No, I'm not. I'm a figment of your imagination. Also, I completely blanked my watchlist, and am now watching only my own page and the two articles I wrote and like. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Missed you. Bummed if you won't be editing because your talk page will no longer be interesting. I hope everything is OK and I truly wish you the best. Your amazing attitude has been inspiring and your sense of humor will be greatly missed. I know that sounds suck-uppy but I don't care. Cheers! Precious Roy (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea whether I'll be editing much or not... I needed a break, and took one, because I was starting to take the whole thing too seriously and too personally. But I felt like coming on tonight and doing a little new-person patrolling. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Probably a good idea to blank it then...but it's nice to see you back, even if there will be less drama on this talk page because you aren't editing much. :) Cheers friend, —Ed 17(Talk / Contribs) 23:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, FisherQueen, you deleted my article on the fictional country The JWR Empire. I am not writing a fantasy story on Wikipedia, as you might think, I just haven't added the references yet. Can you "undelete" it? Thanks. Jackroven (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be happy to restore the material. Could you please confirm that this is a noteworthy fictional country by proving me with two links to reliable sources that discuss it in a significant way? Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait, you didn't delete it. Sorry. It appeared you did. Retrieving the resources might take a while; is there any way to "suspend" the article until I have them? Thanks. Jackroven (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that I did my own google search, which did not reveal any evidence that this is a noteworthy subject. That makes me think that no sources exist. However, I could be wrong, so feel free to restore the information yourself as soon as you find the sources. In the meantime, though, it would be better to leave it blanked as a show of good faith. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should just copy the information onto my computer and when I have the references put it back on. Jackroven (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll delete it now. Jackroven (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, it's off. Jackroven (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Help needed with sock puppetry and vandalism[edit]
Hi FisherQueen... I note that you recently reverted some vandalism at Talk:Illuminati. The vandal editor has now started to vandalize at my user pages (here and here... I am sure it is the same guy) so I think we need to deal with him a bit more severely.
The guy is definitely engaging in sock puppetry... he has logged in as User:EnglandIslas andUser:UnderCome13, but also posts using multiple IP addresses (all starting with 189.30...). I also strongly suspect that he is User:Edictorwikicentral who caused similar problems about a year ago (see that editor'scontribs.)
I tried reporting all this to WP:ANV... they sent me to the Check User page, but I can not figure out how to report it there (it has become very complicated with all those buttons). Can you help? Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked the user's IP for you. Seems to be using a dynamic ip, so revert, block and ignore is a possible strategy. I'm afraid I don't know how to apply a rangeblock, and am afraid that I'd block, say, all of Quebec if I tried. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thanks for blocking that ip that is a shared ip adress and i was seeing his destructive edits and tryed to revert them so i would like to tell you that i have been falsley accused mattman (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see that you were reverting the vandalism, and I appreciate it. Don't worry; vandals try to blame someone else for their actions so often that I wouldn't block based on that unless the evidence of the contribution history supported the accusation (which, in your case, it didn't.) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
THanks for that but i believe there should be a permament block on that ip as that school has a static ip and they will just keep vandalisingmattman (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in me :) I hope I see you around wikipedia more often :) for your interest here is an example of the correctly spelt {db-person} template :D, feel free to remove it immediately. (I don't know if it will appear at the bottom or top of the page, I hope it appears below the text but am completely unsure.) I Grave Rob (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's it. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to break the tag, because I don't want to tag my talk page for speedy deletion! ;) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I fully wanted you to remove the tag after viewing, but again looking through the new pages I spied Nouara Saadia, its only a sentence long but contains references, that I can't read. If you know someone that speaks the language (Insert language here) you may want to direct them to check :) Unless you know what "Nouara Saâdia Djaffar appelle les femmes à refuser de présenter un certificat de virginité à l’état civil" says. From my highly unqualified interpretation it seems to say something like Nouara Saâdia Djaffar's appeal for a civil certificate of _____ to be presented was refused, I have no idea what the language even is so please don't delete the article because of me. I looked through a few speedy delete tags but it has a little bit of context even though it might scrape in under db-a1 or db-a3, but as the person is probably an Algerian Polititian, which may automatically exclude it from being deleted speedily. I Grave Rob (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't read French either, but best-guessing based on root words indicates that she's an Algerian politician and she does appear to be the primary subject of those articles. My inclination would not be to delete it, but to let it stand until someone with the necessary skills makes it better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, you did better then me, from the article on her I thought she was a man :x, also, even though it doesn't seem you participate in the Adopt-A-User program are you willing to adopt me, or is there anyone you would reccommend to me that participates in the program. I try my best but am well aware a wikipedian isn't made in four days ): I Grave Rob (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I've never found one-on-one adoption to be that useful, since I personally benefitted from good advice from dozens of people when I was a n00b, and everyone has different goals and ideas. If you have questions, though, you can feel free to stop in and ask me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to stand up for shnitzled, I feel he has been bullied by a number of people here, which, I feel is a bit wrong, considering he is now in the hot water.
