votes from the creator's confusions additions. I tried to warn him; hope I phrased it in a way that was clear but firm. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
By sheer coincidence, I thought this morning to look up Dr. Teeth and the Electric Mayhem ... and it's TAGGED FOR DELETION !!! Who's the filthy SOB? ... FisherQueen ... Wait a minute ... She's normally sensible ... Bad acid? Aha. Copyvio. But wait, they're cribbing from Wikipedia. Joy! The best band name of all time lives another day!
I suppose we'll see this more and more, and copyvio detective work will get a lot harder. Acroterion(talk) 14:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I must have still been pretty sleepy this morning when I was looking at that. How in the world did a copyright violation so blatant manage to stay up for years I asked? I was much reassured when I realized that the copyright violation was in the other direction, and have deleted the AfD so that no one can ever find it. My secret is safe forever, and my tracks are completely covered. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked it up because I had this fantasy that somewhere out there was a real band that could take pride in the knowledge that they were once the Electric Mayhem. But I couldn't find any information about the musicians who played the Electric Mayhem out there, so I suppose they were just random studio musicians. Sigh. One more in the long line of dashed fantasies that is my life. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if some of The Wrecking Crew were involved - they were in everything else. If that was the case, The Electric Mayhem would be the least of their credits. But we will speak of this no more, now that you've buried the bodies/evidence. Acroterion(talk) 16:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
One further note - Mac Rebennack, or Dr. John was one of the Wrecking Crew, and Dr. Teeth's name was supposed to be derived from him. Acroterion(talk) 16:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that was a pretty interesting article- I've never heard of them before today. I love it when I learn things on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, dont know if you can help me but, do you know who is in charge for blocking users becuase of repetitive vandilism?? Denzillacey 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
FQ, I hope you don't mind if i step in here. Denzillacey, if the vandal has been warned and is active now, you may report them at WP:AIV. - Philippe | Talk 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Philippe. I was hoping I hadn't been put in sole charge of blocking vandals. I admit I spend a little too much time on here, but I do sleep occasionally. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sleep? Sleep is for beginners. You renounced the right to this so-called "sleep" when you passed RFA. - Philippe | Talk 19:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
PS I just started using Twinkle. That's a pretty neat little bunch of features, and very user-friendly. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Twinkle rocks. My only complaint is that sometimes it's not consistent - there are times you need to add a variable to the "more" field of the block template, but usually you don't. I'd prefer it were consistent, but that's a very minor gripe about an overall amazing script. - Philippe | Talk 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find {{nn-warn}} and {{nn-notice}}, which I tend to use instead of {{uw-create1}} for non-notable topics, but that's a matter of having different template choices than the coder rather than a flaw in the program. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You deleted my page, with the purported reason CSD a7. I do not see why this article is insignificant as it provides relevant information about the topic at hand in an effective manner. I am putting the page back up and I kindly request that you do not delete it, or if you see that it does not meet certain standards please inform me as to what needs to change. - LV111 20:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Your comment doesn't make it completely clear; which part of the notability criteria did the page meet? Can you provide two or three independent, reliable sources (NOT the band's own web page) that would verify the band's importance? -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've found one of his books listed on the two NYT best seller lists - links are in in the article now. Probably enough to show notability. Exxolon 16:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I removed the speedy deletion tag when I saw the source. Writer of a best-seller is most definitely an argument for notability. Thanks for adding the info! -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
you marked my article on the German label Galakthorrö for speedy deletion. I must tell you that I do not think that this label is insignificant. One example (and I surely could find more) is that in Last.fm the group around this label has 60 members:
http://www.last.fm/group/Galakthorr%C3%B6
Maybe in the States the label is not very famous yet, but it is among the first 3 industrial labels in Germany, and at least as well-known as for example Ant-Zen, for which there is an Wiki article existing.
Don't you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiefoflight (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That's fine; I couldn't find any evidence that the label met the notablity requirements, but if you do have several significant sources - articles about the label- then all you need to do is add them to the article. If it's already been deleted, and you don't want to bother with deletion review, I'll undelete it if you can link me to three newspaper articles, magazine articles, or articles in significant online sources about the label. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I also notice that you placed the {{hangon}} tag on your own talk page, instead of on the article, which had the effect of tagging your talk page for deletion, and that an admin who wasn't paying quite enough attention mistook your tag for a request to delete your talk page. The hangon tag only belongs on pages that have been tagged for speedy deletion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
What was your intent with that edit? Did that user ask you to remove code from his userpage? -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The HTML was invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.188.69.129 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? It seems to work on the page to add the "Awards and Gifts" heading; your edit had the effect of removing that heading. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Good lord, the things I learn when I read someone else's talk page... Didn't even know that was happening. - Philippe | Talk 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, sweetie, we took care of it for you. You can go back to whatever you were doing. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You've been very helpful to me in the recent past and was hoping you could help me again. Someone has left a very abusive message on my talk page in response to my ask for help regarding the deletion of my ScanSafe entry. I'm not sure what would solicit such impolite behavior and do hope that you can help me to resolve this issue.
Jaranda thought that it didn't assert the signficance of the program. Your best choice is to take it to deletion review, and show the community there how it meets the notability requirements. That way, you can point to the community consensus if there's further questions about the product's notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The abusive editor who left "fuck you" on your talk page wasn't the admin who deleted the article, just one of those wandering vandals Wikipedia has so many of. Look back through my archives, and you'll see that I have lots of similarly charming comments. Some other admin has already blocked the account indefinitely before I even woke up this morning. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit busy with off-wiki at the moment... any way I can convince you to keep an eye on Brett Favre? There is a banned editor who keeps showing up there and editing. I've been the primary lookout for him, but as I'm going to be a bit inactive for a while, I'm trying to find someone else to watch and help preserve the sanity of the other contributors to the article. I can give you all relevant info you'd need to recognize his socks.--Isotope23talk 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yarrr, it be added to me watchlist, and if the mangy dogs try to vandalize it, I'll see them whipped and keel-hauled. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Er... is it the one who's adding "is definitely the best quarterback" to the article? Or a different one? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! No, his edits will look completely legit. I'll give you more info shortly.--Isotope23talk 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't have email enabled do you? How have you been getting your CabalTM Newsletter? --Isotope23talk 15:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid for reasons of Wikiphilosophy, I don't have my email enabled, and thus I have no idea what the Cabal is up to this week. I suppose that's why I never get invited to the Cabal cocktail party/orgies. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't feel bad; I do have email enabled and I still am not invited... at least not after what happened at that last party...
