User:FisherQueen/Archive36
| FisherQueen
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wes Melcher Deletion?Why have you suggested to delete Wes Melcher's profile?? Please let me know immediately what changes need to be made so that it is sufficient, but in the criteria he is considered notable. Thank you. Sarat13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.157.33 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This article has been edited so that the resources used are from a third party basis, and are from newsworthy places such as newspapers, and online news. Please note the printed "Your Business at Home," magazine reference in which Wes Melcher was featured on a two page spread. Wes Melcher is also in the process of publishing a book which will also be used to determine notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.157.33 (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question, yes...there are others who are not in relation to him who would feel inspired to write about him as he well-known in the marketing community. Although not a household name nation wide, he is still notable to a narrowed, yet massive demographic . If you Google Wes Melcher with quotations, you'll find over 5,000 references. He has spoken to over 100,000 people world-wide, and is a part-owner in a company which has over 200,000 customers in 8 countries. He has been featured in both print and internet publications which were not written by himself or me. They are newsworthy sources, and carry credibility with their name. I don't understand? What else needs to be said? There are others on Wikipedia with the same caliber or less? Please consider removing this flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.157.33 (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Idle question,Who was Here to help Durova (talk · contribs) a sock of?— Dædαlus Contribs 22:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
About Life Advice"As I'm sure you've discovered before you ever joined Wikipedia, your opinions are widely rejected by just about everyone. This, I perceive, makes you feel that your viewpoint is being unfairly discriminated against. If you're able to do so, consider taking just a few minutes to consider the possibility that the reason that everyone to whom you describe these views recoils from you in horror is because these views are untrue in the factual sense and wrong in the moral sense. Maybe it isn't that the rest of the world is unfairly stigmatizing your truth. Maybe it's that you're badly, badly wrong. -FisherQueen" I find it really hilarious to get "life advice" from somebody who is so naive that she thinks that majority is never wrong. According to your way of thinking Socrates was all wrong. The convenient thing about taking popular opinion as your yardstick of truth is that it eliminates the need to examine any claim rationally, which I notice, in my case, you did not. You are a credit to the ochlocratic ideal. Hadding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.151.114 (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
There you go again, assuming that the whole world thinks the way you do. I think that there just might be one or two rational people in the Wikipedia administration. That's why I appealed several times (before my ability to do so was disabled), and that's why I subsequently brought the matter to Jimbo_Wales' attention. This irrational groupthink that you represent is not the ideal that Jimbo espouses. We'll see whether Jimbo really believes in the rational community. If he does, I think you might get a talk from him and you will see my username active again. If it turns out that Jimbo doesn't really care about the ideal that he espouses, Wikipedia's reputation will reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.156.50 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Hadding —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.156.50 (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Knowledgeispower76Thanks, I was just about to report him to AIV for personal attacks. Much apperciated on the quick block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Unprotected talk pageI'm wondering if something should be done with Talk:Van Jones/Unprotected. The regular talk page is no longer semi-protected, and with Jones not so much in the news it probably won't be for the foreseeable future. So having a prominent notice at the top of the talk page directing IP users to a subpage seems unnecessary. Maybe it should go into an archive or something? --RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Message = AwesomeI absolutely love your block message on User talk:Conner.hewitt1. By far it is the one of the funniest thing I have seen on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. I'm going to go find you a barnstar. Nezzadar (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
He blanked my talk page to say thisi messed up queens page yo mama thats right im wiki's terrorist —Preceding unsigned comment added by I change stuff ha (talk • contribs)
JadalU asked me to provide three links for articles in magazines about Jadal so you undelete the page here they are: Many of the articles are in arbic But here is some english articles http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=19075 http://www.flickr.com/photos/mohammad_alqaq/2100993766/sizes/l/ http://www.gvpedia.com/Jordan/Jadal-Top-Arabic-Rock-Band.aspx
