There's a new user at the article (Mark0880) putting in a lot of information that all seems to be unreferenced. I've talked to him on several occasions and he seems to have his heart in the right place, but he keeps inserting information that seems much more appropriate for a sermon or tract than an encyclopedia [1][2]. Since you have experience with this article, I thought I'd come to you first and see if you could suggest a tact to take with him. I was just vandal fighting and drawn to the artile, I'm not really familiar with using references such as the Bible on articles dealing with religious matters. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark0880 has a passion for his faith. I have watched the conversation with interest. He put the suggested materials on the talk page and then put it back in the article. I am going to write a note on his proposal in the talk:Churches of Christ. We will see how he responds. John Park (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only use that template for users who ... er... have obviously made a decision that they desire to be blocked, and have communicated that decision clearly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, when I was a novice at Wikipedia, it never even occurred to me to create an article about myself. I was very concerned not to make any bold edits until I was confident I understood the rules. Behold my first three article space edits [3][4][5], all very minor copyediting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. When considering the real possibility of fame and fortune, I'd prefer just the money. Who needs everyone in one's personal business??? No article for me, EVER, thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™talk15:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a time in my youth when I hoped I'd be a famous writer some day. In the wisdom of my early middle age, my goal is never to be significant enough to have an article about me written on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I swear this is why we need a CSD tag for hoaxes/joke articles. "Aerobic Beading with Richard Simmons"? "Snow White and the Seven Beads"? This reads more like a bored kid in school made this up. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, you're right. I apologize; I missed the obvious hoaxiness of it. Must have read it too quickly. We do have a deletion criteria for 'pure vandalism,' which in my opinion an obvious hoax would fall under. Excuse me, I need to go fix an error that I made. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya FQ, hoping the weather finds you sunny and your bank balance finds you rich.
I've a question for you - if you would be so kind, have a gander at the history of Richard Ofshe, particularly the contributions of 89.159.146.254 (talk·contribs). You can see in my AIV report why I've been reverting - a source of "personal knowledge - Richard Ofshe" raises obvious WP:RS and WP:COI issues. Steve Crossin declined to block and fair enough given his rational, but hasn't responded to my question on his talk page. I'm perfectly willing to allow that this may not be an AIV matter, what I'd really like though is an option for a case like this, when after numerous postings on their talk page, there's been no reply and ongoing edits to the Ofshe page.
I'm aware of WP:PARENT - I'm looking for advice, not a block, and am keenly aware of my shortcomings in comprehension of many policies and guidelines. As always, the distilled wisdom of your many moons as an admin is the only beverage that will slake my thirst.
It looks like it may be the man himself, trying to add a personal statement about his opinion to the article. It's easy to understand that. I made a very short block and put a personal note on the talk page; if there's inaccuracies or bias in the article about him, it should be fixed, but it looked to me to be a fair account of what he has done and also what has been said about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: I wil raise RFC
He falsely calls me a vandal as I restoring the previous compact version and his behavior is highly uncivil and suits personal attack. I don't think the vulgarism should be included in the article, so I will raise RFC to resolve this absurd dispute. --Appletrees (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, as I said on the talk page, that you may not fully understand the phrase 'in deep shit.' It's a slang phrase that means 'in trouble,' and isn't intended to associate kimchi with literal shit. Once I understood that you were reading it as an insult against this important Korean dish, I understood why you were so angry. Many readers don't understand why you are so angry, because that isn't what the phrase means... when I hear the phrase 'in deep shit,' I don't think of excrement at all, and neither do most English speakers. Rather than an RfC, why not just discuss it like a reasonably polite person? I see that the other user has already rephrased it in an attempt to compromise with you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users who are not fluent English speakers are welcome at Wikipedia. But if you assume you are being attacked when someone says something in English that you don't understand, then the problem is not language, but manners. Your recent edit did that. Maybe that section should be in the article, and maybe it shouldn't. The only way to decide is to stop making threats and attacks and talk about it politely, or stop making threats and attacks and let others talk about it politely. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you're not objective since the previous appearance at my talk page. His accusation of me doing vandalism is truly a personal attack which you miss it. I understand well about the meaning and in wikipedia, trivia section is not advisable. Besides, you and he are not many people, but two people. Currently three people are commenting for the subject and one anon involved in editing the article, so I'm not the only one to claim that the slang is inappropriate for the encyclopedic contents. I've undergone several hard times with the guy who has shown me enough and right after I reverted his vandalims (why are you condoning the offensive attack of him?), I left my comment at the talk first to resolve the matter. So please do not accuse me of showing bad faith to him. You also miss that Sennen goroshi's edit summary to mention about "sockpuppetry", and do you think that is civil act and good faith? I don't think so. His mention of gaming system is also very unhelpful. I will raise RFC, so can gather more opinion on the inclusion of the slang. RFC is for hearing more comments and not threat. --Appletrees (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bother making any more accusations on my talk page. As far as I can tell, you're enjoying being angry at people, but it isn't much fun for me, so I'll just let you get on with whatever you were going to do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)16:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've bothered yourself to have your opinion for this. Thank you for your above civil and good-faith comments. Your lecture earns a point. --Appletrees (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert is not a settlement.
You side him which is not clearly a compromised version with me or other anon at all. You not only reverted to include the vulgarism, but also well organized alignment. You're also involved in voicing your opinion on this, so you're not a meditator. I request you to revert it to the previous version before Sennen goroshi vandalise. (Why didn't you give a warning to him? That is also the fact that you're not neutral.)--Appletrees (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hey
we talked the other day. I will make it brief.
see her myspace http://www.myspace.com/JuliannaRoseMauriello
I do not understand. How a few admins can claim anything different.
the problem is is to alot of people she is a "loli".
Many people will not even admit they are attracted to her.
But its strange out of ALL the editors to her page over the last 2 years, MOST are the same exact people.
interesting?
They ignore her myspace and her imdb.com to satisfy themselves?
This will never end, even if she would do an interview these people on wikipedia would STILL claim she was straight because it ruins their fantasy.
I WORKED with her for FOUR DAYS straight. I MET her wife, I KNOW for a FACT.
I believe that most if not all of the editors on wikipedia ALSO KNOW for a fact she is gay. They just dont want to admit it.