I've got an idea on how to get the info to you without giving away my super secret info. Give me a few minutes.--Isotope23talk 15:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for whatever mistake I have done. So please do unblock me. This should not mean that I have surrendered to Kannada racists who vandalise Tamil workgroup pages. I was incensed against their effort to gag my contributions with unnecessary tags. So please unblock a useful user. I have also read most of wiki rules now.no hard feelings towards a prodigal wikipedian.
I see that you are still in conversation with several people who are familiar with your edits on your own talk page. When you're ready to post another unblock request there, and can convince an admin that you are able to edit usefully, your user talk page is the place to do it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It's okay; it's only temporarily blocked to give you time for cooling off. You'll be able to post there after September 25. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, using IPs to edit while you are blocked is against the rules, so this conversation will be an argument against unblocking you. In fact, using IPs to edit while you were blocked is the reason that your block was extended to an indefinite block instead of a temporary one in the first place, if I understand the history on your talk page correctly. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I read your edit summary and am a bit confused . . . can you clarify for me? -WarthogDemon 21:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I assume you mean Bio-organización? The speedy deletion criteria is for "a foreign language article that exists on another Wikimedia project." If I'm interpreting the criterion correctly, that means that it can be speedily deleted if the article is in Spanish, and it's already on the Spanish Wikipedia. This one isn't, so I sent it to the translation team, who can tell us whether it is worth keeping or not... unless you know enough Spanish to determine that it's non-notable. I have a little Spanish, but this one is over my head. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? I thought that criterion would mean the article WOULD be notable . . . unless you mean that articles can not simply be "duplicated" from one language to the next. Is that the case? If not, I have CSD reading to do. D: -WarthogDemon 22:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I double-checked at WP:CSD, and it says "Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project. If the article does not exist on another project, use the template {{notenglish}} instead, and list the page at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for review and possible translation." -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the logic is that, if someone wants to read about Bio-organización in Spanish, the article is already available elsewhere, but if it isn't, then it might say something worth translating and keeping? -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense . . . I think. o.o -WarthogDemon 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just thought I'd point out that User:Joanna-Jervis's edit to Potter may not have been highly encyclopaedic, but it was not vandalism. Stoke-on-Trent is a town highly connected to the English pottery industry, the local football team is known as 'The Potters', and 'potter' is a colloquial reference for people from the town (similar to people from Liverpool being called a 'Scouser' etc).
This is probably too trivial to be defined on the disambiguation page, but I don't think it's real vandalism either.. and especially for a users first ever contribution to Wikipedia I thought the vandalism tag was a bit harsh, assume good faith and all that.. Of course most of the 'contributors' to that page do deserve the vandal tag :-), keep up the good fight! EasyTarget 09:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OH, is that what it meant? It sounded like she was doing a shout-out to one of her mates, Jim Potter or something like that. I will apologize to her. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
An apology; my comments on User talk:Joanna-Jervis were out of line. I wasn't trying to be insulting, just flippant/ironic, but a second reading made me realise that it was neither. Het spijt me. EasyTarget 14:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing to say, so here is a picture of a rabbit with a waffle on its head.
Thank you very much honorable FisherQueen!
I've just started that article named EPTO explaining that it will be an analysis of meaning and usage of these words Peer and Training in different organizations and social contexts and suddenly I see you deleting my beginings! Come on! Brother, be a bit indulgently and patient. If you delete all my attempts from the very beginning how can I do something?
Can you bring it back, so that I could continue and improve the thing?
Appreciated in advance
--Jesuseee 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The version I deleted was a copyright violation; you cannot republish someone else's copyrighted material here. The article you're trying to create isn't "an analysis of meaning and usage of these words"- that wouldn't even be an encyclopedia article- it's an article about the organization "European Peer Training Organization." I could bring it back, but first I'd need you to provide me with three newspaper articles, magazine articles, or articles in significant online sources (NOT the group's own web page), to verify that this organization meets the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, your right!
I'll find these articles but I want you to know that my intention was to write a thing about different organizations in Europe which use non-formal education or so called "Peer Training". And, can you explaine please how could I violate the copyright you mentioned , who's copyright? I typed down each word from my head.
Can I continue writing my article using comparetive method (I asure you, it's not about European Peer Training Organization exceptionally)?
--Jesuseee 11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it was another supporter of the organization who created the version that was copied from the organization's web site; it has been deleted several times. No, you should not recreate it until after you have multiple, independent, reliable sources that you can use to provide information about the topic. I'm having a little trouble understanding what you want to do, if not write about the organization EPTO; maybe you'll be able to make this work more effectively if you choose the Wikipedia in your native language instead of the English Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm...I just wonder why this discussion is associated with rabbits and waffles. I feel myself out of the cultural context you are in.
Anyway, I'm affraid if I explaine my position in another way, you will post a kangaroo with pasta on its ears. I think you just don't want to understand. But thanks for instructions.
--Jesuseee 13:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I posted a picture of a rabbit with a waffle on its head because I don't understand what you are talking about. You want to create the article EPTO, but you don't want to write about the organization EPTO, you want to write about Peer training. But you still want to call it EPTO. And it isn't really about peer training, it's about the words "Peer" and "Training". Frankly, the only thing I can think is that you are trying to promote the organization EPTO while avoiding the notability requirement, or else that you don't understand what an encyclopedia is. And the whole thing makes me so confused, that all I can do is post a picture of a rabbit with a waffle on its head, which makes more sense to me than what you are trying to do. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I see that Wiki has reliable guards...
