FisherQueen, my role in being a good Wikipedian is to inform you, and administrator, that the banned user, User:Jibajabba has opened a new account under the name User:Banana7070. My evidence is that he shares the same interests and that he physically told me in real life. I believe that this account should be monitored. Thanks--mrbsball825 (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advise. I will try to take things easy "
"Got to keep and open heart, got to keep an open mind.
Got to keep workin' hard or you get left behind
Got to keep lovin', got to keep givin'.
Got to let nothin' get in the way of livin'.
Gotta keep open."
You may recall I had a minor dispute with this editor about individual song notability. I redirected three song articles (Razor Boy, Your Gold Teeth and King of the World (song)) to their parent album article Countdown to Ecstasy as they had no real content and no notability seemed evident. SmokeyTheCat has recently come across the article on the David Bowie album Young Americans (album) and seems to think that because all the songs on that album have individual articles so should the Countdown to Ecstasy article as they feel both albums are equally important. I've pointed them at the WP:OTHERSTUFF guideline and suggested that the correct approach is not to add individual song articles for the Countdown to Ectasy album but to merge/redirect the individual songs from the Bowie album that don't meet our criteria instead. Smokey has reverted all three of the redirects I created at the song title articles I listed above. Rather than risk the possibility of an edit war I was wondering if you could intervene here somehow?
Sorry for the long message, thanks in advance. Exxolon (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, me again. I won't revert but I still think that the Young Americans (album) is better for the individual entries on the songs - although they are not sourced - so I don't see why the same shouldn't be true for Countdown to Ecstasy. If there is currently a lack of content it is to be hoped that other editors in future will add some. Who decides Wiki policy on this anyway? Is it possible to appeal against/revise the policy? Anyway I'm sure you're as bored by this subject as I am so I will say no more. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 21:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The notability guidelines are pretty well established; if you'd like to discuss them at that page and seek consensus that ALL songs should have individual pages, even if those pages cannot be sourced, you are welcome to try, but I do not think that you are likely to get that consensus. If there's nothing verifiable to say about a song, there's no reason to have a separate entry to say nothing in. If no sources exist, then no future editor will be able to do anything with it; if sources later become available, some future editor can create the article at that time; it isn't necessary to have an article without verifiable information in it waiting for that hypothetical editor. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Remember USEDfan? I believe he's back with a new account, Shake 3000. I have requested a checkuser here. Just letting you know in case you wanted to pitch in. Have a nice day. — FatalError 23:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Will you please weigh in with your thoughts on this. You are familiar with User:USEDfan and it is obvious it is him. I am 100% positive that it is him/her. Landon1980 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the checkuser process was effective while I was travelling. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
User:King Kookie is obviously USEDfan, he is edit warring to implement all of the changes USEDfan wanted. I don't get it, why is he allowed to make new accounts from his IP after two indefinite blocks? Landon1980 (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
He isn't; but since the edits I looked at weren't obvious vandalism, and since I don't remember the exact details of that user's desired changes, I wanted to be certain that it was the same person before blocking. His recent edit summary helped me be certain, and so I have blocked his account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I understand you must be certain in these situations. I am just very familiar with this user and his desired changes. The edits matched usedfan's edits word for word. Thanks for your time, Landon1980 (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
It was my pleasure. I look forward to the latest sockpuppet's request for unblock and claim of innocence. Should be good for a laugh. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is pretty amusing reading some of his excuses and whatnot. The sad part is he will be back soon, I hope not but seems like a pattern here. Landon1980 (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
You could have left that there; I just reverted it because it was the third request and, well, you saw it. Useless. I also protected the page. Tanǀ39 14:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I rolled it back because that user removed Sandstein's denial, and because, since you had already protected the page, it didn't seem worth the effort to reformat things to keep his and add mine beneath it. One of those not-quite-edit-conflict things. I don't think it matters much in any case, since the only question is who gets to tell him 'no way, dude.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
hi fisherqueen,
thanks for deleting that article. question: as it is the second time that user created something like that on wikipedia, how many times can they abuse it before we delete their account?
