dear fisherqueen, i appreciate the message, and know that vandalizing pages is wrong, however, i did not edit this page
i have never seen the page "hot" and wonder myself why it was changed, as "i like cookies" is not a valid change from "that's hot"
i would like to know myself why my IP address was used for vandalism, but i assure you, it wasnt me
If you don't like seeing the warnings left for other people who use your IP, you should create a username. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen! I think that when you Wikify pages, like you did to Affreightment, you should make a point of linking words to full entries, and not to a disambigation page, like you did to the word master. Thanks! --Knulclunk 02:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Will it be alright to add my article in addition for "E-Work"?
I don't think that I understand the question. An article already exists for E-Work, but if you have more information or better sources on that subject, you are welcome to add them to that article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
So, I changed my username to what I usually set it as for things - turns out I had registered this account YEARS ago and promptly ignored it. Then, today, I decided to see if I could usurp whomever had it, and realized the contributions tended to look like things *I* might do, so.... anyway, to all who may watch this page that I know, take notice that my username has changed to User:Philippe from User:Philippebeaudette. FQ, I apologize for using your space to make this notice, and offer you a cookie in return, but... well, you know everyone. Philippe Beaudette 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL - thanks for the welcome message. Philippe Beaudette 16:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
whay ar yu beng mean to me? stop delting my stuf yu fuker -buttox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttox (talk • contribs)
Out of 13 words, you have spelled 5 correctly. 4, if you count the capitalization error. This sentence gets an F. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of ... well, idiots, this blocking incident made me giggle quite a bit. -- Merope 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Merope, you are very strong. That kind of sweet-talking might have persuaded me to lift the block, were I making the decision. :) -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was under the impression would not last long once I had created it, mostly as just a one time thing. However I don't think leaving the comments on my talk page are neccessary if I don't intend on doing it again. Otherwise marring a perfectly good account. Assuming I do add to or notate an article I am highly familiar or have resources on, I would prefer not to be questioned based on past actions. My apologies for any "bad impressions" I may have left. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arrenp (talk • contribs) 07:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Yes, the decisions you've made do affect how people see you, but if you start contributing usefully, people will see that, too. You'll even learn how to archive a talk page, so you can put old comments aside without deleting them, like I've done on my talk page (and if you were to read my talk archives, you'd see places where I was corrected for imperfect understanding of Wikipedia policy, too). -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
can you tell me what is neutral and who gave you the rights to delete my authentic information? By the way which Sikh on earth will tolerate that his religion is listed as "Division of Islam"? and you accuse me of not being neutral? Please FisherQueen, think on it, this is a serious anomaly on wikipedia's part. Whatever i have stated in both of my articles is nothing but truth. Still if you think you should ban me then go ahead. Let everybody know that there is no democracy on wikipedia and a few 'priviledged' members will have their say in every matter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronak307 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
If your sources showing that Sikhism does not belong in the "Related Faiths" section of that article are more reliable than the sources showing that Sikhism is related to Islam, then you should discuss that on the article talk page until you achieve consensus for a new version of the article. The edits that will get you blocked, though, are your additions of your personal opinions about Vagad. Remember, all information on Wikipedia is neutral and can be proved by verifiable sources- if you want to share your personal opinions, I suggest Blogger. -13:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
alright then please tell me where i can see the sources of information given on any article e.g. vagad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronak307 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Vagad is not well sourced right now. The thing for you to do is not to make it worse by adding biased personal opinion, but to make it better by adding verifiable facts and sources. Or, if you can't do that, leave it alone completely. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
"db-muffin". That was quite amusing, and done without excess. Uncle G 19:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Inquiring minds want to know... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It was just my edit summary for an article that simply said something like "I am a stud muffin." Not that thrilling, I'm afraid. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Granted this is a link to a new article. However, I believe it is a needed article. I respect your decisions, you are the authority. However, I believe it justifies its existence. It is not the same thing as a virtual tour, granted it may need to be expanded, but the phrase is used constantly on the Internet. Simply Google the term 'video tour' to see what I mean. In my opinion it should be an article.
