I'd be happy to discuss on the talk pages in question; I'm more than a little hostile to RE's socky little additions but I try to be scrupulous in attribution to sources. Doesn't mean I'm right. Please feel free to review and correct, if I have any issues I'll raise them. Some of the reviews are not available online, but I have PDFs I can e-mail you. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex12:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watching a contrib page
In the discussion at a certain editor's talk page, you said something about having their contributions on watch lists. Is there a way for a regular editor to add a contributions page to a watch list? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be neat? Or not, I guess. I just meant that we'll notice if someone gives them a warning or writes them a note, and that everyone who has reviewed the block will probably be checking in when it expires to see their contribs. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)14:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a nice feature, but it could lend itself to abuse. Fortunately, we're not in a hurry, and there's always time to sort out this kind of behavior. Acroterion(talk)14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your reversion of my edit of Ann Bannon, where you said you preferred the "gender-neutral" word "hero" instead of "heroine". I must admit I've heard this a few times recently and assumed that the speakers were being sloppy. The word "heroine" is gender-specific, but so is "hero". Ms Bannon is specifically feminine, so if a feminine word exists why not use it? I ask out of genuine interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Neylan (talk • contribs) 22:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Hero' is not gender-specific, but is applied to both male and female heroes, like 'actor' or 'teacher.' Why use 'heroine?' Is there some specific meaning conveyed by 'heroine' that isn't communicated by 'hero?' I would never use the word 'heroine' in this context, to describe a female role model- the only way I ever hear the word used is to describe fictional characters. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)22:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I'd disagree. To me "hero" is gender-specific (male), as is "actor". The terms are descriptive, without any value loading. I freely admit this is my personal viewpoint and is not consistent ("teacher" is to me nonspecific and I blink a little when my mother, aged 76, refers to a "lady doctor" or a "male nurse" but hell, she is 76) but I do think that you may be going a little far in saying prescriptively "hero is not gender-specific". Your view, and I would defend to the death, etc, but still your view. Cheers, TonywaltonTalk00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FisherQueen-You left a message threatening to have me banned for making a threat of legal action. That was bad faith on your part, since I never made any such threat to sue anyone. I merely raised the issue that biographies of living persons should not contain defamatory information since the person who is the subject of the article could bring a legal action. That is very different from making a threat to sue someone. Please do not make unwarranted threats to ban someone. Thank you. Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FisherQueen, I see that now you are threatening to ban me for making edits to an article about a living person to present a more neutral view and diminish any libelous aspects. Please stop with these threats. It is really upsetting and obnoxious for you to be making such threats. Theo789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo789 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't so much a threat as a warning. A block is more or less inevitable if you continue in the way you have been, and I thought it was fair to warn you first, though warnings aren't required. Is there any possibility that you will believe the users who have told you that your way of editing isn't the way we do things at Wikipedia? Do you have any intention of editing differently? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)17:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(throwing up hands in frustration) Well, you can't say that we didn't try... I've had enough and will just have to wait and see what happens when the block runs out in a few hours. —Travistalk12:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is more or less my response. My years of experience tell me that she'll immediately run back to the same article and start flinging poo in all directions, whereon she'll be blocked again and it'll be all the fault of the incompetent administrators. But maybe she'll pleasantly surprise me. That would be nice. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matter of perspective, I guess. The couple of years I wasted playing WoW left me with the impression that most of the females were actually males. :D —Travistalk13:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just get tired of other users assuming everyone is male, so I do my part to even the average. I call God 'she' for more or less the same reason. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure she doesn't intend to be stalking me, but is simply remembering how bad it feels to be blocked, and reaching out to other users to try to ease their pain. It's a kindhearted impulse, really, but not as useful when it's directed to simple vandals. I'm sure that in future, she'll check the contribs and make sure she's only reaching out to those blocked users who have something useful to contribute. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean User:Gaffers? I took a close look at her contribution history, including the articles that have been deleted, in which she pretty plainly states that she wants to have fun being destructive on Wikipedia. I assume that you took a closer look at her contribution history; what did you think of her edits? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your sex is not relevant to your edits at Wikipedia; you'll find that many users don't consider it very important, since it doesn't have any effect on the encyclopedia. A user's actual edits are what is important; what did you think of User:Gaffers's edits? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)13:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see correct information is not valued here. Yes the user has appeared to violate the policies here but that is no reason for you or Travis to get Rude with them. In this case more so Travis then you although both instances are inappropriate because it amounts to taunting that person. The above posting saying it is good intentioned is correct. Maybe my comment can help ease that persons anger over mistreatment (real or percieved).HellinaBucket (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your last comment there was entirely unacceptable. No matter how you feel about me, you may not leave messages for blatant vandals which encourage them to continue vandalizing. The user you are talking to is a child, and should not be encouraged to vandalize further. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)14:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again thats why i went to the page to clarify i do not support vandalism, I'm etremely sorry it looks that way but you guys weren't being very civil.HellinaBucket (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Someetimes people don't have the barrier between mouth and brain and just calling someone a vandal is what i am talking about. Always assume good faith, even if it's not that just provokes a situation and makes it worse. trying to help that person not feel as attacked.HellinaBucket (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am calling that user a vandal because he is a vandal. He has been vandalizing for months, ignoring all warnings to stop. He created two articles which said that he thinks vandalism is fun, and used the word 'vandal' to describe himself. Only an idiot assumes good faith after the evidence clearly shows that there is not good faith. And you will not confuse him by making him think that there's any right on his side, because then he'll just come back and vandalize for months more, and I haven't seen any sign that you are at all interested in cleaning up vandalism, so I'll be the one who has to deal with his mess. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely disagreeing with you. You are a teacher so you should know about conflict resolution, I never said anything about you or your post. I'm merely pointing out we should still Assume Good Faith and treat user with kindness. Statements that a person is just a vandal is rude and provocative. The person may have broken policies on wikipedia but that does NOT sum that persons entire character. Does removing trivia count as removing vandalism?HellinaBucket (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I myself believe that admin are to be bheld to a higher standard then all other Wikipedia users. One of the five pillars in wikipedia is to Assume Good Faith. Even if a user has been blocked that assumption should continue not berating his requests for unblock. The assumption should be that when and if the block is lifted the behaviours will be remedied. Remember that user is probably very upset and wanting to lash out. Why give them further excuse? My block was different then that users but I feel in mine that the research wasn't properly coordinated or handled. I definitly tried Good faith assumptions with that user, reached out several times and the attacks continued. I tried getting third partied invovled until I lost my cool. The block while in my mind unnec. served it's purpose and had it's desired effect. I did see a complete lack of admin ermpathy though and maybe if you were to employ that more with your admonshments it would be better recvd. Sometimes you don't look at things as taunting but something as simple as a refusal to acknowledge someones gender even if after pointed out is areas for improvement. help me understand your point, i'll discuss rationally without rancorHellinaBucket (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your block is over, and no longer relevant. Your edits to User:Gaffers are inappropriate, for the reasons I have explained. It is not 'taunting' to identify a vandal as a vandal, and that User:Gaffers feels unwelcome and goes away is a good thing, since his presence is harmful to the encyclopedia. You appear to have stopped, so that's no longer relevant, either. You are male, which has nothing to do with anything. I know that you do not care about gender on Wikipedia, either, because you have chosen a username which is similar to 'Helena,' a female name. Most users will assume you are female, and that's fine. Travis has a username that is a male name, so I call him 'he,' but I have no idea what his gender is, nor do I care, since editing Wikipedia does not require the use of a penis. When other people assign me the wrong gender, I do not care, and am not being 'taunted.' So that's no longer relevant, either. All of those things are over. There is a current and ongoing problem, which is that you appear to be unable to accept any kind of correction; when corrected, you instead look for reasons that you aren't wrong. Compare your talk page with the archived talk page from my first two months at Wikipedia. Mine has people correcting me, just like yours does. But mine doesn't have me getting angry, or coming up with long arguments about why the people correcting me are wrong. I just read the linked policies, understood what I'd done wrong, and did it differently next time, with no hard feelings. Some of the people who corrected me in my first month at Wikipedia are the same people who recommended that I be made an administrator. Here's my first request for adminship. It failed. Notice that nowhere on that page will you find me angrily arguing with the people who said I shouldn't be an administrator. Here's my second request for adminship. Notice that several people mention that my ability to learn from my errors and from correction is an asset that made me a better editor. People who can accept correction and learn from it go on to become useful editors. People who react to every correction with a day-long argument go on to be blocked as disruptions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)16:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acording to the page on Franco Berardi, apparently there was a page about him, but its been deleted. Is there any reason for this on the log other than Notability, which is pretty eroneous (The guy is a touring philosopher who started the telestreet movement in italy and has been published in places like Semiotexte and others). Is there a record of the original page anywhere I can at least get info from? I'm not sure what went down that lead to the deletion (maybe it was a garbage article), but due to my inability to read the non english versions of the page, even the beginings of an english version would be neat. Cheers. Duck Monster (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire text of the page I deleted on Franco Berardi was: "Franco Berardi Born: San Jose, Ca 1975 Occupation: Lighting Deisgner Web page: franco.berardi.com." If there's a notable person by that name, feel free to write about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)15:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About my User Page
Thanks for responding to my talk page first however if I may ask why is keeping a personal log considered a Personal attack?--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on your talk page, featuring your past personal attacks on your user page creates the impression that you are proud of them, and that you'd make similar attacks in the future. It will make other users think you are the kind of person who can't get along with other people, and you will find that other users are less willing to work with you. Keeping the record of your past harassment on your user page will make it more difficult for you to be successful on Wikipedia, and I think you would be wise to remove it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)11:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph, I missed that, I admit. It was still WP:POINT to restore a picture of a troll, though, and he'd already been warned enough times before that. If he posts an unblock and someone accepts it, though, I won't complain. Black Kite11:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is what I was writing to you before I was blocked any way I hope I'll get to keep the painting of Theodor Kittelsen "Troll pondering its age." without offending anyone ... guess I was wrong --Sadbuttrue92 --85.74.250.6 (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]