Congratulations, FisherQueen! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, July 1, 2009! Keep up the great work! Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
Cheat. Look at someone else's abuse filter cases and simply copy/paste what he/she said! And if that doesn't help, it'll still work because CorelBot will see you try to plagiarize and you'll get Arbitration for trying to impersonate a victim of the abuse filter! Brilliant right? :) -WarthogDemon 18:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
No. You're not an IP. See the log itself. It's called Abusive filter tag. It's not called tagged edits. If I had not abusive edits, I wouldn't have an abusive filter log. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's true, because other users with named accounts have tags. Maybe it's because I did it on my own talk page. Would it be all right if I briefly vandalized your talk page, to see if that tags it? Or... I wonder if it has to be an edit to an article? I'm not quite ready to start vandalizing articles just to experiment with the abuse filter... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Say, run rampant on any one of my subpages or talk page. -WarthogDemon 18:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! This still didn't warrant a tag. I'm starting to suspect it only applies to articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm . . . I could create a test article and maybe you vandalize that before you delete? :P (But I'm probably treading on policy violation at that point.) -WarthogDemon 18:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it factors in experience, and trusts me because of my many thousands of contributions, or my admin status? I could try creating a sockpuppet account and... no, this is starting to get silly, I think. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
See? That's what you get for being a goody-goody admin. :P -WarthogDemon 18:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And it's also a false heuristic that I blanked a page. An IP can't blank pages, it appears.
Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers.
If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page.
If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version.
If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content or leave a message on the talk page.
If you believe the page should be deleted altogether, please see the deletion policy for information on how to proceed.
If this edit is constructive, please click 'Save page' again, and report this error.
So this tag should not be applied to any IP edit. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I wish I knew more about programming. The tags are kind of new, and they've been really useful to me in patrolling edits- I can check when new users make flagged edits, and manually either welcome them (if they're useful edits) or smack them down (if they're vandals). I'm sure they'll be refined as they go, and since false positives don't actually have any effect, it seems to me like a good tool. I think, in your annoyance at the tag, you might be over-reacting just a tiny, tiny bit. Take a break from science writing (just a short one, because you're needed there!) and patrol edits by new users for half an hour- welcome the new people who make useful edits, help out the ones who are trying to do something useful but struggling to figure out how, revert and warn the vandals- after a half hour of that, you might come to get a different understanding of how the tags are meant to function. Plus, it's sort of fun, and we could use the help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being nice. Always a welcome change. I only come here to edit science articles, though. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
One last thing before I get in trouble for going off topic. Couldn't you have said dogs? :P I don't like dogs but puppies are an exception since they're kinda cute. -WarthogDemon 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I went to a conference where the speaker said, "Don't use wikipedia" as a resource and included a screenshot of one of some 1500 articles where wikipedia lists a bacteria as a eukaryote. Everyone laughed as she carefully circled the organism, a cyanobacterium, then circled the word "eukaryote" in the taxonomy box.
This error is enormous. Although it was caught by a microbiology editor, the 1500 articles were only removed due to the hard work of some IP editors and a ton of plant editors.
Now I can't continue to correct this error because of this filter. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the filter stopping you from fixing it? I thought the filter merely tagged the edits, but didn't prevent them from being made? If the error is that widespread, I'll bet there's a way to get a bot to do the replacements, if you were able to help the bot manager set the right parameters. It doesn't seem right that anyone should have to do 1500 word-changes by hand. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I tried to remove all of the test, which is necessary. They were bad anybot articles. Then I tried to remove most of the text, it requires I leave in the category, which was wrong for the one. So, yes, it is blocking me from editing it, and now cluebot is working at getting my IP blocked for the edits.
I've edited from some bad IPs, but this one is clean, so the bots should just lay off.