--Carbonrodney (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Many people like to go through the four-warning process, though the rules don't require it, and any admin who gets tired of re-deleting it can go ahead and block the user. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As a non-admin, I personally don't like the four-warning process, and I usually skip one of them on the way to the final warning. If an editor doesn't "get it" after being told twice, why bother with four times? Thanks for blocking User:Ironfistfighter1 after only one warning. I was dreading having to waste my time posting 3 warnings before reporting on WP:AIV. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There's flexibility in the process because there's a big difference between confused and frustrated well-meaning n00bs, and blatant vandals like that one. He's not here to learn how to be helpful; no reason to waste time with him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
So basically I have to include a reason why its notable. I have included several reasons for some of my pages and people have recommended them for deletion etc. Is this an accurate system or are we only deleting the ones people have a problem with. I'm just trying to put more information out there. There are buildings etc on UT at Austin's file that have nothing more than a link to the school website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byxeagle (talk • contribs) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
As I said in my earlier message, you have to both include a reason that the building is notable AND several reliable sources for your information. If the building you want to write about is one that no one has written about in a significant way, that building does not meet the notability criteria, and there's no reason to write an encyclopedia article about it. Not every building on a college campus is notable; indeed, most of a college's buildings will not be notable. As I said in my earlier message, without sources, articles will be tagged for deletion. If you've found articles that you think don't meet the notability criteria, the solution is to tag those articles for deletion through the appropriate channels, not to create more non-notable articles that someone else will have to delete. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Just because a building is not meaningful by your standards does not mean that it is not meaningful. If it is something that people in the area and state are familier with, then it is most definitely notable. Not every building can be like the clock town at Texas that has a shooting take place so there are 80 million articles written about it. The fact that these buildings are covered in a book handed out to all freshmen entering the university and yet you don't classify it as notable is both offensive to me and my university.Byxeagle (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, different people consider different things important. But Wikipedia's definition of notability requires that a building has been written about in a few significant sources other than the university's guidebook. Eighty million would be impressive, but even two or three would be enough. Any of the buildings you are interested in that meet the criteria would certainly warrant an article, while those that don't meet the criteria don't need an article. If you are offended by the concept of an encyclopedia which has notability requirements, that is a problem with which I cannot help you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Sorry for getting the name of the book wrong. I think I'm going to buy it now... 117.194.224.126 (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Sorry the Reference Desk wasn't able to deliver an insta-answer for you; there are a lot of us, and among us we know a lot of stuff, but we don't all check in every day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
{{Fq-block}}... That is one of the best templates I've ever seen. I gotta give you something for that. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC) A pretty flower for a pretty funny template! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk
I try to be helpful, and I have made a few helpful templates of my own, for occasions when they might be useful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I sound a bit nosy, but KnowledgeOfSelf is quite right about it, and I think I'll be the first to use this template, after this. Cheers, Victor Lopes (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
do you have email turned on? I have a problem that I would like to speak to you about that I don't want the entire internet knowing about... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I do indeed have email enabled, and I check it at least once a month. Usually. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just editing this article!! Jobadoo!! Even don't get the time for this?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobadoo (talk • contribs)
Please add new comments to the bottom of my talk page, and sign your posts using four tildes. While your question is not very clear, I think the answer to it is probably in the message I already left on your talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but i was just working on that page to make it signifcant, now everything is gone and i can start again ?????????
It is not easy to do this in 5 minutes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobadoo (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising. There is no way for you to advertise your web site on Wikipedia. If you are looking for web space to use for advertising, I think that MySpace permits that kind of use. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, how can i make a page when you delete it immediatly, a hint or a tip would be much better then the way you moderate here, but thanks anyway i won't try it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobadoo (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, you can't create an article about your web page, so there's no reason not to delete it immediately- nothing would be gained by allowing an advertising page to exist even for a little while on Wikipedia. If you're concerned about the way we moderate in general, I assure you that we use different procedures than immediate deletion for articles that might turn out to be useful, and only use speedy deletion on articles that are clearly never going to be appropriate here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Neat. I used to have a stalker; it wasn't as much fun as it sounds. I confess: I know this user is never going to get unblocked, and was just feeding him more rope to see if he could hang himself any better. I know it's wrong, but here it is, late at night, and him so obvious... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
He's looking pretty well hung from where I'm sitting.... 15 cans of Stella303 02:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's really his penis in those pictures. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
And, look, he did say that, if unblocked, he would vandalize my userpage. Aw, it isn't that funny. I'm taking a good book and going to bed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
My name is Mark and I am the manager of UK radio duo, 'Lex&Davey'.
I am using Lex Carters account to upload information about them to wiki as I have had many requests to do so.
I would be extremely grateful if the page I spend a lot of time creating for them didn't keep getting deleted.
If you can help me understand why there is a problem with this, I would really appreciate it.
