He keeps removing a sourced and claer single, its on itunes and every digital site. it is a digital single with artwork and he still removes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I caught fireee (talk • contribs) 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
User:USEDfan, I'm sure you're a very nice kid, and I know you mean well. But you simply aren't ready to help with the encyclopedia yet. Stop making sockpuppets to force yourself in at Wikipedia. It's a big waste of your time. You only get one childhood, so enjoy it- there'll be plenty of time for writing an encyclopedia after you've learned more about how to do it well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate would be comments like the one you made- it contained no suggestions that would be useful in making the article better. The purpose of the talk page is the improvement of the article, not general discussion of the topic. People who come to the encyclopedia to improve it so it is more neutral and more factually accurate are always welcome, and good encyclopedia writers maintain their neutrality so well that it's difficult to tell what side of the question they're on. People who come to the encyclopedia to promote a specific point of view are usually blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but why did you deny Werepissed's request to be unblocked, from a block they did not rightly deserve as it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWorldIsNotYours (talk • contribs) 08:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you thinking of a different spelling? There's a User:Werepissed, but his only edits were vandalism. I'm guessing you're the same user, so I've added your talk page to my watchlist, but I'll wait and see your edits- if you decide not to be a vandal this time, I won't block you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I've read the links you posted to me and they were very helpful, thankyou very much. So, now i believe i am ready to begin becoming serious in my contributions, and id like to ask you what your very first edit and article were, thankyou again. (TheWorldIsNotYours (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
Here is my very first edit. Looking back through my early edits, it looks like the first article I created from scratch was Lillian Faderman. And as a bonus answer, This is an archive of my talk page from my first two months. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you help me with this or advise me as to who I should contact? Van Jones' biography is being vandalized with quotes and opinions from Glenn Beck. A huge section of his (Jones) is dedicated to Beck. As I wrote when editing the page, "(Glenn Beck's feelings over Jones is as relevant to his biography as Phil Donahue's would be to Ayn Rand's or Stephen Colbert's to Glenn Beck's. DO NOT add it again. Discuss in talk, if you must.)" I have seen no other biography on Wikipedia consisting of as much as 25% criticism from a single critic. I don't know if "criticism" sections are allowed in biographies, but maybe Beck's comments could be placed there (if anyone can find that they have ANY relevance to Van Jones biography). Otherwise I feel they should be removed. I am not going to engage in an edit war (as I've already been accused of doing by a fellow editor, despite only 2 or 3 edits at the page in total). I strongly feel the ugly blog of a paragraph containing nothing but Beck quotes and claims simply does not belong on that page and hopefully someone with the power to remove and block can have a look and see if they agree and have the section removed. Thanks for any help/advice you can provide. - Sloopydrew (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ever since Glenn Beck started criticizing Van Jones on his program, there's been lots of activity on that article, and lots of new users who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's rules trying to change that article to reflect a more negative point of view about Jones. There are plenty of sane people working on the article and discussing things on the talk page, so you aren't alone, and I think it'll all settle down once Beck and his devotees get distracted by something shiny. It looks like your preferred version is up at the moment. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Much appreciated! /Sarcasm -Sloopydrew (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
You were asking me to play referee in a disagreement about the content of an article, but that's not within the ability of an administrator. What I said is the best I could say- keep discussing it on the talk page, work together with other editors, and be patient as the people who are brought by Glenn Beck publicity to be disruptive get bored and wander away. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for my sarcastic comment. I didn't realize you replied to my original post (I'm still not sure where to find your original response). An admin. can't do this, so who can? I have trouble believing anyone who cares about the integrity of Wikipedia would favor a large chunk of a biography containing nothing but quotes from a single source who happens to have an extremely NPOV regarding the subject of the biography. Related topic: My attention was drawn to this only after being disgusted over the whitewashed bio page of Glenn Beck, which I didn't even bother trying to improve as it's obvious anything possibly perceived as negative will be removed (right down to his show being canceled at CNN Headline News, rather than the impression you're given, which is that he left and went to Fox). -Sloopydrew (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