if you want more let me know, do a search about "jadal" on google or find their tv interviews on youtube if you want I just found couple of stuff about them on wiki too! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_music#Arabic_rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamakey (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Changes to WikiHi FQ, can you direct me to information regarding the future of editing on Wikipedia. There is talk of gate-keeping, editorial reviews of articles, etc, but I cannot locate anyting concrete. Thanks. Politis (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, didnt mean to sound confusing. Apparently it might become more difficult for registered users to edit Wikipedia. In other words, most, if not all edits will have to be approved by a 'gate keeper' who approves or rejects edits to articles. At least that is what I understood. I will try an find out more. ThanksPolitis (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thanks for a perfect answer to a half-chewed question! Politis (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC) User:Kimmi09I was also looking at that user's unblock request, then noticed you ahve reviewed it. I respect your opinion there, and I am not planning to unblock, but I did notice that the user in question undid all their own vandalism to golem, and the last time they edited was the same minute as their last warning. So it seems plausible (maybe not likely, who knows) that the user really was not a habitual vandal yet. There are really only two edits to one page that were reverted by anyone else. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Will you please stop posting shit on my webpage?What, do you attend the Church of Perpetual Annoyance? Leave me alone. Rain City Blues (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
May I pouint your attention to......User talk:IWazEre1 self promotion articles. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
ANI heads upI've blocked Rain City Blues and listed it for review at ANI. Since you're somewhat involved, in that you seem to be standing near him during this activity, I thought I'd let you know. (I don't see you as actively involved, since you're not engaging him in any way, but it still seems proper to notify you. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Neil Gaiman eventSo, did you go in the end? How did it work out, if so? --Richardrj talk email 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Why did you delete our page -_-Ok, I'm still a noob at wiki. It says you deleted our article for "Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Am I supposed to state somewhere "This is important because...." I never seen a single article that said that.....We weren't advertising anything, people were asking us how we started our youtube videos, and where the ideas come from. It took me a long time to write it, and I wasn't even finished yet. The instant I wrote it, you deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisNSF92 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Black Mafia Family ArticleIt's not dead, you just have to register (it's free) to view it. I could send it to you directly if you like, it's about 239 pages on .pdf, but I could direct you to his specific testimony and the related page #'s. Or I could also take print screen snapshots of his testimony being viewed on my computer and send you the picture. Tedder already blocked him for me, but I know he'll be back. His "strong01" account has also been blocked.jlcoving (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
LensFlare CreationsI'm new to wikipedia as well, and I tried creating a page for my business. Yes I know, that under wikipedia's guidelines, business and advertisements are not allowed, however our business is notable for winning online video contests, 3 to date, with more to come in the very near future. These contest wins are significant in that, they aren't by chance, but by the talent behind our creators. The page tried to reference the contests won, and the videos that go with them. They are all significant in that they yielded prize winnings, that can be referenced online. Also, our company has begun production with TLC, and I would say that having content on a national network, is something notable and worth documenting. Sure, while there isn't alot of notable things now, there will be even more in the near future. Our page is no different from others such as [[1]], and [[2]], except that we are a team of 3, rather than a single person. Please help me to rectify this, as I would like to create a page for us. -Joseph Robba —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrobba2 (talk • contribs)
HelloI'm sorry, but its not independently rotating floors. Imagine a half circle. Now think that it has height. The floors don't rotate, the hall itself is a curvature in shape. Like i said, i am a current ninth grade freshman, and i know my school inside out because i go there. However, i'm not good at citing (actually, I don't know how!!) but would appreciate you put my article back up until further notice, when I upload a picture or something so you can see.