No one should test tags that cannot be removed. There is a lot of poor programming on wikipedia. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to look at your recent edits to figure out what's going wrong for you... Assume that I'm an idiot, or at least, that I just barely passed undergraduate biology... I see this edit, which ClueBot undid because it removed most of the article and the only source, thus setting off its abuse filter. Is the rest of that article incorrect? I don't speak science very well, but that source looks legit to me... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
There's no reason to assume you're an idiot. This is a wikipedia assumption about other writers; but, in fact, if I assume you're an idiot, why would I try to converse with you?
The article is incorrect. It's not an algae, it's a protozoa that belongs to a group that includes photosynthetic organisms. The list of species is incorrect. The article was created by a bot that uploaded unverified taxonomies. The article should not be sourced to AlgaeBase because a programming error caused the bot to insert incorrect data in articles. Therefore the article should be deleted in its entirety, so I blanked it as a courtesy to the innocent, but I can't do that now that I've been filter tagged as a vandal (I did that earlier with a horrid article). So, I left it useless, again, to protect the innocent. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, what a mess! Let me look around a little bit and see if I can figure out who would have the knowledge to help out with this.. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, there seems to be an active community of editors at WikiProject Microbiology. Before I leave a note there... what would be your preferred way of dealing with this? We can focus on getting ClueBot to let the articles be fixed, or if you have a list of them, we can nominate the entire pile of them for deletion in one big swoop. What do you think would be the better solution? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue has already been dealt with. A few articles were left out. A writer posted a list here, and I began editing those articles. That's when I found out my edits were being tagged as if they were vandalism. Although there are almost 900 articles on this list, most of them can be removed with an examination of the edit history. I saw this by reviewing a few dozen throughout the list. So, I decided I would just clean the list in its entirety, thinking I could do it rather quickly, and get Kurt Shaped Box to delete the necessary articles, leaving the rest clean. Looked like a good idea.
There are not a lot of phycology editors on wikipedia. Wikipedia calling the ones here (I'm not one, though) vandals and deleting 1500 edits of another is not going to help.
Probably you might find someone here who might be willing to edit the 900 articles instead of me. Microbiologists often don't know much about algae, but that was a proper guess, so the idiocy calling is still no good. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It is a good idea- it's just hard to explain to ClueBot what you're doing. What if we left a note for ClueBot's master at User talk:ClueBot Commons, asking for advice about how to do this? This can't be the first time that ClueBot has gotten in the way of necessary edits. (They'll probably still trip the filter, but since that doesn't actually prevent the edits, I don't think that's a major problem. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The list I found was User:Anybot/AfD, but there aren't 900 wrong articles there (most of them are deleted already), so I think I must be looking in the wrong place? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A nice user and some helpers have already seen to deleting 4077 of the articles. These 900 don't all need deleted, in fact, only a few of them need deleted, like the two I deleted most of the text from. They're unsourced now and say nothing, but this is one step up from false information. The problem is, who is going to sort through the list of almost 900 articles and find the ones that need deleted and fix the ones that don't. When someone is doing work that most other wikipedia writers cannot do, let them do the work instead of creating obstacles and calling them a whiner when they're annoyed at the obstacles.
This is also why wikipedia should have and enforce a policy of discussing the articles not personal issues and name calling. It takes time away from editing. I was cleaning up a list of 900 potentially bad articles. I'm not doing that now.
Cluebot seems to have a clue most of the time. I was able to blank a page before, and this allowed the article to be tagged for deletion. I think, though, now I've been tagged for blanking I'm being blocked from doing it?