My reply is in my talk page archive now; sorry I took it down before you saw it. Wasn't the section you objected to removed already? I didn't see it when I looked at the article yesterday. Today's paper says that Jones has resigned, in any case, so the Beckheads will presumably gloat and then go away. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I thought that my contribution was of a quite standard order. I quoted the bible and added a very standard interpretation of the passage. There is no evidence in the bible that Lot is righteous. It says in the bible itself that God spared him because He remembered Abraham. In fact, Lot is considered as being very lax in his moral judgement. His daughters, have not been taught very well either - as they have children from him. In the bible he goes after green pastures and pays no attention to the reputation of Sodom. Abraham gives him first choice of land, even though it is Abraham who should really have first choice by rank, in order to avoid war. If there is some specific thing that you object to in my writings that you can point to as an original contribution, I will oblige by quoting well known sources for my support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachaga (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see your citation of reliable independent sources other than the Bible, so it appeared to me that you were adding your own interpretation to the article, which wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia article, though it would be appropriate in other writing. However, please feel free to discuss the question on the article's talk page with other users, and if there's consensus there that the best version of this article would include this paragraph, go for it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi FQ - would you mind dropping by Van Jones and re-implementing the page protection? There has been some ugly spamming of the discussion page. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I hope you understood the point I made to you. Beck can't be an excuse for not reporting controversial statements. Also, referring to "Beckheads" and deriding people who watch Beck and hoping they just go away(I have seen the show maybe 5-6 times) I think is not necessary, and in fact a form of slander. We should just deal with the facts, like quotes and avoid personal slander or labeling just because you may not like a T.V. personality or what have you. Ironically, I find that many progressives are much more interested in Beck then other groups. So, again let's deal with the issues and leave the derision and labeling behind.
Thank you. JohnHistory (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
Before Glenn Beck began reporting on Van Jones, the article did not need protection. After Glenn Beck began reporting on Van Jones, there were large numbers of people vandalizing both the article and the talk page. For the most part, their vandalism was racism, conspiracy-theories, and startlingly badly spelled. I never watch Glenn Beck, but we get a much higher caliber of vandals when Stephen Colbert sends his viewers to vandalize Wikipedia than we do than Glenn Beck sends his viewers to vandalize Wikipedia. The Colbert vandals, in much larger numbers, are funny and can spell. The Beck vandals appear to be racist, ignorant, and inclined toward violence. So I don't care for Beck's vandals very much. As for understanding the point you made- you think that the New York Times should have been digging into Van Jones's past in the same way that Glenn Beck did. I think that most of the 'scandals' unearthed by Beck were not at all scandalous, and that Jones was the victim of a vindictive smear campaign solely perpetrated by Glenn Beck, and purely because he had a personal grudge against Jones. I am not at all shocked to learn that a young activist might identify himself as a communist, that a civil rights activist might participate in protests against the unjust Rodney King verdict, that an environmental politician might speak out against racism in environmental policies, nor would those things, in my opinion, keep a person from holding a government office. I would be troubled that someone might sign a petition from 911 "truthers," but since Jones doesn't seem to have ever said or done anything else on the subject, and doesn't seem to be someone who is shy about clearly speaking his opinions, I tend to believe him when he said that he signed without reading carefully. That is certainly a flaw. People shouldn't sign petitions without reading them carefully. I'll bet Van Jones won't do that again. I didn't know who Jones was before the article started getting vandalized last week, and I still don't know anything more than I've learned through Wikipedia. Also, I don't care very much. It's fine that you do care. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you are being really out there in your logic. Beck, unless you can prove otherwise, does not "Send his followers" to wikipedia to vandalize. It that is a little bit, well out there. If you think that Jones was the one slandered please show the evidence. So far, the evidence is Jones own words, and the NY times blackout on it is very telling. Also, Van Jones was part of an organizing committee for a 9/11 Truth Rally in San Francisco in 2002. You want to believe he didn't read it carefully, but I will ask you this, do you want someone signing off on bills and passing them to the president who can't even read a 9/11 petition carefully??? Think about it. Again, these are Jones' own words and statements thrown back at him you have yet to show how that is not the case. Also , you seem to not care about all of the inflaming things Jones' said such as that "white environmentalists are steering pollution into colored peoples neighborhoods." please who how that is the case. who are these evil liberal "white environmentalists"?? With no answer, that is indeed a very racist, bigoted comment and you should be more open to see that. This wasn't some 60-70 year old former Marxist ogranizer who hack in the turbulent 60's did this stuff. This is guy who did this stuff throughout the 1990's and never renounced it he just moved on. His book is replete with him saying how "he's not selling out" since getting into "environmentalism".