Regards of my classmates, staff and me,
P.S. if the conversation isn't on my talk, check the infinite archive subpage, which is linked to my talk page. JeffPWHi. I noticed you were good friends with Jeff. I was just wondering whether his sexual orientation was ever an issue, or if you simply thought of him as a regular guy like anyone else. Cheers, 79.79.110.56 (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Cult of PersonalityLooks like the edit war on the talk page of "Cult of Personality" has heated up again. I'm 99.9 per cent sure this isn't were to request an article be semi-protected (if not indefinately protected) but in my opinion, it might be a good idea. Note that I do have strong political opinions but that they have zero place on Wikipedia. Our goal is, in my opinion, to be neutral ... to both sides. Otherwise, what's the point? Happy Trails! Dr. Entropy (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC) The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Mediation request for KgKrisHello, seeing that you blocked KgKris, I think it's appropriate for me to ask you on the next step in the dispute resolution process. Now that his block has expired, he has the ability to edit pages, but I believe from his edits to his talk page, there is a high possibility that he will not return. Would you believe that KgKris will not return to editing and this case be closed (from your email discussions with the user) ? Thanks. Netalarmtalk 04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Jpuligan 12Hi there - Ive left a couple of comments on his talkpage, for you or another administrator to review. Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
User:DreamdesignernowHello, FisherQueen … After you blocked Dreamdesignernow (talk · contribs), a bunch of sock/meatpuppets began to appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Zaccar … there's a list on the talk page … I know that there's nothing that can be done, but I just wanted to give you a "heads up" in case they continue their disruptive edits after the block expires. :-) — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
CivilityLearn some. " "This is interesting. The word 'fat' has insulting connotations, which cause negative rather than neutral feelings in the minds of many readers. You appear to be edit-warring to keep that word in the article. The word 'fucking' has insulting connotations, and tends to cause negative rather than cooperative feelings in the minds of many readers. Your unblock request indicates that you do not understand that the word 'fucking,' like the word 'fat,' is often not appropriate. In my seventh grade classroom, I teach my students that every word has two kinds of meaning: its denotative meaning (the definition of the word) and its connotative meaning (the feelings the word creates.) You appear to understand denotative meanings, but your difficulty in using words with appropriate connotative meanings is causing you trouble. If you are a non-native speaker of English, please be aware that English has positive, negative, and neutral words for many concepts, and that the neutral word is the one you want to use, not the negative word. I hope this advice will be useful to you when your block expires. " The word "fucking", in the context in which it was used, operates as an intensifier. As an alleged english teacher, you should know this. Implying that a person is either a non-native speaker of a language and/ or has a grasp of the language below that of a seventh-grader, has insulting connotations. But, of course, you know this. In future, you should treat other users with civility. I hope this advice is useful to you when you eventually cop on. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The initial statement in my above remark was "learn some", used in the imperative sense, in reference to civility. Apparently you misunderstood my instruction to learn some civility as a request for checks on my own civility. Until you do learn some civility, I would direct your attention towards the Oxford English Dictionary for an explanation of the use of the word "fucking" as an intensifier, and a definition of the term "intensifier". I would also recommend that you read WIttgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in order to improve your understanding of the way in which language operates in day-to-day discourse beyond the simple denotative/ connotative distincition which is taught to children. A reading of B.F. SKinner's Verbal Behaviour, and Noam Chomsky's critiques thereof, may also help you understand your apparent difficulty in drawing inferences from other's behaviour. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, I am so very intimidated that you can quote the difference between denotative and connotative meaning, and oh so impressed by your use of feigned misunderstanding to insult and intimidate me. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, I'm glad that you've come to understand that you need to follow civility guidelines just like everyone else. 79.97.166.36 (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC) ==
If/When you have a secThe admin who deleted Hennepin Technical College seems to have disappeared since April - I'm going to dig for the Afd for it, but is it possible to userfy it for me when you have a sec :-) Thanks in advance (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
User talk:Rain City BluesHi, FisherQueen. You restored the threat made against you by Rain City Blues because you thought he wasn't blocked yet. Actually, this user has already been indef-blocked with talk page editing disabled; see my report at RFPP. Would you blank the user talk page now? Best, Cunard (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