But, have you ever thought what is really valuable knowledge?
Who or what tells us what and where to read and write? If you find more sense concerning my writing in that rabbit, then why don't you find more value in the waffle on top of its head?
--Jesuseee 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to but in - but, that rabbit and waffle - I like your style :-) B1atv 14:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's funny... I'm trying to persuade Fisher that a waffle I propose to eat is worth trying. Maybe it looks exotic on rabbit's head but it's eatable.
--Jesuseee 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
You're asking whether I've thought about what is really valuable knowledge to include in Wikipedia. I certainly have, and the whole community has discussed it a great deal- how do we decide which topics will be useful, while keeping Wikipedia from turning into just another pile of advertising? We've agreed together on a set of standards that we think describe the kinds of information Wikipedia should have, and we call those standards the notability guidelines. I've linked to them several times already. Usually, when someone starts asking questions like yours, it means that they really, really want to advertise their group, and wish that we hadn't thought quite so much about what is really valuable knowledge. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey. Please always check talk pages before doing moves. Talk:Iron maiden (torture device)#Requested move was closed as "no move" yesterday, but you did this move today as "G6" after one user apparently did not like the RM result and inappropriately added a {{db-move}} tag on iron maiden. I have reversed this move. By the way, you forgot to move the talk page with the article. Thanks, Prolog 22:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologize; I thought that there was consensus to move. Thank you for correcting my error. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen. Okay I'm clearly doing something wrong and I've stopped. What I'm not understanding is what I've done wrong. There is an online poll to find England's Most Beautiful Cathedral. Seems interesting. There is a link of every page to the wikipedia entry for that Cathedral, which is good isn't it? Help, pleaee advise. I am one of the good guys honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionbear (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It gives facts, and links on Wikipedia are to sources of facts. The links you're trying to add are advertisements for a poll. They aren't reliable sources of fact. You are not one of the good guys on this occasion; in fact, by Wikipedia's definition, you are a spammer. If you want to improve an article about a cathedral, you can do so by researching that cathedral, adding an important fact that wasn't there before, and citing a reliable source. Not by spamming for a poll. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand. Another user, Beetstra, explained it to me pleasantly and fairly. I stopped, as you will have seen, as soon as someone pointed out the error. --Lionbear 11:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping. You are, of course, still welcome at Wikipedia, if you're interested in helping us write an encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi FQ. Regarding the above links, would it be acceptable for them to be posted on these articles' talk pages?--VoxHumana8' 13:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
What's the point? The poll doesn't seem to be being conducted by any particularly noteworthy group; there's no evidence that it's especially important. Why isn't it just linkspamming for the poll? -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not just about its lack of notability: it does seem relevant. However, I agree that its place is certainly not in the main article.--VoxHumana8' 15:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No, seriously, why is it relevant? It might be useful for the people running the poll to have a link at Wikipedia so they can get traffic... but what useful and reliable information is on the poll that Wikipedia needs? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you around and available? I have an issue that I think needs some attention, I'd like your assistance with. It is related to the WP:KIDS decision by the Arb committee. Holler if you're still around! (I saw you'd recently blocked someone so I'm hoping you're here) Ariel♥Gold 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yoyoyo. What up? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh thank the WikiGods. Alright this is an issue I believe needs attention, but also delicacy. Xx--emo--x--chicken--xx is new, and the only mainspace edit was a good faith contrib creating a page (that already existed, so was redirected), but the person self-idenifies as 12 years old, and they've put significant personal information on their userpage, including their full name, full names of family members, etc. Now granted, I've not had much experience with how WP:KIDS issues are handled, but removing the info would still leave it in the history. I think maybe it would be appropriate to delete the userpage, and then re-create it without the private information, leaving a note on their talk page helpfully explaining that they should not provide private information. What do you think? I would be more than willing to re-create the page, I've saved the userpage code. Ariel♥Gold 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's start by asking her to remove it herself... if I'm reading WP:KIDS correctly, that's one of the options open to us. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay let me drop her a note. Ariel♥Gold 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Beat you to it... 'cause I'm just that good. :) I noticed that she hasn't edited for a few weeks, so I removed the year from her userpage for her. If she comes back, and has anything to say, she knows where to find me. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeek. I didn't notice how much identifying information she had up there... I'll do a little editing on it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL yes, that was my main concern. It sort of seems to me, just personally, that posting the full names of all your family is sort of... well, I can't think of a word for it, but not a great idea, especially if they don't know you've done that. I would sure be not happy if someone did that for me! But at the same time, I don't know that there's any policy that says users can't do that... so urk. I dunno. It just seems to me a bad idea. I'm going to add a cute picture to your talk page note, okay? Ariel♥Gold 15:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
That'll teach me not to speed-read. I deleted the userpage, then recreated it with the names removed. And yes, you are welcome to add cute pictures. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Urk, here is another one: Jordan5001 and he states that he knows Emo Chicken, plus he too, has all that kind of information on the userpage, DOB, mother, father, full names of siblings, step family, including email and phone numbers. Serious double urk! That needs taken care of as well, sorry dear, I didn't think that this would be more work than just the one easy page, and this one is significantly more advanced, but still quite concerning, he's only 13. Ariel♥Gold 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Emo Chicken may have recently been editing as an IP (which is how I saw the page in the first place, an IP edited the page which was flagged for investigation on my RC patrol tool), but I see she's just made some edits under her own account. — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You know, I don't think it would be unreasonable of me to email Jordan's mom and let her know that he needs a refresher course in internet safety. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree!! And I'm sorry but I really would say this is a deletable page, recreated of course, but this is not okay to have phone numbers and such on userpages without the knowledge of the person in question. I'm very concerned. Also, I'd like to give huge credit to Timotab for finding these issues, and his dedication to protecting the underage editors is awesome. Also, as with the last time I came to you out of the blue, your speedy response and helpful words are just so wonderful, I hope you know how much I appreciate them, and you! Ariel♥Gold 15:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually Jordan is only 12, (okay almost 13, lol). I'll leave the emailing to you, of course, as an administrator. But yes, perfectly reasonable. This sort of thing is scary, especially when I've had the bad fortune to actually see the types of problems this sort of thing causes. Ariel♥Gold 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for helping out with this, and yes, I think emailing his mum is a good idea. (note, she's English, so she's his mum, not his mom) ;) — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