I bet, If you want real intellectuals on the right go to the William F. Buckley page. Colbert? Are you joking. This is what is wrong with our society. So many young people watching comedy central for news. However, vandals are bad period, so you saying the caliber is better is a slightly twisted statement. Anyway, you clearly believe what you want and what is convenient because Jones' did nothing wrong in terms of his flamboyant and incendiary comments, and Marxist past in the 1990s' , and heck he didn't even read that 9/11 petition (but he reads the Green stuff?) and that 2002 San Fran march demanding 9/11 conspiracy inquiries never occurred. okay??? Anyway, this is pointless. JohnHistory (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
(FQ you can revert this if you don't want the conversation here). Name a living conservative intellectual of a stature approaching WF Buckley. Then explain, without speciously invoking Burke, Buckley's sniveling defense of school segregation. Protonk (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, one study has shown that, objectively, viewers of "The Daily Show" are better informed than viewers of Fox News. After all, to understand the context to get the jokes on "The Daily Show".
BTW, it seems rather ironic for John to be gassing on about failure to read the petition Jones signed when it appears John hasn't actually read the thing he's complaining about, since all it does is raise a series of unanswered questions. He should have a go and see if he can provide some answers. --Calton | Talk 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
First of all, what study? Done by who? The daily show, as Stewart says himself, is not "objective". He says that openly. So I would love to see your study of mainly 17-23 year olds (that's his main club) who are better informed, and what exactly they are "informed" about. Secondly, a living conservative? There are a million, me for example! Also, you should read Jonah Goldberg's liberal fascism, I wrote my honors thesis (Commonwealth College at Umass Amherst) about Mussolini's Socialism and many of the fellows at the Heritage Foundation (Those cooks,right??). Do you know how many more people watch Fox News then other Cable News??? I watch C-Span but that's another story.
Why don't you defend the progressive presidents (and heros of the left) Woodrow Wilson and FDR locking up hundreds of thousands of political prisoners, and militarism and then we can talk about Buckley and segregation.
Stewart is a comedian and he even edits things to mislead, and his response when rarely pressed on it is that "This is my show, I'm not objective." But his core audience is??? Nope! Anyway, liberals (hardcore ones at that) are more obsessed with Fox then I ever will be. Real studies have shown that Fox, like it or not, has more independents that watch it then any other channel. They also completely rout NBC and CNN in ratings.
Seriously. JohnHistory (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
Carlton, you never answered my simple question. Would you have signed said 9/11 petition, or not? cat got your tongue?JohnHistory (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
Again, stewart openly says that he is not objective. He says that, not me. Did you even read your own study (which is two years old with many new Fox viewers since). Before I could even find what "informed" meant I saw this:
"There are substantial differences in the knowledge levels of the audiences for different news outlets. However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know. Well-informed audiences come from cable (Daily Show/Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor), the internet (especially major newspaper websites), broadcast TV (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh's program). The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events)."