Anyway, the list needs checked badly and soon, it still contains some articles that are off by as much as 2 billion years of evolution. Even the creationists aren't off by that much (as most believe in microevolution). --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And I just found your discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, so I can see that you aren't out there all by yourself, which makes me feel better- I was picturing you as one tiny person against an army of hostile bots... Wikipedia has policies in place on avoiding name calling, but your ANI thread didn't really discuss this big project you're working on; after reading it, I certainly had no idea that you were engaged in this work. It also didn't discuss the problem you were having with ClueBot stopping the edits; it only talked about filter tags, which don't actually do anything. I don't think anyone reading that discussion actually understood what your real problem is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)
The real problem is the many ways wikipedia has to tell a good editor they're not welcome. Messes like this could have been corrected much sooner with an enforced civility policy. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Give me a few minutes; I'm in over my head here, but I'd like to write up a note at WP:ANI that explains the scope of your problem more clearly, to see if more knowledgeable people can help out. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay; I've tried to summarize the problem at ANI; did I get it right? -19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Almost. Possibly if you spent another 20 hours reading through the mess... I corrected the note at AN/I to make it clear, hopefully, most of the articles don't need deleted. They need checked, then either edited, removed from Kurt Shaped Box's list, or deleted, which Kurt Shaped Box will do for me. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your using your knowledge to work on this list! I deleted the two that were down to "A <name> is an organism." That's... not much of a definition, is it? :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering how anybot created the articles, it might not have been accurate. I guessed it was.
It should have said, "A <name> is or was an organism or person." Anybot created articles about bacteria, flowering plants, fungi, protists, animals, and at least one human being and called them algae. It had single celled organisms (hundreds) that produced multi-cellular reproductive structures. It was nicer to readers to err on the safe side. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It identified a human being as algae? I'm laughing... and my brain is suggesting names of people who might be easily mistaken for algae. That's a candidate for Worst Bot Ever for sure... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh lawd. As a matter of interest, which organism in the genus Homo did Anybot earnestly believe to be an alga? That would be a sure-fire candidate for WP:BJAODN, should such a thing still exist... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
One of its genera articles was an author's name. I can't figure out how the bot did it, because it was not consistent. The bot owner admitted to not initializing his variables, for a starter. Yes, anybot is the worst bot ever, as far as I can tell, the BJAODN page examples pale next to anybot. These articles stayed on wikipedia for months. A user tried hard to get them fixed, but was stifled first by anybot's owner, but also one of the phycology editors who didn't look closely into the articles while addressing a tangent. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, about 1500 of the articles were carefully edited by another IP who tried to fix the higher level taxonomies. All of his/her articles had to be deleted. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Civility Award
I award you this barnstar for contributing to excellent editing on wikipedia by focusing on what is wrong with the encyclopedia and what needs fixing, rather than on how someone delivered a message. 69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And thanks for killing the moaning articles, too. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Aw, shucks. That's why they made me an administrator- not because I have any technical knowledge, but because I can read and write pretty well and like helping solve problems when I can. And 'cause I'm usually nice to people, except when what they need is to be smacked in the head. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I could block him, but it looks like he hasn't reverted again since the 3rr warning on his talk page; I'd like to give him a chance to Do the Right Thing. If I'm not online and he reverts again, WP:AN3 is the noticeboard; someone is usually watching that page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Looks like he's already up there anyway. Wow I'm a bit slow on the draw here. -WarthogDemon 19:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have been so labeled. The only solution offered is to register. I can't edit the articles as a registered account because the abuse filters blocking me from editing prevent new users with less than 500 edits from doing these same types of edits. A lot of heat there, FisherQueen, but there's not no substance to what you're saying. I am not insulting everyone. What is insulting everyone here at wikipedia is the poor reputation wikipedia gets when it allows junk science articles to sit on its pages and get wiki mirror copied througout cyberspace for 4 months until an IP has to fight to get them removed.
Bad articles that should never have been produced are the most insulting thing wikipedia could ever have. I didn't creat them. I'm fighting to get them fixed. I read the abuse filters. They are for fighting vandalism. It is the word others are throwing out, that the point of the filters are to fight vandalism by IPs. Read the posts, but don't vent your anger at me, because I've bothered to read what they say but you haven't.
And, again, here we are with the personal, but no one is removing the really insulting thing from wikipedia: the bad articles.
