User talk:FisherQueen

FisherQueen User Page · Talk page · Archives · Sandbox · Patrol · Templates

Did I delete your article? Try here first! Snarky 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 live to serve. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC) About a block Dear FisherQueen, 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) Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009 News and notes: Commons grant, license change, new chapters, usability and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia and kidnapping, new comedy series WikiProject report: WikiProject Food and Drink Features and admins: Approved this week Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC) The bigger picture... ...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) I didn't block User:MataNui44. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:36, 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 Rouge 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) Quick Question 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)