-Oreilly Factor is the most watched Cable News Show on TV. Thus the most highly watched Fox News Show has, according to your study, the most well-informed percentage of all cable news shows! You just countered your own point! Secondly, when Fox is the most watch cable news, so when they are going through a list of generic terms for what they are talking about like Broadcast television = morning news they give no networks (curious?) but when they mention cable news their generic suddenly becomes "Fox" either because it is the most watched, or for some prejudice. Also, note how they say the less informed audiences also frequent "A MIX OF FORMATS' thus not being strictly Fox viewers but more akin to Channel Surfers. So, you are wrong on several levels, not to mention the giant shift to fox since just the election, yet alone 2007 when this "study" came out. JohnHistory (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
I thought you two were one and the same. Here let me ask Calton, since you are on the fringe of society, and think that was an okay petition to sign, no problem just a bunch of unanswered questions and Van Jones was in the right. Would you have singed it too?? Don't obfuscate now. Would you have signed the "truthers" petition too? hmmm. JohnHistory (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
One final note, and then maybe we can have this debate on my page, for you FisherQueen. The spamming you noted does not correlate with Beck (who I have watched probably fewer times then you) Like you said this really kicked off in the last couple day, while Beck has been reporting on this for weeks, and hasn't aired a new show since Friday. So, attributing the spammers to Beck really doesn't make sense on inspection. JohnHistory (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory.
Also, note your evil villain Rush Limbaugh is listed as having some of the most "informed" viewers. Can you say Checkmate? JohnHistory (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
Carlton, you never answered my simple question. Would you have signed said 9/11 petition, or not? cat got your tongue?
Did you even read your own study (which is two years old with many new Fox viewers since). Before I could even find what "informed" meant I saw this:
"There are substantial differences in the knowledge levels of the audiences for different news outlets. However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know. Well-informed audiences come from cable (Daily Show/Colbert Report, O'Reilly Factor), the internet (especially major newspaper websites), broadcast TV (NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) and radio (NPR, Rush Limbaugh's program). The less informed audiences also frequent a mix of formats: broadcast television (network morning news shows, local news), cable (Fox News Channel), and the internet (online blogs where people discuss news events)."
-Oreilly Factor is the most watched Cable News Show on TV. Thus the most highly watched Fox News Show has, according to your study, the most well-informed percentage of all cable news shows! You just countered your own point! Secondly, when Fox is the most watch cable news, so when they are going through a list of generic terms for what they are talking about like Broadcast television = morning news they give no networks (curious?) but when they mention cable news their generic suddenly becomes "Fox" either because it is the most watched, or for some prejudice. Also, note how they say the less informed audiences also frequent "A MIX OF FORMATS' thus not being strictly Fox viewers but more akin to Channel Surfers. So, you are wrong on several levels, not to mention the giant shift to fox since just the election, yet alone 2007 when this "study" came out. JohnHistory (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
Check out this lecture. All 87 views and all. I bet these people are the bestest bestest (Martin Short -Clifford homage) informed. JohnHistory (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory
this article seems to be up for deletion. this seems unfair as the club are a well known dublin amateur soccer club with a respected history of bringing through young players who later have become professional players.
this club has won trophies such as the Milk Cup and regularly competes at the FAI CUP and FAI Junior Cup, two trophies of some history and prestige in domestic soccer in Ireland.
The club has also been featured as the central theme of an RTE television program.
For these reasons, and that articles on clubs similar to itself have been accepted, i feel it would be grossly unfair if this article was deleted.
(ps. i am new to editing wikipedia, so i apologise if i have posted this in an incorrect location)
kind regards Marno111 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you removed my changes to the article and can't figure out how to communicate with you.
If you think that I entered something that was "original research", please indicate what that is so that I could show that it isn't my original research.
I'm not the boss of Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources indicating that your interpretation is one that is reasonably widely held, discuss them on the article's talk page- decisions about content are made by consensus among editors. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
There is something about you on ANI....[[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It must be noted that this user evaded his block by coming back to action. As you see, his IPs is changing everytime he logs in, which shows why he was so keen to have a checkuser made on him (the IP addresses are not the same). Shahid • Talk2me 17:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
She doesn't appear to even be comprehending what 'edit-warring' is, or that it is the reason for her block. She also doesn't seem to comprehend the concept of 'sources,' or how they could solve her problem. Which is unfortunate, because understanding those concepts would solve her problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
My gut tells me this is not a valid application of the cited policy, but I thought I'd get a few second opinions before proceeding. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I... don't know. What a fascinating question, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Please, don't add any more quotes to this talk page; they are not helpful"
I only think I added 1 quote, but you tell me that nothing I will ever say in the future is helpful? You also did not say why they are not helpful, you just pronounced a very self righteous tone, as though you are the arbiter of what is "helpful" and what is not helpful. Who are we trying to help? How is a direct quote not helpful. It doesn't matter who we help or hurt, all that matters is truth. This is supposed to be an unbiased article about newsworthy things that people say and do. I added a quote to a discussion page. You don't even want to discuss the virtues of including the quote or not including the quote, you just tell me to go away and never come back. I think this is very mean.