Also, please forgive my blunderings as I am a new contributor to wikipedia. I am not yet completely familiar with the policiesHjoreteg 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
FisherQueen, keep up your good work here at wikipedia :) Have a nice week :) Peace :) --James, La gloria è a dio 22:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
James, La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I have read the external links guide you nazi, i did not ignore your warning i felt it hugely patronising that my link was being deleted, a bit rich considering that some of the information on the graffiti entry is grossly inaccurate. It is not self promotion, i kept posting it because i find the moderators on this site to be power mad pseudo-intellectuals with no real knowledge of most of the entries they control with Stalin-like tactics. This graffiti section on this site is pathetic partly due i'm sure, to people like you who feel it's their duty to clamp down on anything that doesn't comply to your strict regulations. thanks jobsworth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meaowza (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Stalin wasn't a Nazi. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Errrr I didn't say he was. I was making a reference to his ruthless dictatorial agenda. Comforting to know you moderators can't process information but bravo on attempting a witty retort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meaowza (talk • contribs)
Yep, I'm a dictator. I look at changes to articles, and if those changes do not seem to be in accordance with Wikipedia policy, I delete them. As a new change patroller, it must be my fault if Graffiti has weaknesses. It couldn't be the fault of a person who sees a page with weaknesses, has the knowledge and resources to improve it, but decides to just add a link to his own blog and move on instead. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow touchy. Amazing how you can somehow infer such assumptions from my comment. I didn't say it was your fault, god forbid! And i was going to add some changes but i'm scared now that my domicile might be stormed by jack-booted wikipedia agents before dawn and i'll be carted off to a correction facility for not following wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meaowza (talk • contribs)
I think the vandal that you recently warned several times[1] has vandalised the article from multiple IPs. He could possibly be this user] as well by evidence of the edit summary wording. Same thing here with this user. There could probably be a lot more, but those are the only two that match the edit summary. I'm not sure what wiki policy is on that, so I thought I would show it to you since you seem to be up to date with policy. Thanks for your time!--JUDEtalk 19:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. She seems to have stopped for now- maybe we persuaded her that Billie really is bisexual, and changing Wikipedia won't make it go away. If not... we can keep an eye out for the pattern- I have the article on my watchlist already. Poor kid. You know the logic. "But bisexuals are icky- and Billie is really, really hot- so he can't be a bisexual..." -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I know it well! I try to persuade them into leaving it alone, but I think that's the most vandalised portion of the article. It's hard to explain to people that it's not taboo and unacceptable anymore and that there are a lot of us, including Mr. Armstrong, but sometimes it just comes down to beliefs, and I can understand that. It's a good thing that it's sourced, because I think it comes as a shock to most people who haven't been fans for very long and it helps to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. Thank you very much again!--JUDEtalk 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know. I redid the article and it is much different than the one I originally submitted. How does this article not meet the requirements. So far I find this site very unfriendly and hard to use.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slick80 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 March 2007
Just wanted to let you know the two Julox articles I submitted are very different. I tried to fix the problems with the first one. I wish people on here were more helpful. Everyone seems quick to delete my articles but no one wants to help me publish my article on this site. I don't feel that any one could of possible read my article in that short amount of time. If my article were to be read I think it would explain it self as to why it is relevant. I see plenty of other musicians on here. He is the most relevant Colorado Rap artist there is. He has a cult like following and that is suppost to be one of the criteria.Slick80 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read the earlier version- it was deleted. The recent version that I read didn't appear to meet the WP:BIO guidelines, and I don't remember seeing any sources that could verify notability. If he really is notable, you should take it to deletion review, but make sure you have the sources to show notability or it won't be revived. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
This is all still very new to me and the deletion review process does not seem very easy to me. I was reading how to do it and it thouroughly confused me. I'll give it a try but I wish people would try to help you out before immediately deleting your article. I spent a decent chunk of my time writting that. I could have given you the contact info for Angelo's Cds and you could google the name Julox see several sources proving that he is notable. It does say in WP:BIO that for an entertainer a cult like following qualifys. Maybe I'm reading that wrong. I don't know. I guess I will try to better understand the deletion review. Thanks for your time.Slick80 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you mentioned Angelo's CDs in the article, but that doesn't meet WP:BIO. You need articles about him written in music magazines, newspapers, that kind of thing- to show that he's been the subject of multiple nontrivial independent writings, which is the heart of the notability guideline. A cult-like following does qualify... but only if it's been written about in multiple nontrivial independent sources. One of my favorite musicians is Michael Longcor, and while he has a cult-like following, he doesn't have (as far as I've found) the sources that would allow me to create an article about him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Holy cow! There IS an article about him! Unfortunately, it's only sourced with links to his own webpage... even though I love him, I have to do the right thing. I'll spend a little time trying to add better sources, and if I can't, then I'll nominate him for deletion. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author."