This gave me a good laugh. Snarky as hell and damned funny :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Whatever that dude is trying to do, it is not helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I completely agree. I was the one who reverted the edits on AN. I have his contribs on a tab and am watching them. But that post just made me laugh and I thought you should know, you gave me a good laugh for the day :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that I'm using this channel to communicate with you but as an old wikipedia lover, I am really dissappointed by this matter. I have noticed the blocking on User:Socrates.awmn, I have read your explanation and I would like to give you some advice on the matter since I strongly believe that you have been mislead by someone. AWMN is not a business and thus it cannot be "advertised" in the commercial sense. As the article explains, it is an open community of human beings, no profit, no selling, no material gain involved whatsoever, only knowledge and fun. There is however a strong competition for control and a lot of arrogance since it is composed by a 99% male community. I do strongly, very strongly, believe that some envy person reported socrates.awmn for "advertising" and this lead to the block. If you spoke Greek you could visit the webpages related to AWMN and then you would immediately realise that it is a genuine non-profit hobby and that there is no realistic conflict of interest of any kind. However, you obviously do not speak Greek and thus I understand that it might have looked like a clear violation of rules while scorates.awmn was just presenting the community. I strongly suggest to invite some Greek speaker to review the AWMN web page and the forum and advise you if he believes that AWMN can be classified as a business in any way. If you are still not satisfied and you are still unwilling to unblock the user then please write your comments on socrates.awmn's talk so that we could see that you took this message under consideration. --racergr (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't block that user. Possibly my unblock decline was too strongly worded, since he was at least the tenth person I'd declined for unblock in a similar position, and I was heartily tired of people using Wikipedia to advertise- and yes, it's still advertising even if what you're advertising is not a business. If he isn't interested in editing Wikipedia, but only in using Wikipedia for promotion, then there's nothing I can do, and in any case, the username rules don't allow us to use website or organization names for our usernames, so that account can't be unblocked anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok fair enough but what do you suggest him to do then? I assure you that his intentions were genuine, the problem is that this specific article was tricky. I understand the spirit of the rules but you have to understand that there is a fine line between "promotion" and "presentation", a line which can easily be crossed by a non-native speaker who wishes to present his hobby. I agree that the Greeks should not edit Greece but when we have an activity of a somewhat closed community, who would know enough and care enough to edit this article if not the members of the community? --racergr (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Greeks can and do edit Greece. If no one outside this community knows or cares about something, why would an encyclopedia need to write it? The people who want to know already know, and no one else wants to know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
...is that you were wrong about blocking User: MataNui44. That is because you probably haven't seen what he has been up to on the Code Lyoko page. He has violated the 3 Revert Rule (July 10; Code Lyoko), reliable sources rules several times and has reverted everyone else's edits. There is nothing wrong with that picture? I tried editing myself on one of the pages, which even had an internal link as well as sources at that link, and he still deleted it. You gave MataNui44 a block? He did nothing wrong, in fact if he did anything, he protected wikipedia, not start an edit war. I think you should disbar the ban from MataNui44 and place it with Rouge Penguin. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was you denied the unblock. Penguin is the one at fault. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I denied the unblock; like most administrators, I won't enter into a wheel-war (the admin equivalent of an edit-war) by undoing another administrator's block, unless I've discussed it with that admin and they've agreed that it should be undone, or unless that block was clearly against policy. In this case, a block for edit-warring is very much within Wikipedia's policies. If I had been convinced that User:MataNui44 would not edit-war in the future, or that the block was unfair, I would have been willing to intercede for him with the blocking admin, but, looking at the edit history, the talk page, and the block history, I didn't see anything that made me believe that he has made a decision to refrain from edit-warring in the future. His unblock request made it seem that he didn't understand that edit-warring is a serious problem. I've been involved in disputes much more heated than this one, and I've managed to find alternatives to edit-warring. "But I really feel strongly about this!" and "But I'm certain that I'm right!" and "But I'm making the article better!" are not valid excuses for edit-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, it is a serious problem, and right now Penguin gets away with doing it. Penguin has broken the 3RR so many times, and it is his opinion to which he explains his actions to a page. He has deleted articles and text just if it challenges or proves wrong something he has or is going to say. But right now, while you let that go on unattended, unchecked, you are also in the wrong. You must correct the problem. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anyone named Penguin; I don't think I've reviewed any unblock requests from a person of that name lately. Will unblocking User:MataNui44 make Penguin stop edit-warring? I don't think I understand how. If you see Penguin edit-warring and think she should be blocked, you can report it at the 3RR noticeboard. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
No, no. You've misunderstood what I'm saying. First, Penguin refers to User: The Rogue Penguin. Second, he hasn't been blocked lately, which is the problem. Third, no, that's why he needs to be blocked, not MataNui44. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to currently be edit-warring with anyone, and isn't in violation of WP:3RR right now. Blocks aren't a punishment; nothing is accomplished by blocking him for edit-warring last week. If he does it again, report him at WP:AN3. I see he did recently revert an edit of yours, but that was only because you had forgotten to add your reference; you don't need me to help with that, since it's easy enough for you to just add the reference and discuss it with him. Come to think of it, User:MataNui44 could have done the same thing easily enough. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
If it does not accomplish anything to block Penguin for the great many things he has done, how is it so that it applies for MataNui? BTW, that revert was completely unnecessary, be cause I put an internal which at that page had the references. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
MataNui was blocked because he was currently edit-warring. I don't know why the Penguin wasn't blocked at the same time, because I didn't block him. If you are curious about that, you could ask the administrator who did block him. I don't have any opinion at all about whatever subjects are under dispute there, but you are welcome to try some of the solutions at WP:DISPUTE if there are disagreements that you need additional opinions on. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Can't you block Penguin, you can see it's warranted? --76.95.66.209 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I do not see that it is warranted. If you would like to use your time machine to go back and report him when he was edit-warring, I encourage you to do so; I do not have a time machine connected to my computer (perhaps it's time for an upgrade), so I can't go back and block him when he was edit-warring. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
TIME MACHINE? Look all I asked was if you could block him because he has broken rules. That is clear from the Code Lyoko's history page, let alone whatever other pages he edits. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't block people because they have broken rules. We block people because they are breaking rules. Blocks are not a punishment. They are used to prevent disruption. Right now, no disruption is happening. If disruption does happen, you can report it. It looks like the penguin has been blocked for edit-warring many times before, if he does it again, report him, and he'll probably get a nice long block. But I can't block him today because I think he's going to misbehave in the future, just as I can't extend MataNui's block to indefinite because I think he is probably going to edit-war in the future. Everyone gets a chance to make the right decision. Now that you know that I'm not going to break the blocking rules for you, and you know where to report it the next time you have a problem, I don't think there's anything further I can do to help you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
So a murderer who escapes police for a day is no longer a law breaker and charges should not be filed because it was in the past. Is that what you're suggesting is the moral of this story? --76.95.66.209 (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I am only qualified to make decisions regarding Wikipedia's rules on edit-warring. Rules regarding murder vary from state to state and nation to nation, so if you think that the rogue penguin has committed a murder, you will need to ask a police officer for help, not a Wikipedia administrator. Your comparison is so deeply silly as to completely destroy my ability to take you seriously; good evening to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Have you heard of similes or comparisons? The point is that you don't pursue justice just because of time? That's stupid. If he destroyed a couple pages and no one else checks it, he's free to vandalize, is that it? Is that what you're saying? --76.95.66.209 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Similes are best employed when they're appropriate. Most crimes have statutes of limitations so the justice system isn't wasting its time prosecuting 20 year old shoplifting cases. That's an apt simile for this situation. We're not here to sift past contributions and retroactively apply some form of justice that does nothing to contribute to the creation of a free encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a court of law and administrators are not prosecutors. You know what to do the next time this happens. I suggest that you drop the stick and back away from the deceased equine. Acroterion(talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, no. You must punish someone if they've done something wrong no matter when. Your speech is a waste of space and time that wasn't what I meant and you misssed the point completely. As for not doing anything, it only encourages more bad behavior, if you haven't learned that by now, you and wikipedia are in trouble. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that your analogy is unconvincing. Edit-warring isn't murder; it's more like some people arguing about a couple of lines in an online encyclopedia. We're not here to mete out punishment or to right great wrongs. A block for edit-warring is effective only when there's an edit war in progress; there is no benefit to the encyclopedia in randomly blocking people because they did something bad a while ago. Wikipedia's been successful at resolving this sort of thing through the established means; that doesn't mean that it's tidy, easy, or that it pleases everybody. Acroterion(talk) 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
If an article is blatant vandalism but another editor started an AfD on it, can you still add a speedy tag or must you wait out the AfD process. The article in question is Call of duty 9 have a look at the main characters name 'Lt.Wann Kerr' thanks. BigDunc 21:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Technically, hoaxes don't come under the criteria for speedy deletion, but when a hoax is obvious enough to qualify as vandalism, yes, you can still tag it for speedy- or vote for speedying in the AfD discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Great thanks I voted for speedy on the AfD. BigDunc 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, checking through User:Rebroad's recent edits, I can see where they may have been in violation of 3RR and contributing with poor etiquette but your stated rationale which included "promotion of various fringe theories" might unfortunately be confusing the title of the citation from the BBC (which includes "conspiracy theory" in the title) with the actual fact being added to the articles in question. That the BLP subjects did attend Bilderberg meetings has never been disputed and it was this fact that was supported by the BBC citation, not any other analysis or theory. Note that I am not suggesting that Rebroad should be unblocked, only that fringe theories are not the issue here and perhaps you could consider re-wording your rationale? Of course I may have overlooked something you noted, in which case an example diff would be very helpful. Thanks. —Teahot (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm a lesbian English teacher in Cincinnatti and you're a middle-aged straight architect from West Virginia. Or the other way around, I get so confused. Oh, and I'm a Nazi. Acroterion(talk) 19:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I hate to interupt your confusion, but that's not what I said, you're just trying a false flag operation, because I'm lining up the facts. Perhaps this will explain how I'm theorizing the admin's recent contributions at: This is ridiculous., near the end. --76.95.66.209 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Disfasia who had disappeared after June 24, National Day of Quebec, just reappeared today on July 14, the French National Day. Is that a fixation on all things French? Anyways, since you have a lot to follow, I just thought I'd point it out to you. He/she has re-posted his/her essay over at Quebec's National Holiday. -- Mathieugp (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I resurrect the two designations (CISR and CSRM) as stubs (I will not be resurrecting The National Alliance page). I believe you had suggested that creating stubs was the best way to proceed. I have also identified some additional sources which I would like to share with you to show you that these designations are well-established. (Insurance Journal and American Agent and Broker are two of the premiere magazines in the insurance field and they are completely independent from the designations.) [1][2]
I thought it best to speak to you first so that you did not think I was going behind your back on this. I would not like it if someone did that to me. Again, I think my intentions are good, even if my original actions were not quite correct for wikipedia. Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding we experienced before. Thanks, Tnamore (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope I have come to the right admin. You have dealt with User:USEDfan in the past, yes? I believe he has returned under the sock of User:Jakers 78. I was pretty sure it was him a couple weeks ago, but thought MAYBE he had changed, and let him continue editing after giving him a warning. He has not changed one bit and needs to be blocked yet again. So if you could step in and wave your magic admin-blocking-wand, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but it seems he is back already. This time as User:Little BIG mike 25. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Looks like it has been taken care of. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