And Emo Chicken is online, or was a few minutes ago, so she's seen the changes. She's not re-created them, thank goodness! (And P.S. Queen, yes, I do want to know your granny's name!) Ariel♥Gold 15:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've deleted his userpage, recreated it and taken off all the names and identifying information (Good Lord! He listed the full names of every kid he knows!), and emailed his Mom, or, if you happen to be English, Mum. Jeez. By the way, my granny's name is Lois. She's very nice. You'd like her. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if she's had any influence on you, I'm sure she's wonderful. Again, I can't express how much I appreciate how quickly you reply, how you're so helpful without being impersonal (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but it isn't who I am, lol) and how quickly you act with regards to any concerns I have brought to you. My most sincere thanks. Truly. (And I hope you don't get sick of me coming to bug you!) ~*Curtsy*~ Ariel♥Gold 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No worries; it was nice to have a little break from deleting nonsense pages. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
My (viciously devalued) $0.02... in the past I have boldly deleted userpages where minors have posted personal info, replaced it with a "This is User X's userpage", and posted a very polite notice on their talkpage letting them know why I deleted it. I think how you handled it was wholly appropriate FQ. Too bad more kids are not talked too about Net safety.--Isotope23talk 19:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This was a reminder to me to talk to my students about Net safety for a few minutes. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for removing all of that vunerable info from mine and Emo Chicken's userpages as I understand we have caused a bit of hastle. I've had a chat about it with my mum and Jodie (Emo Chicken) and we have realised how stupid we have both been. After all, we are young and still learning!
Also, can you tell me if being this young affects any of my editing as I have created 9 articles on Wikipedia.
Thanks for all your help. Jordan5001 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to step in here, and assure you that it was in no way a hassle, or a problem at all! This is about your security, and there is no hassle where that's involved. And it was not stupid of you, it was simply you not understanding, and that's fine, we all learn as we go, throughout our entire lives. Do not feel bad about this at all, and don't give it another thought, okay? Additionally, it doesn't affect a thing regarding your edits, Wikipedia has administrators under the age of 18, and age is certainly no indicator of maturity. From what I've seen briefly when evaluating your page, you're a great asset to Wikipedia and the community is very luck to have you! Keep it up! Ariel♥Gold 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, that's a weight of mind. After the lecture from my mum, it made me feel a bit guilty! Jordan5001 18:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
No dear, don't feel at all guilty, please just consider this one of life's learning experiences, and know that no harm at all was done, your mum was simply concerned for you, that's all. Nobody is mad, nothing was a problem or hassle, and it is wonderful that you understand the reasons. Although, in an ideal world, they would not be needed, it is a good lesson to learn this early in life: Keep your information private online. Ariel♥Gold 18:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about it. It only took a minute to fix it for you, and now you know a valuable lesson that you didn't know before. Learning things is good. Learning things without having to deal with any consequence scarier than a talking-to from your mum is even better. And, yes- your edits are solid and useful, and we're glad to have you around. Smart teenagers can be just as useful on Wikipedia as smart adults, and are considerably more useful than some of the schmucks we get around here. (Do they say 'schmuck' in England? Should I say 'wanker?' Is that a dirty word? Oh, dear, it's all so complicated...)-FisherQueen (Talk) 20:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way- if Jodie happens to read this talk page... I think that Emo Chicken might be the best username ever. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I just have to say that your use of images in discussions is priceless. I particularly loved the rabbit, dear Queen! Ariel♥Gold 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've suddenly decided that pages that are all text and no pictures are boring to look at. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
why did you delete the article infield hit? I wrote the article myself, and did not copy it from anywhere. Yeom0609 22:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right; you didn't. I'm sorry, I didn't see that article under there. Another user replaced it with an advertisement for a non-notable book called Infield Hit, and that's the one I saw and deleted. I've restored it to your most recent edit. -FisherQueen (Talk) 04:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I am a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor, and if this isn't the correct way to inquire about matters such as this, I apologize.
I noticed that you've done extensive reworking of the Florentino V. Floro article, and after reading through it (and a lot of the history and talk pages around it), I must ask, how is Judge Floro notable enough to be included in Wikipedia?
Part of the reason I ask is because, if I've parsed some of the stream-of-consciousness stuff in his user talk page correctly, his main reason for having an article on Wiki is because when he tried posting his stuff on message boards, he was derided, and often ejected. (I am a member of two web fora that have banned him for spamming; he recently signed on as a sock on one of them to promote his worldview again. Floro provided links to his wiki article as supporting evidence, which is why I looked at his pages here.)
I was thinking about recommending the Floro article for some form of deletion, especially considering that before you rewrote it the article seemed to have been created and maintained by Floro himself, or one of several socks. However, the rewrite is much better, in my opinion.
Still, it seems to me that the this guy's notability is manufactured by himself, after the notoriety surrounding his dismissal from the bench wore off....
Yes, I did a fair amount of work on that article when Floro himself was writing it. There seemed to me to be enough sources discussing him to meet the notability guidelines. Most of the sources, though, are of the "News of the Weird and Wacky" sort... if you want to try nominating it for deletion, the instructions are at the articles for deletion page. I thought that some of the sources at least indicated that his case was notable in the way it exposed serious flaws in the Phillipine justice system which allowed someone so seriously mentally ill to serve as a judge for so long, but my feelings won't be hurt if you want to run it by the community at AfD. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I would be inclined to not worry about it, but for the fact that Floro is starting to include the Wiki link in his spamming. Of course, after your rewrite, it's not giving the impression that he thinks it's giving....