THought this was a good quote that I found on this website. Seeing as both of my articles have been deleted before I knew what happened.Slick80 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that you have the needed sources, and just hadn't added them yet? Deletion review should be a piece of cake, then. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation." Plus how do I add Sources? I was going to try and do that with my second article but it got deleted very quickly. What if I want to make it a stub? How is a stub different?Slick80 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
A stub is a very short article, just the basics of a topic and one or two key sources, that can be expanded into a full article at a later time. You can find guidelines for citing sources at Wikipedia:Citing sources-FisherQueen (Talk) 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I must say that I don't see how this article on Michael Longcor is anymore relevant than mine.Slick80 20:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not. It's a terrible article. I linked there expecting a redlink and no article, and instead I saw a poorly sourced article about a minor musician. Even though I like him, I'll refer him for deletion- I just want to see if I can make the article better before I do it, and I don't have time right this minute. It'll be better or gone within 48 hours. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion both he and Julox belong on here. I want to know why you shouldn't be able to come on here type in his name or Julox's name and be able to read about them. I think that if someone really took the time to write an article about them and there is enough proof to tell that the article is truthful, then it belongs. But that's just me. I don't really think I like this site as much as I thought I did and don't know if I'll try to continue to contribute to it.Slick80 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. There are lots of sites like you describe, where you can find information about just about anyone that someone thought was worth writing about. Try MySpace, it should be just what you're looking for. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record- I tried making my improvements to Michael Longcor, but I'm still dubious about whether he meets the standard, so after improving it, I sent it to AfD. I'll let the community decide. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
hi -- i read the page you referred me to, thank you. i won't add any more external links to articles unless they're appropriate (as i understand that term). i have a question, though: why do IMDB and other sites get proc links for celebrity names and movie titles? and i imagine those DO improve their search engine rankings? -AArgabrite 15:20 ET, 16 March 2007
My understanding is that the nofollow links wikipedia uses prevent wiki links from affecting rankings. You'd need a better nerd than me to explain how, though. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
also -- i was wondering: why are Yahoo Movies celeb pages not taken down, if imdb is the community consensus? (it's under External Links for Jessica Alba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_alba#External_links), for example) -- Aargabrite 16:27 ET, 16 March 2007
The problem with what you were doing is that you were only adding links, and only to one site. Whether it's a useful site or not, when one person is just here to promote a web site, that person is considered a spammer. It doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the specific sites. There are lots of ways you can help on Wikipedia, if that's what you want to do, besides linking to that one site. -20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
but i still don't understand why the external links to yahoo movies are not considered spam
If you've read the external links policy and think those links are spam, then by all means discuss it on the talk page and seek community consensus to remove them. If you are feeling inspired to try to remove more spam from Wikipedia, we could use the help at Wikiproject Spam. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
So, you go and try to get my page deleted. How does this possibly ignore Wiki's rules? Trivia? What trivia? It's information on the game Tyrian. What, so now you're going to take away the page on Halo weapons? It's a source, not a test. It belongs on Wiki for the pure reason of being a reference to other people who have downloaded the game Tyrian. Remove the request please unless you give me one solid reason why it should be deleted.
[color=navyblue]Alxnotorious[/color] 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What? I didn't prod Tyrian weapons, though I don't disagree with the prodding. I'm the one who placed the tag for references. Check the article history again. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Pardon me for my blaming you. It was a blind mistake on my part. I'm moving the text to the game's original page since it makes no sense to leave it out in the open. Sorry.
Alxnotorious 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Im at a bording school and the only website i get is wikipedia
so delete my shit and ill just make a new one , kk have a nive day ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak-47ck (talk • contribs)
I guess your school doesn't want you to be doing online social networking, either, then. That's two good reasons to stop. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MichaelLongcor.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I have a slight problem. I'm in a musical group called "215" and would like to make ourselves known, with a little assistance from Wikipedia. I've treid posting this information around 4 times, and each time I get my information taken down, or deleted. How can I post information about our group, and NOT have it be deleted?