re: "If you think there is a fact missing from the article, just state the fact you think is missing, and cite your source."
The fact was the quote, and I cited the source. I put it into the quote page so we could talk about it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myclob (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Didn't that conversation happen a week ago? I think I said what I objected to on the talk page of the article, and only made a firmer warning when you put a second long quote on the talk page without specifying what fact you wanted to add to the article, or why, or what your source was. Quotes are not, in themselves, useful additions to the article or the discussion- it's an encyclopedia, so if you think that there's a fact missing, you need to identify what fact you want to add. I don't recall telling you to go away and never come back; perhaps I've forgotten saying that, or maybe you are confusing me with a different user. I'm not the only arbiter of helpful and nonhelpful, I'm just a fellow user with more experience, reminding you that we're writing an encyclopedia, so we really only need information of the type that would be useful in an encyclopedia article- not quotes that one might use to support a persuasive argument, which is a different kind of writing. Any other experienced user might have told you the same thing. You can discuss the information you think should be in the article about Van Jones at Talk:Van Jones, and you can sign comments by making four tildes- it looks like ~~~~. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry to get defensive... I responded here first, and am in the process of reading through the Van Jones conversation. Thanks for being nice/cool.myclob (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
So are you suggesting that you should never be held accou8ntable for erroneous things you have said? Exactly who do you think you are? I dare say, Mary, you're not impressing anyone nearly so much as you impress yourself.Rain City Blues (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
194x144x90x118(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is banned for a period of one year. All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.
194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.
I just thought I would respond to your posting on my talk page, where you asserted that it would be impossible for someone like you to be a Republican. I'm assuming you say this because you, like me, are gay. Of course, you seem to forget that Mary Cheney is also gay, and like you, a devout christian, and very much a Repugnant... err... I meant Republican.... sorry. Anyway, the point is that you have taken a particularly one sided POV in your bans placed against me for noting a historical fact about George Bush. I have to wonder why this is. Have I offended your deeply christian conservative 'big tent' values? I mean, what I posted is no less relevant than his recent visit to an aircraft carrier, which you banned me for having deleted after you claimed that the standard applied was 'anything that would be remembered 50 or a hundred years from now'. So, what other similarities do you share with Mary Cheney? Is your dad also a Dick?Rain City Blues (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)\
Almost everything in this message is false. I never said there are no gay Republicans. I did direct you to my userpage when you accused me of being a Republican blocking you out of political bias, because my userpage contains a box saying, 'this user is a Democrat.' I did not ban you- you are not banned, nor does any one user have the power to ban. I blocked you, but I did not block you, as you claim, for 'noting a historical fact about George Bush.' You were blocked for deliberately disrupting the encyclopedia, which you appear still to be doing. You were not blocked for making personal attacks, but I notice that you have made two such attacks since your block expired. I will check in on your contributions from time to time, and if you appear still to be making personal attacks or disrupting discussions rather than participating in them appropriately, I will block you again, for a longer period of time. I eagerly await being stripped of my admin status, which you assured me you would do when I last blocked you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Disrupting? I stated a historical fact which I backed up with legitimate references. Personal attacks against whom? You're the one that personally abused your power to block to attack me. And you know what ? You do not intimidate me, you got that? You go right on ahead with your little block attacks, and I will continue to resist you. I'll appeal every block you make, I'll call you out on every mischarcterization, every lie, every falsehood. Bring it on, if you really want a fight. I haven't got the same privileges as you, but I do have a pretty strong argument. And I will never, ever back down, Mary. We'll be going back and forth like this for decades.Rain City Blues (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way? Tagging me as a Vandal is really inappropriate. I consider myself more akin to a Visigoth than a Vandal.Rain City Blues (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a fight; it is a cooperative enterprise, like building a great city. Fighting doesn't achieve anything; in fact, it keeps the work from getting done. I am not your enemy, but I am aware that you have deliberately disrupted the encyclopedia in the past, and are clearly stating an intention to do so in the future. I hope you'll choose not to- I notice that the work that you've been doing on Forum for Equality is off to a good start, though you need to add independent sources verifying that the group exists and is notable. You seem to have forgotten why I blocked you before- it