I'll think about it some more.
Thanks again,
Robaato 15:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
He sort of makes me sad. I don't think he understands that when he tries to publicize himself, he's only publicly humiliating himself. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The page was already deleted and restored once -- five
minutes ago. Could you please un-delete it
again and let it remain that way for more than a couple of minutes so that
I may actually "assert its notability"? Thanks. Lars Ingebrigtsen 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd be glad to. Can you give me the first three newspaper articles, magazine article, or articles in significant online sources that you're planning to add, so I can restore it knowing that she really does meet the guidelines? (I'll even add them to the article for you when I restore it.) -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Works for me as an assertion of notability. I can't promise it'll make it through a deletion debate, but I've recreated it and added a note asking other users not to tag it for speedy deletion again. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. As you can imagine, Wikipedia gets lots of garage bands trying to create articles about themselves, so newpages patrollers tend to be pretty assertive about new articles on musicians and bands. Thanks for not being too freaked out by all the patrollers who jumped on this one. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Either that, or the toolbox next to a userpage, for a few minutes, offered me the "eviscerate this user" option. And I'll forever regret not using it... - Me Too FisherQueen
(Talk) 20:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If you check the talk page of 'The Closet' there is indeed a discussion about the inappropriateness of the uncited current lead in. If the sig of the original poster is indeed accurate, the request to replace the lead in is by an eminent LGBT scholar. There has been no one who has offered a defense for the current uncited lead in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
My bad, carry on. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I just want to personally say thank you for deleting the article I just worked on (Xesam). No need for tagging, or asking – just deleting it off my hands. When I read Andrew Lih: Unwanted: New articles in Wikipedia, I thought he was overstating, but obviously he was not.--Hhielscher 11:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. I had intended to tag it first, but when my finger slipped a bit and didn't hit the "tag-only" feature in Twinkle, I didn't worry too much about it. After all, it wasn't as if the article included any assertion of notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way- I'd be glad to undelete it, if it actually is notable. If you can give me the links to the first three newspaper articles, magazine articles, or articles in significant online sources about the subject that you were planning to add as sources, I'll undelete it and even stick those sources in for you. I'm afraid I can't see the link you offered; I'm at work right now, and our system doesn't allow us to view most blogs. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that one should not need external sources to understand wikipedia articles. Xesam was mentioned in at least two articles without any further explanation. Do you propose to rather add an description, of what Xesam is, into these articles?--Hhielscher 22:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I respect your belief that an article should not need external sources. However, Wikipedia's policy requires that all information on Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources. If you don't like my offer, you have the right to go through the regular process and submit your sources of notability at deletion review for the community to discuss, if you prefer. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was that an article should be self explaining. Of what use is wikipedia anyway if you need an external encyclopaedia or an external dictionary or an external search engine to understand its content. In the case above my question was where to add this information best. You obviously disagreed that the information I added is sufficient for an article of its own. So would you please be so kind to answer where the information I tried to add is best placed?
Sorry, but I really don't have the time to argue over notability issues or even start arguing over notability rules themselves.
P.S. Thanks for correcting/commenting my poor use of English. (already toned down above)
P.P.S: What do you think about the blog of Andrew Lih now that you've read it?--Hhielscher 12:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
(CarsonG)Yes, my article was deleted with no warning, apparently by you (Associated Student Government). The exceedingly small so called description states that it was deleted speedily and because no assertion of notability existed in the article.
First, I completely disagree with this assesment. In the article as it stood before the unilateral deletion there were many sentences that could all in their own right qualify as sufficient to satisfy the new article notability requirements.
Second, if for some reason in your wisdom you think, which obviously you do, that there is insufficient evidence to prove the importance of a legislative body at a major university that serves over 28,000 students then I will be happy to add in any and all evidence that would exculpate ASG (The Associated Student Government) from any scrutiny.
Please restore the page exactly as it was and I will complete the offered terms and add in information specifically citing why the Associated Student Government of Texas State is notable enough that everyone in the world should have access.(CarsonG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarsonG (talk • contribs) 21:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely! I'd be glad to restore the page, just as it was. Could you please link here to the best three newspaper articles, magazine article, or articles in significant online sources about this organization? Remember, they need to be from sources independent of the organization, so no articles in the university newspaper or the university web page. I'll even add the sources to the article when I recreate it. Thanks! -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
(CarsonG)How can I get the source code for the original page? I would like to preserve that for the future.CarsonG —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.wentworth.senate.state.tx.us/pr03/p030603a.htm -- This is a presss release from Senator Wentworth's Office noting ASG's role in getting the university's name changed from Southwest Texas to Southwest Texas State University.
This isn't an article about ASG; it's an article about football, and includes a former member of ASG who is not representing ASG. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't an article about ASG; it's an article about tuition costs. It does at least show ASG exerting influence on university decision-making; it's the first article on the list that would support notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This article isn't really about ASG, but it does show ASG's influence over student affairs... that's two sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the sources. Now that I can see that the subject does appear to meet the notability guidelines, I've recreated the article, and saved you the trouble of going through deletion review. Have a lovely day. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I was just beginning to work on the page for First Priority, a large Christian youth organization based in Nashville with affiliates across the Southeastern US. While I was in another browser window looking for sources, you deleted the entry. Could you please restore it so that I can work on it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilder1998 (talk • Bwilder1998 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for beating me to this. Something's gone odd about Twinkle; I clicked the button for "tag-only," but it deleted the article anyway. I'll be tagging articles manually until it's fixed, I guess. Oh, and I'm assuming you're familiar with WP:ORG and that this organization does meet it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Er.... sorry and apologies if I'm not completely familiar with the Wikipedia protocol... But... I've just started the 'Miserabilist' page - it's a work (page) in progress and I genuinely think it has some validity. Although it's a bit thin at the moment, that's because it's only existed for about ten minutes - I do intend working on it in the next few days/ weeks. I think it's a bit premature to slap a 'deletion' request on it after just a few minutes...???