Thanks for your time. Mark --LexCarter1988 (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted your article because I thought it was about a subject that didn't meet the notability criteria, but I'm open to the possibility that I was wrong. If you'll provide me with links to three articles about the subject in newspapers, magazines, or significant online sources, I'd be happy to undelete the article, and I'll even add the sources to it so no one else will mistake it for an inappropriate article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, as his manager, you have a conflict of interest which makes it inappropriate for you to create an article about them; as I said to you earlier, if they really are notable, someone other than their manager will inevitably be moved to write about them. If no one other than their manager cares enough to write about them, that would be a good sign that they aren't that notable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't see the problem with this. A lot of the people I know havent a clue how to use wikipedia to edit articles and add new ones. Lex&Davey arn't Michael Jackson so obviously they arnt as 'notable' as him. Lex&Davey are also radio presenters... people dont go making shrines about radio presenters, yet they still admire them. The information I posted is correct, I am not here to cause any problems, im here to add to this site and help people understand a bit more about Lex&Davey. If you read the article i posted... it includes legit links to other wiki articles and outside websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LexCarter1988 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You don't see the problem with this because you didn't bother to read the policies that FisherQueen provided for you. I endorse this deletion; not only are Lex&Davey non-notable by Wikipedia standards; as their manager, this is pretty blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not here to help you "get the word out" about these radio personalities. Please read WP:BIO and WP:V, along with WP:COI. Tanǀ39 01:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, Wikipedia really does have notability criteria, and everyone really does have to follow them. I did read the article you posted twice, and I didn't see anything that showed that these two met the notability criteria, or even any reference to reliable, independent sources, like newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books that have been written about them. I'm sorry if weren't expecting Wikipedia to be a real encyclopedia, with standards of notability, but that really is what Wikipedia is. As the pair's manager, it just isn't appropriate for you to write about them- we all agree, under the conflict of interest guidelines, not to write about subjects we have a personal or financial connection to. If you're interested in helping to write an encyclopedia, there are lots of music articles that could use improvements. If you're just interested in advertising your clients, though, I'm afraid you'll have to accept that Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This could be me. You don't know.
Okay, read FisherQueen's version. She's much more forgiving, patient, and cordial than I apparently am :-) Tanǀ39 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I am a stunningly, almost supernaturally, kindhearted person. I am also, as far as you know, extremely physically attractive. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You know, if a woman who looked like that (sans the topless part) walked into any Cincinnati bar, she wouldn't turn any heads. People might even say, "you have something in your hair." Sort of bromidic to be saying that what men consider attractive has changed over time, but whatever. :-) Tanǀ39 02:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately, I am a lesbian, and I've noticed that women often have very different ideas than men regarding what kind of women are attractive. Take kd lang, for example; I don't think she turns many of the boys' heads, but many of us lady-loving ladies just can't take our eyes off of her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that article specifically says that I am welcome to edit articles; it's my friends who will have to be preemptively blocked. I love that article. I wish I had written it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
| haha love it.... Look guys, i get it now... sorry it took me a while to understand. I just didnt think it would be a problem at first... and please let me assure you - it certainly isnt my intention to advertise using wiki. im sorry to have wasted your time. take care of yourselves. Mark --LexCarter1988 (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You have a nice day and/or evening, too, and say 'hi' to Lex and Davey for us. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, You have recently blocked Istaara for disruptive editing. You may be interested in the following. I have been looking at the articles that were created by this user. The main one is on Hameed Shahid. The other articles are on books that Shahid wrote (all prominently showing his photo) or on books of others, but then those articles also end up tlking about Shahid and also contain his photo. I have reason to believe that Istaara is Shahid himself (see here. The Hameed Shahid article has recently (after Istaara was blocked) also been edited by 210.2.171.170, a suspected sockpuppet of Istaara (see User_talk:210.2.171.170. --Crusio (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, that makes more sense. I got lost in all the words, words, words, and failed to notice that; thank you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This user is inactive temporarily.
FisherQueen is vacationing in London, after which she will be attending the Pennsic War. Vandals, I trust you not to do anything bad to my userspace while I'm away.
In the point of view of an Eagle Scout, peace is like the solemn woods or like an empty thought
of an imagination. It is like the fire during night or even the cinder in the cold. But it is also
like the movement of brotherhood, without personal bias to Race, creed, or religion. It is not
divided like the stars, but it is like the universe and it's total meaning to man. His
spirit moves like the wind, when it comes pass there will be silence, but he pays attention and he
is strong even when other people are weak. He is constantly reminded of the Boy inside him, even the
man symbolized by the Eagle with sharp talons. When grips, it is firm and when he directs it is the
finality of his judgment. He is an Eagle Scout and that is who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil samaco jr (talk • contribs) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
An unfortunate effect of a group less active than in the past is that our articles lose integrity. This one is at Good Article Review for that reason. The talk page is quite active as a result. You have the opportunity to help. This is the corest of our core articles, and it needs some attention because it gets a lot of controversial input from many sides. If you can spare any time to edit the article, please do what you can.