A lot of users have been posting on his page, he was accused of being rude - which he wasn't (it was a misunderstanding), he had a user post to his page in a very sarcastic manner, he responded to this, and had yet another sarcastic response given to him, which made him angry. He was then blocked. He made a request for unblock which was never going to go through anyway, but he made a request for an admin to look into the attacks and mocking, which you have not done. You have acted in a rude and harsh manner to some normal requests. I can understand why he is angry, people have just been nasty and rude to him in the first place. He responded to you on his page. I believe him. U(ser)N(ame)I(n)U(se) 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
What can I look into? I reviewed some of his contributions, but since he didn't give me names or diffs, and the diffs I saw had him saying things like 'go fuck yourself.' All the recent edits I saw of his had him speaking appallingly, and he made no case for himself other than a rather vague 'someone look into this.' How much time should I spend on a treasure hunt? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That's odd; your account was created on the same day that User:Shnitzled was blocked, and you immediately got involved in defending that person. Do you know one another? How did you happen to stumble upon that rather obscure talk page? Wikipedia doesn't allow users to operate more than one account, or to edit on the part of a blocked user. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey FisherQueen (I love your name, by the way), I said that, in a post to a user who had been, well, abused by Shnitzled (see C.Fred's talk page). I happened upon Shnitzled because I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:SLJCOAAATR 1/Users I Know at AfD, and was wondering about User pages, and why it was nominated (and what the rules for deletion were). A few clicks later I'm watching Shnitzled telling people to butt out of arguments, to jump out of windows, that the French are dickheads, etc. So I left C.Fred a note, and if that was over the line, I'm sorry--but I do believe the user's comments and attitude are in fact as I qualified them; his later contributions only confirm that. I also left Shnitzled a note, on their talk page. Oh, s/he also talks about being mocked openly; well, s/he left me a rather crappy message on my talk page, and I added a note explaining who this person was. I've since cut that down, but left the picture of the schnitzel. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it. This user appears to want to insult others in the most open way while still taking offense if anyone is even a teeny-weeny bit critical about her, but the only people I see defending her are herself and her sockpuppet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Honestly, I don't understand this user's comments and actions at all, esp. since she has made a few valuable edits and contributions. I wish you well, what with the Dolorous Stroke and all. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Fisher. I rewrote Lesbian, and I'm whoring around for peer reviews for the rewrite. Respect me in the morning. If you'd like to take a gander at the new article and comment, here's the PR. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you going for another FA? Because that would be superawesome. You are so much a better wikipedia writer than I am. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think I need to paste that picture of Gladys Bentley into my school notebook, where I can write "I heart Gladys" and "Mrs. Fisher Bentley" all around it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this article may be able to achieve FA. It would take quite a bit of doing, and I need a lot of feedback. Like Roman Catholic Church that has been nominated 5 times unsuccessfully, it may take a few tries to get it. Abstract concepts in articles take a lot of work. I thought I was being original in recruiting you on your talk page. Maybe I'll remind you after some of this has settled down a bit, because golly. Aren't you popular. --Moni3 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not back. You're just imagining me. I mean, look up there. I edit for an hour, maybe two, and already they're bitching at me. Who needs it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You love it. You can lie and say it annoys you, but you love it and you'll never leave. I hope anyway. I kept checking your contribs to see if you had returned and then I look into the history of Above His Shoulders and who do I see? Yon Queen of Fishers. I only wish Isotope were back as well, then Wikipedia would be perfect again. WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm now going to try to find out how tall 4.8 standard deviations is.