Even though I didn't delete the article, I would be happy to help you. You can appeal the deletion by filing a request at deletion review. You should give them the links to three different articles in newspapers, magazines, or literary journals about the miserabilist movement, so they can verify that it meets the notability guideline, and isn't a word that was made up by and is used by just a few people. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
---Ok thanks. I will expand on it and give references. It's not something I've just invented, but a term that has has been applied for so long now that I think it's gained enough momentum to be considered a valid category. I will add to it in the next few days/weeks. If after that, it's considered insubstantial and not relevant then certainly delete it. But maybe just give a little leeway? --GeneralJumbo 22:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to make sure you understand the process. Don't recreate the article. Instead, ask the community to decide whether to recreate it, and show the community the references at the deletion review page. If you just recreate it, it'll just get deleted again. If the community decides at the deletion review page that this really is a notable literary movement, then they will restore the page for you. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The term seems to have been coined by the Pet Shop Boys, yes? But googling, I wasn't able to find any evidence that it's anything other than a neologism, so you'll need to make sure that your sources are very reliable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh God! I hope it wasn't coined by the Pet Shop Boys! How awful! Actually, I think I've been aware of this term for at least the last 20 years applied to Artists of all stripes and every media and I thought it was about time they were gathered together in some sort of coherent collective. I'm really not as au fait as you are with the strict rules of wikipedia: so perhaps I should retreat quietly with my tail between my legs and compile my article completely
before submitting it... best wishes--GeneralJumbo 22:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is my source for that information, and it's not a tremendously reliable source either, so I could easily be wrong. Though it is confirmed by this source, and if that's true, it would give the word a birth-date of about 1995. Still, I've been wrong before, and if you want to run it past deletion review, they may indeed see it your way. Once you've read the notability guidelines and the neologism guidelines, you'll know as much about it as I do. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You can work on it in your own userspace until you're ready to post it. You just create a space for it like this: User:GeneralJumbo/Miserablism. Just click on that redlink, and you can fill it in with the article while you work on it, if you think there's something to it after all. I confess that when I saw your article, I thought you were some college kid just making shit up, and a little googling has showed me that I was completely wrong. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey FisherQueen: thanks for your advice and help! I probably do come across as an asshole, but that's just cos I don't really understand all the complicated rules! ;-) .... And I'm English as well(!) so bear with me. I'm totally new to Wikipedia but think it's great and I intend to contribute!
- Andy. x.--GeneralJumbo 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to a new user. Siddown, have a beer, stay a while.
Nah, you don't come across as an asshole. Take a look at my talk archives, and you'll see assholes... you come off as a new user who wants to be useful, and we like those. I'm glad to answer any questions you have; this place's labyrinth of policies and guidelines can be excitingly complex when you're getting started. Then, when you've been around for a while, you discover that it's all much more complicated than you thought... :) -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your input at Frida Kahlo, I've left some more commentary on the talk page, please check the ip editor - he's seriously out of control. I don't want to engage, because he seems hostile and basically unreasonable. I think WP:OWN, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NPA all seem to apply to him and the violation of WP:3RR seems apparent. I reverted several unrelated vandalism edits on the article, and I don't want to violate WP:3RR and I'm also very close. To avoid a revert I created a new section and moved text there. Thank you. I'd appreciate your further input. Modernist 22:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
He left us this message: [7]Modernist 23:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Jeez, what a dick. I see that the article is protected now; I hope that we can get a few more people to weigh in to make consensus clear before it's unprotected. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the debate regarding whether or not Craig and JP are still going out. 86.135.45.177 seems to think they are, but are on temporary hiatus; others (like myself) believe they have split up (which, if you watched the episodes relating to it closely enough, they have). There is a (sort of) discussion going on in the talk page if you want to contribute your thoughts to it. ~~ [Jam][talk] 10:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I've never even watched this show. I just reverted because the change I saw was uncited. First one to find a good source supporting his/her point of view wins. There's no need to analyze what actually happened in the episode, because that is original research anyway; it's all about what the reliable sources say. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Got it - official proof their relationship has ended - [8]. ~~ [Jam][talk] 08:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It's okay, I've already deleted the article, so you don't need to delete anything. It looked a great deal like one of the many hundreds of advertisments we get every day, and the fact that you've recreated it three times makes you look a lot like an employee of the company. Maybe this really is a business that meets the notability guidelines for businesses, and maybe it's a coincidence that you've never edited any article that isn't related to this business- maybe you don't work for them, and so don't have a conflict of interest. If you work for them, it isn't appropriate for you to create an article, so don't do anything- just wait, and if the company is important, someone else will create an article about it. If you don't work for them, you can appeal the deletion at deletion review. Or if you prefer, I can undelete it, if you can link me to three different newspaper or magazine articles that have been written about this business. That's articles about the business in real sources, not articles that mention the business or were written by employees. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That's plausible enough to make it worth recreation. I can't guarantee that no one will want to discuss it at AfD, but I've recreated it and added the sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Great, Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcleare (talk • contribs) 16:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Funnifulredard is going crazy on his talk page. I was wondering if you could help because I'm in danger of violating the 3RR. --Pupster21Talk To Me 11:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
He is allowed to remove warnings from his talk page. Removing warnings is an acknowledgement that he has read them. He is not allowed to change other users' comments to misrepresent them, which I see has has done once, but other than that, he can delete warnings if he wants to. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well that is a slight inconvinence to people looking for final warnings. --Pupster21Talk To Me 11:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the current policy, though. The warnings still exist in the history, and most people check contributions on recent vandals anyway, so it's not as if a user can really hide it if there are more warnings than are visible. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I just want to know if he attacks or changes my comments, you could revert it. I don't want to be blocked. I use school CPUs and I've been autoblocked three times before. I don't want to be blocked for a slip-up. Thanks for telling me about the policy though! --Pupster21Talk To Me 12:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I have the talk page on my watchlist now. I would just ignore anything he does there, though. Unless he starts vandalizing articles again, it doesn't matter all that much. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
He can't vandalize, he's indef blocked since Nov-06. I've protected the page as I don't see any reason to leave a user talkpage out there for an indef blocked user who has chosen not to contest his block and is just using it as a forum to act like an ass.--Isotope23talk 12:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's okay too. Sorry, I hadn't noticed that he was indef blocked. We don't really care whether he can edit his talk page or not, if he's not an active editor, do we? -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I just wonder why do you erase something in the page sudacas, if you do not know anything about the subject.
