Hey FisherQueen, do you think you can block Dgpgroup (talk·contribs) with talk page access revoked if you can? It's quite obvious the editor will continue spamming. Thanks in advanced. -- Luke(Talk) 16:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. It doesn't look like that user is interested in writing an encyclopedia; in fact, I can't even tell if she's aware that's what we're doing over here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh my god, that fish is one of the cutest things I've ever seen. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 16:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You took the words out of my mouth :). -- Luke(Talk) 16:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
My private opinion is that the usual template we use to block people who are trying to advertise their businesses is confusing for a new user. So I made my own. A friendlier one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, now I kinda want to stealborrow that fish and shoehorn him into the Teahouse somehow as our mascot. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 16:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
He isn't my invention; I found him on Commons back when I was looking for a mascot to attach to my templates. My only regret is that he doesn't have a little golden crown. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I found some of the artist's other work at [1] -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
was this what you wanted? --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
User:RexxS, you are my favorite person in the world right now. I feel so special! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey FisherQueen, please can you help me work on the Philip Berg site. Most of the information on the site stems from sources that are eager to slam Rav Berg and The Kabbalah Centre and are not neutral in at all. As this is an Encyclopedia that does not have bias, I would like to present the true facts and let people make their own decision as to what to believe. Most of my sources are from the actual texts that Rav Berg has written, and not from the sources on the site itself.
As I am new to this process, I really need someone to guide me how to make the material about Rav Berg factual and not biased in anyway.
I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawm8358 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
What it looks like you are doing is adding material which is religious in nature- which makes religious claims, or states religious doctrine as verified fact. The best thing to do is, first, read the guidelines for choosing a reliable source. Then, remove only that information which is not in the reliable sources, and add only information that you found in reliable sources. Actual texts that Rav Berg has written won't be useful, in general, for an encyclopedia article, because religious texts don't meet the reliable source guidelines and because encyclopedia writers don't analyze the primary sources ourselves. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I'm surprised to find the process intimidating and your help was most welcome.Mdscottis (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a surprisingly labyrinthine system of rules, but mostly, people are pretty nice and willing to help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, can you explain the reason of warning that I got please? I'm trying to edit one article with tons of sources and one other user who is a "regular" have right to block it even though he dont need to give any sources himself? And I got a warning because I tried to change them with sources? Is this how Wikipedia works?
User:TremoloKid got the template, since he's a n00b, and since you're a regular, I'll just shoot a friendly "Hi, there! I noticed that you're getting close to WP:3RR, and being experienced (or being right) doesn't save us from getting blocked for edit-warring in an editing dispute (TremoloKid (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC))
I was warning you more formally about the three-revert rule, which you were in danger of breaking. Reverting an article more than three times in 24 hours means you get blocked from editing, and as a new user, I'm assuming you don't know that. I warned the other user more informally, because, as an experienced editor, he already knows that rule, and may have simply forgotten about it in this situation. Don't worry- if you're right, then the change will be made, but you can't keep restoring your desired version over and over until after consensus is reached. If you're having trouble getting enough people to weigh in, or reach a stalemate, WP:DISPUTE has a list of things to try. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry; I responded to this before I saw that you had already logged out and reverted a fourth time; I've blocked you in accordance with the rules- that was what the warning was meant to prevent. Don't worry; you can still go back to the discussion when your block expires. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I think the user was clearly implying that PC Magazin was not significant, this in my mind, is geographical bias, as it would be if he made a similar claim against a UK magazine that had a similar name to a US publication. One of the most obvious names for a PC magazine is clearly this, in English, or German. Ezekial 9 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the German magazine affiliated with the US magazine? I can't read German, but that article at the German Wikipedia has no sources other than the magazine itself; that article would find itself tagged for deletion as lacking evidence of notability. I'm not sure that 'That article is only 23 words long, and from a source I don't think is notable' is quite the same thing as 'Germany is inferior.' But, hey, I could be wrong. I'm not going to join that deletion discussion, because I know absolutely nothing about the subject and also can't read the relevant sources. In any case, even when someone else makes us angry, it's always better to focus on the content, not on the editor who made it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I sense scepticism ;) I just think there is bias against small commercial software (& towards open source), which I can understand a little re the advertising issue, but I really don't think it applies here, as the charge is so small, 15e, and most of that is taken by German authorities in tax, the software is not their main employment. I suspect any significant income comes from the deals with the manufacturers not with individual users. Just take a look at the UK AVForums, there are over 1000 matches here, so it is not just popular in Germany. Also the views on its Videohelp entry 5,213,623 views, with 583 this month, compared to 9,515,255 but only 381 views this month for the free alternative MediaPortal. Obviously free software will be more popular but I think that shows DVBViewer is in no way obscure. Ezekial 9 (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know whether you saw these, but I feel the mentions on techradar also point towards notability, particularly this which covers its features in depth with screenshots. Ezekial 9 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You should probably put that on the deletion discussion page; I don't think anyone would think to look for it on my talk page. As for the software... hit counts have never been part of the notability criteria. It's the same argument we have over YouTube celebrities, some of which can get really very 'famous-on-the-internet' before any reliable sources write about them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your responses. I have already posted the techradar links, but they then said they didn't count as DVBViewer was only reviewed or mentioned in reviews of other products which was included or tested with (which seems a little unfair to me). There is a review solely on the software in Computeractive the UK's best selling computer magazine here. Ezekial 9 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've semi-protected it after two new accounts posted insulting material there. I've done a revdel. Peridon (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's just charming. A person who expresses herself in that way must be on the right side of her political position. That's exactly how people talk about well-reasoned, thoughtful opinions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Both have now been blocked as socks of Runtshit. I must try to learn these sockmasters. Peridon (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look here please. Another kid is straining the strings as a tremolo... Thank you and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