User:The-Giant-AndrewNoticed you blocked this character for 24 hours a day or so ago for personal attacks, I've checked their contribs and it seems odd given not that many new editors immediately nominate articles for deletion or take on creating SPI cases. Those actions and this sub-page essay make me think this editor is most likely a return vandal, couldn't tell you who the sockpuppeteer is but I doubt they're new. treelo radda 00:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Brandon TeenaI have received and reviewed your message in regards to the gender issues concerning the Brandon Teena article. I want you to know I was not trying to push my personal views on the masses of the Wiki-world, but rather was trying to stay as true to the facts as they were/are, and my views have not changed. I was not trying to "edit war" anybody, I made what I honestly feel is good faith edits that were reversed in such a constant fashion that I just took to cutting and pasting the code of the page to re-do what I had already done, and for which people were undoing. I am fairly confident in believing what happened in that somewhere along the lines someone else added edits of whatever, and I missed adding them to the code I had saved. The only other thing I did was clean up an area that was redundant with the same information and links. However which way it played out, there was not the intention of sabotaging any links, edits or what have you. With all that said, obviously this is a matter that some people feel very strongly about. I was trying to help Wikipedia be a credible online resource of information, and get away from issues such as what was happening on the Brandon article; issues that have unfortunately tarnished the image of Wikipedia to most of the public who see Wikipedia as nothing more then a hodgepodge of misinformation, and EXTREMELY biased. Sadly, I must now count myself among them. You want the article to be unfair and inaccurate? Fine by me. Just know that when good people spend their time to try and help and get bullied for it, don't wonder when and why the resource YOU stand up for is and always will be considered second rate and a joke. Tgox1 (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
In the past week or so I have done cursory searches on the issue of transgender, Teena Brandon and the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual movement (if that is the correct word, I don't want to offend anyone, contrary to belief) and one thing I have noticed is that around 1996 (or so, I am working from memory, please allow me a little latitude) there was a defining shift on the front of gay pride, to the extent the movement "woke up" and now there is a common banner under "LGBT pride". Not to impugn several centuries of fighting for their rights, notwithstanding. I just wanted to be fair and accurate as possible. To me, in reporting facts, there is no room for consensus, the facts are the facts. To allow for consensus is allowing room for biased slants and information spinning that can (and does) over time "muddy" the waters. That is all. Tgox1 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I was merely responding to what YOU wrote about me on the Brandon Teena talk page. So why are you going to come to my talk page and threaten me with blocking? Are you saying that because someone bestowed admin privileges on you that you are letting it go to your head? How fair is it that you can say anything YOU want, but I can't answer your charges? THIS makes my point exactly about the spirit of Wikipedia being diluted down to nothing because if someone doesn't see it your way, you will bully them out of town. I thought I handled the situation quite well. I agreed to stop attempting to good faith edit the article. The talk pages were another story. What you are telling me is that I am not allowed to participate ANYWHERE. I was more then civil to you, and when talking things over with you I thought I did a good job at soothing things over. I even AGREED with you on certain key points. But that wasn't enough for you. Well, I have saved the relevant pages, both your threats to me and your condescending tone and stance you have taken with me, and I am fully ready to report YOU to the powers that be because while you may not be jumping over that fine line, you are certainly walking the tightrope. For the last time, I will tell you that I am not going to touch the Teena Brandon article. When the hold on the edit expires I will not touch it. I promise to leave any and ALL articles alone as they pertain to transgender issues. Therefore, with that said, if you block me now, it will be for spite and you will be guilty of that which you (wrongfully I may add) accuse me of.Tgox1 (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
FisherQueen, I do not think you have broken the rules. I think you were unnecessarily harsh, but then I will have to admit I am unnecessarily hard-headed at times. Regardless of how I feel, when I tell you I am going to do something, like NOT edit any more transgender articles, you can take it to the bank. Even if I still believe in what my position is. Heck, I even found a miscue on the Chaz Bono article and pointed it out to Banjeboi so corrective action could be taken. Had you chose to ban me, this is what I was going to submit: Wikipedia:Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful thought may be needed to decide whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism. But I think we can all agree to just let this thing go. Thank you for the time and effort you have put into educating me on the common practices of Wikipedia, and in repayment, I will try to follow them to the letter. If I have any questions, I know where your talk page is. Agreed? Tgox1 (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC) You=hilarious
I live to amuse myself... you're welcome to join me. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
|
||||||||||||