Please go to every single link attached below the article before erasing anything.
If you do not know the reality of the spanish society then do not erase it, get inform reading the main newspapers and spanish media and then when you do it, erase what you think is not appropiate.
But do not erase anything you dont know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manrodmar 99 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, what I do know from having a pretty solid background in statistical analysis is that there is no way you can legitimately argue that an "online poll" is in any way a reliable source... sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.--Isotope23talk 12:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that I voted no in the poll, even though I don't understand the issues and didn't understand the question (I don't speak Spanish). And my 'no' vote was counted. That's not too reliable. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I spent a whopping 3 minutes there voting and was able to shift it from 87%/13% to 86%/14%. Given a few hours I could design and execute a script that would keep hitting "no" and flip that around to be 14%/86%... so yeah, not exactly scientifically reliable, which is even stated in the disclaimer "Esta encuesta no es científica y sólo refleja la opinión de aquellos lectores que han elegido participar"... (very) roughly translated as "this survey is not scientific and solely reflects the opinions of those who elected to participate".--Isotope23talk 15:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
...maybe you should. Write a script to completely change their results, I mean. Tell them that their nation fully supports its immigrants. :) -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If only I had the time... I can't tell you how many times I've been tempted to do that to an online poll. Actually though, if you look at the scientific poll the editor added as his last edit (and Merope undid) it show that 28% feel there are too many immigrants, while a sizable 54% feel there are "enough but not too many"... which the editor than lumped with the first group to support a statement, "almost 80 % of the spanish people think that southamericans in Spain are too many or many"... which is an novel take on the results, at least from a statistical analysis review. Given my background, I'm a little bit suspicious of almost any polling I see.--Isotope23talk 15:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I blocked the editor for 3RR, but his POV pushing means I'll watch him. Most of his other edits are vandalism. -- Merope 15:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Racists? On Wikipedia? We've never seen that before... <yawn>. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
this article has been re-created again, even though you deleted it on the 14th, twice, within minutes of each other. Although this time it seems to be an open complaint about not being allowed to have a wikipedia article, so I tagged it as nonsense. Perhaps a salting? Bmg916Speak 18:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Meh. I hate salting if I don't have to... tell you what, I'll salt it after the next recreation, if he doesn't get the hint. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
70.18.5.219 (Talk) is actively working on Diego Rivera please check on it. Currently he's adding references to a site that is already linked in external links, but he doesn't seem to understand. Thanks Modernist 21:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have Frida Kahlo's protection extended for a week? I think anon can use the time on the talk pages to learn a little more. I'd like to see Diego Rivera semi-protected also. What do you think? Modernist 17:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about it, but I'd like to give the anon a chance to do the right thing. I'd like to let the semi-protection expire, then re-protect if (or when) he disrupts it. Of course, the editor who protected it might see it differently... as for Diego Rivera, he seems to be leaving it alone for now, but if he disrupts it again, then I'd be glad to protect it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you seem to have a level head, I think one may be needed to just put Shetland pony on your watchlist (what IS is about these pony articles??). Bottom line is that I seem to have ticked off a couple of young editors who now think I am evil and am trying to control everything and are reverting my edits to this article, which, well, the edit history is long, but I would suggest that I already have three horse-related articles that I led to GA status, so I think I do know what I am doing.
The first person is simply acting like a troll (went and blanked my talk page) over my fairly gentle (I thought) suggestion that rather than just deleting a poor photo, that a better one be used to replace it. (The blanked photo was pretty mediocre, the problem was the blanking of a lead image). The second person is simply mad that I don't think she needs to put her photo of her harness pony into every page on wikipedia, and it doesn't fit as a lead image, either, now that I finally found a classic conformation shot that matches up with what is used in the other breed articles.
Anyway, I will confess to a bit of snarkiness lately, had eye surgery three weeks ago, only see out of one eye at the moment, have restricted activities, spending too much time on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean my edits aren't generally of at least moderately good quality.
My last edit to the article was this one, and I would appreciate if it could be kept more or less intact for awhile, particularly as regards NOT using the harness pony photo as the lead photo, but rather as an illustration under "uses," where it fits nicely.
Anyway, I am sort of on a short fuse about this, especially after dealing with another troll on another horse breed article not long ago, and wouldn't object to a few extra admin eyes on this article because folks are obviously not listening to me. Maybe no intervention is needed, but eyes help. Montanabw(talk) 03:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, you just can't have too many pictures of ponies.