I've got a secret - I've ceased to review my watchlist, and check my contributions list instead. With the rollback feature on, I can see if someone changed any of the pages and check the merit of said changes. Wonderful for beating down sockmasters. It helps that theoretically I don't have much time to edit these days (today being a glorious exception). WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
From one sporadic editor to another... FQ, your work is very much appreciated and if you ever need reminding of that fact, I'll drop by here at random sporadic intervals to remind you. :p --AliceJMarkham (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Is hilarious! Why not propose it as an official alternative?--Cerejota (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't actually support it as an official template, because it should only be used in very, very specific situations- there are many, many uses for it that would definitely be uncivil, and then I'd feel sad. Anyone who wants to is welcome to use it or make their own fishless version, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, FisherQueen. Please undelete my article on One Brick - a national, non-profit volunteer organization that I am a member of and who requested that I write an article on their behalf. As to my user name, it was originally intended to be AlanP but that was taken so I just extended to AlanPR, these are simply the initials for my two last names (Perez and Rathke). I understand that wikipedia must be very sensitive to this sort of thing so I can see how this came about. I'm very new to wikipedia (this being my first article), and, honestly, I didn't even realize that PR could imply public relations. Thanks.
AlanPR (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
If you are a member and they asked you to write an article for them, then you have a conflict of interest. In addition to that, it doesn't appear that the group would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria- I couldn't find any significant coverage of the group using google news, anyway. You're entirely welcome at Wikipedia, and if you're interested in helping write the encyclopedia, there are lots of existing articles that could use improvements. But I really would change your username- we get a LOT of spammers around here, and people will react negatively to "PR." :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen. First, I want to make clear that I am not a spammer, and that I will change my user name if you feel it's necessary. Second, in writing this article, I am simply reporting unbiased, factual content (it should be pretty evident from the tone of the article). I am not marketing or campaigning for the group in any way. If this still presents a problem, I request that I simply be able to work on my user page until the article is actually ready (as is the purpose of user pages) and then request/tag that the user page be independently edited as suggested by the COI page (before submitting the article). As for "wiki-worthiness", here are a list of articles which have been written on the organization: [[1]], this includes mentions in Oprah Magazine, ABC News, and Fox News. Also, if you search "One Brick" in google, you will see that we are the top listing. Thanks again. AlanPR (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, FQ. It's been two years since I tried to add an entry on "sparkleball." I now have several references for it. What's the proper procedure for trying again? thanks for doing your best to teach the world about primary sources. Vidamasvida (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I went and did it. Vidamasvida (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
i think that you had absolutely no right to delete my page about the bananamobile. that is a very important part of american culture, especially during the times of economic crises. there actually is such a thing as a bananamobile, but im not going to show it to you miss fishy face! how do you feel about that? huh?huh?Elizabugger (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
You misspelled "I acknowledge that my contributions, up to this point, have been entirely useless to the encyclopedia. Thank you for, out of consideration of my youth and inexperience, not blocking me yet. I promise to do better in the future." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. By the way, FisherQueen, do you like tomato juice? Just wonderin'.Raninair10 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I made one of those mistakes that I will look back on later as my first big nooby mistake :s, I get on today and have a new message, upon looking and then following the link I saw that I had accidentally doubled the size of the help desk :x I have no idea how that happened, maybe it was a rare and elusive Wikibug, again the communities supporting nature shone through :) I Grave Rob (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking over the history my mistake lasted an hour and a minute, then he also had to readd a tiny bit of text I removed in good faith too :X because scsbot needs to see the transcluded page to archive :| I Grave Rob (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting block notice you've used at User:Lord valdomar. Did you make it yourself? ;)~ -- Longhair\talk 12:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I did. Feel free to plaigiarize it on those occasions when it's appropriate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice job. Sometimes, sarcasm is the only remedy to remain sane. Thanks. -- Longhair\talk 12:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Within the text of the block notice, there's a comment that says it is called {{Template:fq-block}}, but a search doesn't come up with that. What's the actual pre-subst'd name? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
{User:FisherQueen/Fq-block}. All my templates were transcluded to my own userspace. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that template too, thanks for making me actually laugh out loud. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, do you really mean that, Beeblebrox?Raninair10 (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you had placed a sockpuppet tag on User:Robertgrant1976. I didn't see any indication that this user has been a sockpuppeteer of anything upon casual inspection, and the user has never been blocked. Could you elaborate on this a little? I see in Robertgrant1976 a user who has a tremendous conflict of interest with the articles he has created, but I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
He has also been writing about himself with his User:Tomokeefe69 account. But I didn't block the primary account; if he wants to keep editing more usefully, he's welcome to do so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Any suggestions of changes in this article that would make it worthy of posting?