Zliljoemz 6:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't. You are violating Wikipedia guidelines by promoting your own band, and you are violating Wikipedia guidelines by adding information about a band that is not notable by Wikipedia's definition. In addition to that, you are violating Wikipedia guidelines by not providing independent nontrivial sources for the information. What you should do is continue working to promote your band in the real world, and after the band is well-known and has been written about in several music magazines, someone who is not a member of the band will create an article on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been attempting to post useful information about my music group to give people the answers to frequesntly asked questions I've been recieving. But you keep deleting the information from the 215 results page. I was wondering why? Am I entering something wrong? Can you please tell me a way I can put in the desired information without having it deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zliljoemz (talk • contribs)
Please read my answer to your question, which I posted above. The answer to your question is still the same now. This band is not an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article at this time. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The spelling of "dearth" must have been taught in the fourth grade, then. :) Did you see my ANI report, or are you just catching up on my personal vitriol for the past week? -- Merope 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been following the situation on your talk page, but left it alone because- well, because I figured, "It's Merope, she's perfectly capable of handling this situation, and there's no need for me to irritate the guy any further." But I noticed your ANI report and figured he was probably irritated enough that it didn't matter if I pointed out that tiny problem. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll be honest, though, this guy really grated my cheese. Mostly because he was just skirting the rules and I couldn't just block him for being a dick. In hindsight, I probably should have--I mean, why else do I have Category:Rouge admins on my page? Oh, well.
Separate from the question of capitalization style- which I will agree is an area about which reasonable people can disagree- he expressed himself, at least in the edits I saw, in a way that seems to guarantee that no one will want to agree with him. Good manners are especially important when no one can see your face. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, he was being a total wiener. -- Merope 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but you count talk page vandalism. :P But congratulations! (I guess?) -- Merope 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That's true- but not nasty comments, only real blank-the-page and replace-it-with-an-insult vandalism, and there aren't that many- two or three, which technically would put you a tiny bit ahead, still. I'm still very proud... I have this aspiration of reaching 100. -22:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, me too. Race ya! -- Merope 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to make a little wager? Say, the loser owes the winner 60 minutes of useful work on the article or project of the winner's choice? -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, I promise not to cheat by, y'know, protecting your user page. The idea did occur to me, though. ;) -- Merope 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, no cheating. No taunting the vandals more than usual, or declining to (for me)report or (for you) block them when it becomes appropriate... just good, honest vandalslaying. -FisherQueen (Talk) 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I would never give up blocking them! And I'm going to bed early tonight, so it's entirely possible that I'll wake up tomorrow and find you've already won. ;) Of course, I also understand that you actually have a life, so I might just win this yet. 'Night. -- Merope 01:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And you have an advantage that you don't know about- my students just turned in a Huge Pile O'Research Essays, so no Wiki during my planning bell this week, at least, not until I've made a significant dent in them, at least. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
PS - If you don't have it watchlisted (and, uh, why would you), I added an absolutely precious new piece of deleted crap to my list. My god. -- Merope
Well, it's watchlisted now... I think I might have to create a similar page with the next bit of asininity I get. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It is entirely possible that I'm your English teacher. Now, I'm sure you can understand that I'd just as soon the whole class didn't have my Wiki username... but I don't mind that you have it, J. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. In return, I'll do you a favor- you can produce a cool signature like mine by typing four tildes. That's this thing: ~. Now... I'm heading to bed, and unless I'm very much mistaken, somebody on this talk page has a research essay to finish. :) -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MichaelLongcor.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
sorry i didn't have time to finish before i had to run up the road. the gentlemen im doing was the last survivor from britiains huge volunteer army at the beginning of the first world war, deserves a page don't you think especially seeing as most people on here just sit on tele where as he served a very important purpose.Funkdaddymac 11:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)funkdaddymac
Yes, I can't tell from the article you started whether he meets the notability guideline or not. You need to add the multiple independent sources- the newspaper articles about him, or magazine articles, or books written about him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey FisherQueen? It's been almost two months since I nominated you for RfA. Well, the offer for another go is there. You've improved on the areas requested by most of the opposers, e.g. Wikipedia: space, and you've concentrated on Billy Tipton for writing by the looks of things. Only accept if you think you're ready – I think you are, but it's up to you. I think you'll put admin tools to great use. Cheers. Majorly(o rly?) 11:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not confident that I've made enough progress to succeed in an RfA. I think I'd like to wait until, say, June or so to try again. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
not to influence you in any way at all, FQ, but if you decided to risk it, I would happily support you. You're a good editor, you know policy, and your sense of humor helps defuse stressful situations. I think you'd make a great admin. Jeffpw 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's awfully tempting. I wish I could know in advance whether I had come far enough to satisfy the rigorous demands of RfA... I'll think it over a bit... -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you'd make a great admin, but I reckon you should probably wait just that leetle bit longer. Just my opinion, of course... – Rianaঋ 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, confidence in yourself is probably more important than another user's confidence in you. I have your page watched, so when you do decide to make the leap, I cna be one of the first to add my voice of support. Jeffpw 12:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
When you do go up, I think you should address the fact that your high number of user talk space edits is because of your committment to issuing warnings and discussing article creation with new users per WP:BITE. There are quite a few editors who see a high user talk count and think that we just sit around gabbing to each other. Perhaps addressing it in the nom itself or in the questions would help. -- Merope 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Good advice. I wondered in my first RfA if folks didn't realize that one reason for the disproportionate number of talk-space to main-space edits is that an enormous number of my mainspace edits are on articles that have been deleted. Anyway, I think I'd like to wait a few more months before I try it again- I'm making myself useful as an editor, and I expect that Wikipedia can stagger along without me in administration for a little while longer. Ask me in June... -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It's always my pleasure. I took the liberty of mentioning the vandal's username at RfC as well, as it seemed likely to be confused with yours. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I told you i would get the source and you still deleted it. All i want in life is to become a middle school english teacher who can reference back to the days when i played with the legendary Scandle. Give me a chance, give yourself a chance to see the true essence of how the gaming community feels. I believe in you FisherQueen and i know you are a person of high moral value. Please just give me a chance in life.