was because you asked me to block you. Remember, you were breaking the rules on purpose in an effort to 'bait' an administrator into blocking you? You thought that you could then appeal to the arbitration committee and have that administrator stripped of their admin buttons. Since then, you've presumably tried to do that and discovered that you were in the wrong to break the rules. You speak falsely (again) when you say that I 'tagged you as a vandal'; you are not a vandal by Wikipedia's definition, and I don't think I've ever called you one. If I do lie, to you or about you, you have every right to correct me; I don't think I've done so thus far. Your message to me above is combative; so much so that some admins would consider it, in itself, a reason to block. Me, personally, I'd rather wait and see the edits you make to the encyclopedia. If you can get past your desire to see Wikipedia as a battleground and try assuming good faith of your fellow editors, you would be a useful addition to the community. If you can't, you'll make that clearer than you have. Please don't put any more threats on my talk page, though, although if you have any questions about Wikipedia policies, you are welcome to ask me, or ask any other experienced editor, or just look up the answers yourself. By the way, my name is not Mary, and Mary Cheney is not a person who I admire, so I'm afraid I do consider the name an insult. Please don't use it again unless it is your intention to insult me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Mary, I'll try to stay within compliance with the civility policy. Mz. Cheney, may I politely request that you cease your numerous abuses of authority, including blocks placed on my account in an arbitrary manner, inconsistent application of Wiki policies, insistence that you are above those same policies and are incapable of error. May I ask, for the good of the Wiki community, that you resign your admin post, as you clearly have demonstrated a total disregard for the policies as they are written, and have instead decided to apply them only when it benefits your personal agenda? Your complete POV perspective and near total incompetence make you ill-suited for this position. Its a bad match, because you assume (mistakenly) that talking down to people as if we were children is going to excuse your foul behaviour. As a concerned Wiki user, for the good of the community, I'm afraid I will have to politely remind you of your incompetence and inability to properly execute the duties associated with your position until you back off. I intend to perform my duty as long as necessary, until you resign or cease your behaviour. Also, baiting you to abuse your authority is completely justifiable, as nobody is forcing you to violate wiki policy-I may extend the invitation, but you alone are responsible for taking that step, as you have done repeatedly. You are. Mary, a total disgrace to the wiki community. You pick fights and then act like you're above it all when it looks like you cannot win. More like a schoolayard bully than a teacher, and as well all know, the best way to deal with bullies is to make their lives hell until they stop.Rain City Blues (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider redirecting or merging this article to Craig Watkinson or One Life to Live right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining. I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with a redirect; I didn't realize this was a significant person on the show. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I will redirect this now and come back to you. Ikip (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked.
This barnstar is awarded to User:FisherQueen, for their dedication to comprimise and his ability to work with other editors to come up with amicable solutions which satisfy everyone. Thank you for taking the time to consider redirecting. Ikip (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I have received your request for attention and reviewed your contributions and talk page. Thank you for drawing my attention to the fact that the block on anonymous editing for your school had expired; I have renewed the block for the current school year. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
How do I create footnotes for Wikipedia? The general directions say nothing about formatting or placement of numbers.The process I use on my manuscripts is quite different. Thank you. malaprop123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaprop123 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
There are detailed instructions at WP:FOOTNOTE, and templates for specific kinds of citations at WP:CT. To be honest, I often find the instructions a little too complicated, and end up just copying the coding from an article that already uses them rather than using the instructions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Why did you undo the cleanup of this page. The stuff revomed was not useful and only encourages vandals to see their own work. Please dont undo again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.224.94 (talk • contribs)
It is not a 'cleanup' to falsify the whois data on the page. I invite you to stop doing so immediately. Since this ip has been the source of little other than vandalism, it seems likely that you are the person vandalizing from this ip, and so I am not inclined to allow you to change the accurate information into inaccurate information. I told you this already; I hope you will believe me this time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The Australian Government and the Australian Department of Defence are related in case you could not work that out. I object to your accusation of vandalism. I attemped to clean up the page to make it clutter free and accurate. I am sorry if this has offended you.