Soon after we were informed that Homosexuality is being scrutinized, we heard the same for one of our few Featured Articles. As a participant of the Featured Article process, I think this is actually a good thing. The standards for Featured Articles are getting higher with time. But as a member of this project, that means that a few of ours may be de-listed unless someone can swoop in and save them. This one has to do with the designation of homosexuality as a crime in Germany. Most of this article's sources are in German. If anyone has any particular skill in this area, please lend a hand!
I know you folks think I have much experience in a gay bathhouse, and I hate to disappoint you, but I actually do not. I seem like the sort of person who likes to stroll about in a towel. Shocking, no? It appears that Ashleyvh is single-handedly addressing all the problems with this article at its GA Review. While that's pretty impressive, it's also no doubt exhausting. Can anyone help out there?
In what I hope will counter the jolt of re-evaluating three Good or Featured Articles, José Sarria and Janet Jackson as gay icon passed as Good Articles, and Black Cat Bar (famous San Francisco oft-raided gay bar) is nominated, all by Otto4711. Rock on, man. You're a machine. Good luck with your nominations. What is it about women that make them gay icons? And are there lesbian icons that aren't lesbians? How about bisexual icons? Am I the only lesbian who reacts with soul-trembling fear at the sight of Angelina Jolie?
New WP:LGBT studies member Pinkkeith has done this cool thing. If you click on that link, you'll see all the articles, categories, templates, and miscellany up for deletion. They're usually there because they're not considered to be not notable. That can be a relative concept, and sometimes it has to be argued that topics pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues are notable.
It seems a recurring issue which articles to tag, and what to say about a topic that's tagged. Certainly, because an article falls under our scope doesn't necessarily make the person gay. Florida Governor Charlie Crist has been rumored to be gay in some newspaper accounts. Although we all know Fred Phelps is supergay, he won't admit it so instead he does the absolutely awfulest anti-gay things on the planet to deflect suspicion. NAMBLA, the red headed stepchild of the LGBT world, is tagged with an explanation we have yet to decide if we'll keep.
In the lurking I do around and about on Wiki, I've long been astounded at the forbearance Benjiboi has for the utterly insane. Perhaps not so much, since the message on Benji's talk page notes frequent absences due to homophobia and transphobia. But it takes some kind of ... something that I don't have to face the constant anti-gay POV Benji does.
Benjiboi is a a bit of a WikiFaerie, a WikiGnome and also a member of the Article Rescue Squadron in addition to being a LGBT project member. A few of Benjiboi's favorite links for making the wikiverse more fab are:
Becksguy didn’t start actively editing until May 2007. His most frequent tasks on Wiki include reverting vandalism to LGBT articles and creating new project-related articles. He comes from New York state, and to prove not all of us are teenagers (ha! I am so totally 15!) he's in his 60s and retired.
Becksguy considers his biggest triumph on Wikipedia so far was a DYK in December 2007 for the first-ever newspaper report on what became AIDS, in the New York Native. He's also helped save several project-related articles from deletion. His lowest moment here was getting involved in the discussion on a particular terrorism related article, thinking he could help calm the roiled waters on an extremely contentious subject with multiple edit wars and passionate editors.
Here at WP:LGBT, he creates and improves articles that present notable LGBT related subjects in a fair and balanced way, and tries to include more of the significant alternative sexuality related subjects without being an activist, and works to better source project-related articles.
On Wikipedia as a whole, he says, "I think we need to learn better what processes work for a massive collaborative project. Some of what worked well for a more informal small project doesn’t scale up well. Process is not as important when the participants know each other. We need to get more of the current members to be more active. If more members were energized, the project would be able to accomplish more. We should be, in effect, the smaller and included Wikipedia for LGBT related subjects. Overall, I wish we could focus more on content creation and improvement, and less on vandal fighting."
"A Supreme Court decision in 1958 reversed a 1956 ruling by a federal district court that U.S. postal authorities were correct in prohibiting the mailing of the Mattachine Society's ONE magazine. The lower court had ruled that ONE was not protected by the First Amendment because the magazine's contents 'may be vulgar, offensive, and indecent even though not regarded as such by a particular group ... because their own social or moral standards are far below those of the general community ... Social standards are fixed by and for the great majority and not by and for a hardened or weakened minority.'" - Michael Bronski in Pulp Friction, 2003
Thanks for being weak and having lowered standards with me. --Moni3 (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
Newsletter delivery by xenobot 12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