OMG PONIES!!! Er, sorry. There was a kid in my neighborhood who had a Shetland, and... you know little girls and ponies. God, how I coveted that little critter. Oh, and I've added this article to my watchlist. Which, as you guessed, is sort of ridiculously long, and every few months I just delete everything but the articles I created and start over. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You want some more, I put a few into a gallery on the talk page of the article. I probably can also find you someone who is giving them away for free. Oh, and if you dig little and fuzzy with house pet possibilities, check out miniature horse (grin). Montanabw(talk) 15:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG TINY HORSES!!! It is bizarre to me that something that adorable is walking around on earth on little hooves. They should be mythical, and only exist in excessively girly anime. And no, I don't think my condo would be a good place to raise a pony, even if it were very small. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, I remember you being a part of the LGBT project so I thought I would let someone involved with the project know I tagged a recent COI article as part of the project as she seems to be an up and coming lesbian fiction writer. I cleaned it up to the best of my ability but think someone else may need to take a look to see if it can be salvaged or is AfD material. Thanks! Spryde 11:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Lesbian ponies
She does seem to be a reasonably notable writer, if a rather minor one. I've added external links to a couple of reviews that I think will help, and I don't think it needs to be afd'd. The article may be an autobiography, but it seems to be reasonably neutral. I'd go rewrite it, but I'm kind of up to my ears in ungraded papers and unwritten lesson plans right this minute. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh my God, the instructions here are so crap. I have been trying to talk to you FisherQueen for ages but keep getting directed to more and more pages but no actual way of contacting you. So I will do it here. You deleted my page Science Communication. Why? I came back to edit it today. I did a quick page the other day but came back to add to it and upload loads of links etc and it is redirected to Science Journalism.
Science Journalism is NOT Science Communication. Now I can't even get into the page to edit it or improve it or anything but now if you are looking for science communication you are given a link to a completely wrong page. Nobody who knows anything about science communication would link it to science journalism. There is a large science communication industry out there that is going to be seriously pissed off now. What are you playing at interfering when you clearly know nothing about the subject?
Please help me, I can't work out how to undo what you have done, I cannot get into it at all because of this stupid redirect and so I can't edit it. Whatever else happens, that ridiculous redirect needs to be removed immediately.
This was a topic that was seriously lacking on wikipedia. I grant you I didn't do a great job on it. It was a holding page until I could find time to do it properly. But, I wanted to make a decent page, clarifying what science communication and science engagement is (as opposed to what some idiots believe: that it is science journalism). I wanted to create a page with many useful links to organisations, reports and courses especially for people looking to enter a career in science communication.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Becks3uk (talk • contribs) moved from your userpage by User:Isotope23
Ponies communicating about science
Hi! I didn't delete the article Science communication, although I was the person who placed the tag that it should be deleted if the problems in it weren't fixed in five days. I thought the article seemed more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, and this one especially seemed to exist mainly as a framework from which to advertise the organization Graphic Science Ltd. It is possible to enter the article, and to edit it, if there really is more to this topic than an excuse for linking to a business, and real reliable sources related to it. But because you've used uncivil phrases such as "what are you playing at" and "you clearly know nothing," you've hurt my feelings too badly to explain how. If it's so clear that I know nothing, I doubt I would know anything that would help you. It's all in the help files. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've asked the redirecting editor to chime in. I can't say I know much about the topic (I horde all of my scientific knowledge on laser sharks rather than communicate it), but the original entry was not an encyclopedia article; it was marketing spiel. I'm not so sure a redirect was necessarily the right thing here; the concepts are subtly different. It does appear that that "science communication" somehow involves ESP and knowing exactly what other Wikipedia editors know... how insidious.--Isotope23talk 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I (the redirecting editor) left the following comment on User talk:Becks3uk:
Hi, I was the one who redirected the article to Science journalism. I'm sorry that you've had so much trouble getting back to the page - there are a couple ways to do this. The first is clicking on the linked part of "Redirected from page x" notice on the page to which you are redirected, and the second is typing the URL directly and adding ?redirect=no to the end. Either way, the history of the article is intact and always has been. I thought at the time that science journalism and science communication were effectively the same thing, and the similarities in article content led me to believe that it might be more useful to redirect the page to an equivalent than let the page simply be deleted. Since you insist that these are different, I'll defer to your judgement, since you appear to know more about the subject. I recommend you add Science journalism to a "See also" section, though: the fields are clearly related.
I'm copying this here for context. Nihiltres(t.l) 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to request you undelete this page, as I was in the process of updating the article to include sources to justify its relevance as it was deleted. As a significant new company that has existed for over 18 months and has just launched to the public via a well-covered press conference, I feel it's inclusion on Wikipedia is thoroughly justified and I will make any amendments to the page that are required to prove this.
Well yes the page may have been created by an employee I don't know, but like I say I was in the process of bringing the article up to compliance with the notability criteria when it was deleted. If after I have completed my amendments you still feel it doesn't meet these criteria, feel free to delete it. Surely I should be allowed the opportunity to bring the article up to code?
Are you asking why we have speedy deletion criteria? They allow us to quickly remove articles about subjects that don't meet the notability criteria. How does this company meet them? That it has existed for more than a year and has held a press conference are not on the list of notability criteria. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered."
This is your primary criterion for notability. Blyk has had much coverage from secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, including major radio (BBC) and television (channel 4) coverage in the UK. It was sources such as these that I was adding to the article when it was deleted. A little research would show you that if you search for 'Blyk' on Google, you will receive almost 1,000,000 results, I am not saying that all of these are reliable, but many are. I really think that if you allowed a little more time for the article to be properly completed you would see that it meets your notability requirements.
There we go... that is the information I need. I did find the coverage you mention, and will undelete for now so you can finish the article. If you find yourself in a similar situation, read the tag before removing it- if you'd added a {hangon} tag to request more time, you would have gotten the time you needed. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I apologise for deleting the tag, in future I will be more cautious. I'll now get the article up to scratch as quickly as possible.
Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy west1 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I know it's a little complicated around here... and we get such an ungodly quantity of spam that we tend to be a little... aggressive about it. (If you want to be horrified, check out the most recent new articles and see how many of them are either spam or bored teenagers). Thanks for improving the article, and welcome to Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It was an interesting problem, because unlike most of the autobiographies we get around here, this guy actually turns out to be reasonably notable. Sung himself is being very gracious about all the patroller attention he's getting, as well- I hope he sticks around as he says, because he could probably make himself pretty useful. You know how rare and precious editors who have a clue are. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
.jpg)