You can't delete my edits, you're violating my freedom of speech! --Charlie G Hawkins 11:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC) --Charlie G Hawkins 11:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC) --Charlie G Hawkins 11:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC) --Charlie G Hawkins 11:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Quite a few identical sigs deleted for space reasons -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have read your neutral point of view policy and I think it could be said that the line stating "the Yacht is a good place for backpackers starting out" is the only part of the article that express' a personal analysis. The fact that M.Y. Enigma has a fast turn over of crew is fact and of interest to yacht enthusiasts. Would you allow me to repost my amendment without the personal analysis? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bravedave (talk • contribs) 13:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
If this is a fact, it needs to be verified with reliable sources. Is there a magazine article, newspaper article, or book about the yacht which includes this information? All information on Wikipedia is required to be verifiable by independent sources. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. I am new to wikipedia and I didn't notice that you were sending me messages. Sorry for the inconvenience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lpica83 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
No problem; I could see that you were working to help, and people who are willing to copyedit are VERY helpful around here. I hope you won't let my warnings deter you from copyediting on Wikipedia- there are lots of real errors that need to be corrected! -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I am editing this page for a class, so I will do my best to help edit this page as much as possible. If you can possibly direct me to problem areas I'll do everything I can do edit and add new and correct information.
Blocked for repeated vandalism past final warn. I looked in your edit history and found them! :-) Thanks for the work fighting vandalism - Alison☺ 18:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
WHY DONT U STFU AND GET A LIFE! IF YOU LIKE TO PLAY THAT GAY GAME SO MUCH, DO IT AND FUCK OFF! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglyjigglyjiggly (talk • contribs)
Actually, I've never even heard of Endless Online before today. It doesn't sound like my kind of thing at all. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to go to the Gay Games in Chicago this summer, but I was newly out and far too shy. Despite Mr. Jiggly's assertion, alas, Endless Online didn't sound particularly gay to me. Just another of those dreadful online multi-player adventure games... when did Scrabble stop being cool? -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to dissagree with you, FisherQueen; while there are far too many "inappropriate" articles on the all-mighty Wikipedia, I doNOT feel that mine, titled "Bunn High" fell under that category. There are literaly hundreds of articles about different schools, and mine was no different. While I admit it had little information, as I was interrupted while making it, I feel it was completely unfair to assume it was "spam" and delete it. While it might not seem like it, it took me a while to get it to look a certain way, as it contained many html tags. In the future I would appreciate it if you and others focused on stopping vandalism and incorrect edits than deleting articles that are in the process of being created. Thank you, and a reply would be greatly appreciated. Saywhaaa 22:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You placed the hangon tag, which was correct, but then you didn't provide any evidence that you were in the process of creating a fully developed article, so it got deleted. The look you worked so hard on didn't really have any content; check out other Wikipedia articles and see that a big logo for the subject isn't really needed or appropriate. What is needed is content- information, details, why the subject is notable, reliable sources verifying the information in the article. The article you created about Bunn High didn't have any of that, and your post on the talk page didn't give any sign that you would be adding any of that. If you want to create a fully developed article, though, you'd be welcome to. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MichaelLongcor.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi there, I have seen your messages. Thanks for pointing out the issues with the entries. As you can see they are my first wikipedia efforts and I haven't managed to do it very well. Should get better with a little help though. Let me explain, I am a marketing undergraduate and I just noticed that The Enginge Group, second biggest advertising agency in the UK was not in the index. This Engine group is unique in the way they have built a conglomerate of specialised teams and small agencies and I thought it was worth to note. If you know about this industry you understand what I mean. I did make the mistake of taking most of the info from their website, rather than coming up with something 100% original. However, I still believe it is relevant and worth to be included. The two chairmen of the company are also interesting characters, especially Robin Wight who has written quite interesting papers about the relation between human brain and advertising. I would really appreciate if you give me some time to edit what it is there (although most of it has already been deleted). Is there any way to make the entries "private" so only a few people can see them and provide feedback on them?). Also, what do you mean with the {prod} tag?