Yes, they are related. But the whois page should reflect the data that the whois search reveals, and not simply a related term. It isn't helpful to change more specific, more accurate information to less specific, less accurate information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be an edit conflict or war on that article. I am not sure if you are warring or trying to end the war. Be careful about the three-revert-rule. It looks like 3 or 4 people are fighting. It is hard to tell if they are taking sides. It looks unusual to me.--Iusepencils. (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
On another note I added a section to the article called "List of Stubs" or something like that. I thought it might be appropiate because the article is more than 1 type of stub. You can do with it what you want.--Iusepencils. (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Have you looked at the edits in question? Several high school students have been trying to use the article and its talk page as a chat room this morning. There's no edit-war over content, in fact, none of the students in question have offered any meaningful content. There's no need to make 'list of stubs' a section- those are simply categories, and they get listed automatically at the very bottom of the page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to complain, but I was working on an article about a very credible, noteworthy semi-famous (famous in New England) person who has been written about in many publications and it was deleted in 1/2 hour, in the middle of my editing. I had left a note on the Talk page asking for a little time to work on it once O noticed the that it had been flagged for deletion.
I had a few links and references and was about to add another wehn it said the page didn't exist.
The article was about Christpher Puquette. A New England homebuilder who helped to shape the trades in new england. He is also an island missionary and was an Olympic athlete.
Is there some sort of misunderstanding on one of our parts? Please reply to 'timetravleisnotpossible'.
I deleted an article titled Chris Pauquette, but it didn't make it clear how the person was notable, and it didn't cite reliable sources that would verify the person's notability. In content, it appeared to be a hoax, and its writing style was consistent with that of a bored high school student having a joke. When I looked for confirmation that an Olympic bobsledder / missionary to Tonga/ architect named Christopher Puquette was important in New England, I couldn't find any evidence that such a person even existed. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case, just put the links to three newspaper or magazine articles about this person here on my talk page, and I'll be happy to undelete the article. I don't know why you are asking 'how do I talk to you?' on my talk page- clearly, you have figured out how to talk with me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
A wee sanity check – there was no 2004 Winter Olympics (2002 or 2006 were Winter Olympic years); surely someone writing an article on a real Olympic athlete from only 4 (or 8) years ago would have some idea when whatever happened happened? Timetravelisnotpissible (or ..possible - please do not use multiple accounts lest you be accused of sockpuppetry), why not apply your writing talents to creating good articles according to Wikipedia policy instead? TonywaltonTalk 09:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you take another look at User talk:Kale Reeves? I wonder if you realized that when you denied the appeal and left the block indef, you were basically locking a kid out of Wikipedia forever as a consequence of a first block? I agree that the block should not have been lifted, but it doesn't seem to me that this offense calls for the death penalty. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Kids who vandalize do sometimes grow up to be useful editors. But they don't usually grow up an hour after their childhood vandalism sprees. I don't think this is a person who would be likely to make useful edits this week, or who would know how to do so, and a look through her contributions doesn't reveal any attempt to do anything useful. If she wants to appeal the block again when she's sixteen and able to actually do something useful, she'll be welcome to- but edits like this make me think that maybe "Kale Reeves" is a teacher or parent that she's trying to make fun of. We block dozens exactly like this every day; some of them grow up and come back under different usernames, or get their childhood names unblocked. -11:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
How do I get my username removed from this [[2]] list? --Overkill82 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. You seem to have been added to that list by an anonymous editor who has added several other people. Are you, in fact, User:Elspeth Monro? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I was hoping there was some way an admin could help clear that up. --Overkill82 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I've given the user who accused you a chance to explain her reasoning... I think she's probably a simple vandal, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you are secretly evil! ;) If she doesn't say something useful in five minutes or so I'm going to undo all of her similar edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You must really stop answering on behalf of other people. User:Acroterion can perfectly well answer for herself. If you want to talk to me as you seem to do just talk to me directly. The best available sources for determining the truth of historical events are not and have never been major newspapers. Major newspapers have always served the interest of their owners and they function to control the public mind. They have always been organs of propaganda rather than scientific journals. Historical truth is determined by eyewitnesses, photographs, film etc. For example the port authority of New York has hundreds of hours of interviews with first responders at the scene of the 9/11 attacks. The port authority under the direction of Mayor Giuliani tried for as long as they could to make those tapes unavailable. Eventually under tremendous pressure and criticism they released them. It transpires that many of the eyewitnesses in these taped interviews testify to hearing numerous explosions in the twin towers and express the view that they believe the buildings were rigged with explosives. Now that is not a conspiracy theory, it is historical fact. But if major newspapers or television channels do not report that information does that change historical fact? Well in a way yes it does becuase history is whatever appears in the history books as well as the archives of the New York Times. But a true historian trying to ascertain the reality of an event does not rely on corporate media for his research. He or she is much too smart and canny mostly because having taken a university degree in History you are taught to go to different sources, not just mainstream ones. But most of all your main objective is to understand and establish what really happened. We have a historical record of 9/11: eyewitness testimony, video footage and still photography. Unfortunately, a great deal of the evidence is not reported and partly why is because in the United States as well as in Britain the major media outlets are briefed by the intelligence agencies and told what to do. Once again that is not conspiracy theory but verifiable fact. But wikipedia is so reactionary that even if I wish to state that the American Society of Engineers gave an Outstanding Achievement for Engineering Award to the architects and engineers of the twin towers for designing what were then the most robust skyscrapers in the world I am told that I am presenting a personal opinion. On the contrary I am stating a historical fact. But it is a fact that is uncomfortable because it contradicts the perception reflected in the accounts in the mainstream media that these buildings fell down due to kerosene fires and the shock of the planes hitting them. The buildings were designed to withstand multiple collisions of the largest passenger liners of their day. That's not a conspiracy theory, that is historical fact. But your wikipedia is not interested in historical fact but presenting the picture of the world presented by the mainstream media (at least according to your definition). But perhaps most of all what you should understand is that you shouldn't be stalking me or answering other people's talk pages when they have nothing to do with you. 81.109.10.218 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This is a wiki: pretty much everything here is open to view, and comment, by others. If you disagree with their comments, you are equally free to say so, as you have so done. Of course, it's also conversely free for others to disregard those comments. Your talk page, and that of articles, are open to all, sensible or not. As for "stalking", if you are not prepared to defend a position, perhaps you should not express it here. I see no evidence of undue interference here. Rodhullandemu 00:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Rodhullandemu, you are, as always, welcome to comment on anything you see on my talk page. It is, after all, Wikipedia. Anonymous user, that's a lot of words, but it doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it only reports what the best available sources are saying. If you are looking for a place to publish conspiracy theories that cannot be well cited, you will not be very happy here, but there are many web sites that welcome such contributions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
FisherQueen is welcome to comment on my talk page at any time. That is a hazard of a wiki - a private conversation is unlikely to remain so. Acroterion(talk) 01:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
well, NJYG is one of the largest social organisation in India....and trying to bring on wiki now.
however I realized it went through wrong place/location. I want to create independent new page for this organisation. I request you to guide me through the process. Thanks
sani
If it really is one of the largest social organizations in India, members of the organization won't have to write about it- and they shouldn't, since they have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia has lots of Indian editors, so if this organization is as important as you say, it is inevitable that people who are independent of the organization will be interested in writing about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