Thanks in advance,
M.
I'm sure they're very interesting people. But that isn't the same thing as notability, and I couldn't support notability with the sources that I found- maybe you have access to better ones. The {prod} tag was the original tag I placed on the article, suggesting that it be deleted in seven days if sources to improve it were not added. That's the tag you removed, so I sent it to the community at Articles for Deletion, where a variety of people can independently search for sources and make their determination. The article's fate is out of my hands and in the hands of the community, but if you can provide sources that show notability and explain them in the deletion discussion, it'll help- we all make decisions based on Wikipedia policy. As for the 'private' thing- a lot of people who want to work on an article a little bit at a time will create it in their own userspace first, then post it as an article when it's finished. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clarification and the kind advice. Wasn't aware of this tag that you mention. Will quote sources in the deletion discussion.
Thanks Markusse 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
But he did use conebone69 as his fake email address.....
RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ awards this Barnstar to FisherQueen for doing good work building articles and being an all-round nice person!Not that you're the only reasonable person I've come across when doing this chore, but... well, you're pretty unique! Please shout me if you need help with the minefield that is image policy on Wikipedia - I'll be glad to try. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Aw, shucks, thanks! Anyone who's willing to take on the thankless job of trying to enforce Wikipedia image use policy deserves not only a barnstar but a bathtub full of ice cream as well. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Gee, FisherQueen, I thought people who ran around enforcing image policies deserved an electric appliance tossed into their bubblebath. Thanks for setting me straight on my misconception! Jeffpw 00:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my contributions were not meant to be negative. They are relevant facts in my opinion and I documented them in an encyclopedic way. My only problem is, despite the Help link on here, I'm still unable to cite sources properly. They are basically any news agency or website that keeps up with Culkin's developments. Also, "Macaulay Culkin gay" is a recommended search on Yahoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circumnavigator (talk • contribs)
All information on Wikipedia, but especially information about living people, is required to be well sourced- we just don't deal in rumors. Culkin may well be gay, but until he comes out or is convincingly outed by a reliable source, we don't add the information here. That way, we are sure that we're only publishing true and verifiable information about our subjects. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Secondontheroad has just recreated the dead race horse article, again. I posted this as a sockpuppet, but nobody has said or done anything since I did so. --Orange Mike 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like this did the trick, user is blocked now. Gotta feel sorry for the poor dead horse...-FisherQueen (Talk) 19:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Tell no-one and I'll cut you in for a share of the payments. Say 5% a week? And bribes are tax deductible, I believe. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fair. Especially since, if I understand the accusation correctly, I'm getting paid just for not tagging notable articles, which I'm already doing for free. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You're doing it for free? You've missed a trick. There are over 1.5million articles here, of which some, even many, are notable. I personally extract €0.75 from each author a week in order to not delete each article. At the last count, I was making more money than the whole of the EU made in GDP last year. You need to get a bit more hard-assed with these contributors - your problem is that you're far, far too nice. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 19:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been very, very foolish, haven't I? I'm going to send a message to the major contributors of George W. Bush right now- pony up, or I tag the article with {db-bio}. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
He's got an article on here?!? Man, they'll just let anyone in, won't they!? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you remember the day when we had standards? Philippe 01:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "got that in college". I think maybe it's important to include the fact that a large number of people consider it a perfect number because of its continuous use by God--including me--but i don't think it is useful to claim that the Bible says so. Give me a book, chapter, and verse. I'm just making sure people don't start assuming things about the Bible that are false. ThanksDelusional 1 17:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the fact that 7 is considered to represent perfection in certain readings of the Bible needs to be deleted from the article. It is a significant and notable meaning for the number, in my opinion. If you think it should be reworded to make it more clear that this is a Christian tradition, that's fine, but I don't think the information should be removed. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Understood, even though I am still at a loss for where the Bible states its perfection. I'll re-word it.Delusional 1 03:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