In several well documented studies on rape, basic characteristics of rapists, in general, have been identified. These include:
AGE: 75% under age 25, 80% under age 30; over 30 if sadistic type
SEX: Usually male
RACE: Mostly black (75-90% of rapists in prison are black); crime tends to be intra-racial; rapists are usually unarmed; 1 in 4 (25%) uses a knife or instrument.
PHYSICAL: 6 feet tall, 160-200 pounds, muscular build, dark complexion.
CLASS: Most are from poverty-lower class backgrounds, are products of unstable families, and are abused or neglected.
IQ: Majority in normal range 90-110
EDUCATION: Typically a high school graduate; some college possible; discipline problems likely, most likely involving pornography interest
PEERS: Mild to moderate social maladjustments, but normally one of the "boys"; tries to cultivate a reputation as a tough fighter, but known as a punk and low life to many; usually married, divorced, or lives with a women, in that order, but has demonstrated poor relations with women
WORK: Most work reliably around women; lack self-confidence to improve self; if sadistic, takes better job. More than half are unskilled laborers or unemployed.
CRIMINAL HISTORY: Most average 2.5 priors, only 2 years served on each. Most also have history of alcohol-related charges.
ARREST: Frequently leaves clues with victim; plays games with police; difficult to get confession
DRUG/ALCOHOL: Noted problems in this area
MENTAL: Antisocial personality; defines self as normal in every way except sexually.
VEHICLE: Older American cargo-type van with sliding side door, white or light-colored. No side windows.
My opinion is the same as it was- because your motivations are racist, supporting any edit you make linking race and rape seems wrong to me. In addition, this addition doesn't seem to fit very well into Rape statistics, which is more an article about the gathering and use of such statistics than it is a list of all statistics. In addition, your primary source, a college club, doesn't appear to be the best available source of information. In my opinion, you are looking for a way to get the fact that rapists are mostly black into Wikipedia; as your only statistics are US, I'm not convinced that this is the case in a way that is useful in an international encyclopedia. What is the proportion of black to white rapists in Germany? In Japan? In Mexico? Is this statistic useful on an international level? Is it important to an article that is about the gathering and use of rape statistics? Should the article include ALL the statistics about rapists available? What is the percentage of Malasian rapists who are between the ages of 35 and 50? What percentage of rapes in Iraq are committed by Iraqi citizens in comparison to foreign soldiers? What percentage of rapists in China had a diet high in processed foods? I just don't see the point of this specific data in this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The serial killer article prominently states that most serial killers are single white men, and seems to focus on U.S. serial killers. I don't see you jumping to remove it. Do you think it is right to have a racial double standard?Brutanti (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia's rules regarding users who come to Wikipedia to push a racist or nationalist agenda are far too generous. I think that such editors bring the project into serious disrepute, and we should be able to block them on sight instead of allowing them to push their agendas and waiting for them to actually break major rules. However, the community is not in consensus with me about that, so I won't take any action on that belief. After all, most of them do end up blocked anyway, because they just can't resist pushing their points of view. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Telling that you wouldn't answer my question. You are a hypocrit as anyone can seeBrutanti (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe she didn't want to dignify your comment with an answer. I am troubled by the fact that you have sensationalist statistics without citing reputable academic sources. Your case would carry a lot more weight if you approached it this way. BTW, I am in full agreement with FQ's minority view of blocking agenda-motivated editors. (Sorry, FQ, for sticking my nose into things here; slap me with a trout if I've overstepped.). AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever even read our article on Serial killers, so I don't have an opinion about that article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, someone blocked him. Well, I'm not sure I would have myself, but I don't have any strong objection, either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I have had suspicions about User:Loy Wong being connected to User:767-249ER a serial vandaliser of my talk page and many of the articles I've edited. There were a few coincidences but nothing linking them directly. After seeing Loy Wong linked to another sock puppet, I thought I'd mention it because you might find a connection there too. Or maybe, they might just know each other. J Bar (talk) 05:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this. Aren't blocks supposed to be preventative? Because it's clear he won't be damaging the encyclopedia again – I think you should unblock him, we're not seeking retribution after all. Thanks--Pattont/c 14:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is that clear? It wasn't clear to me at all; looks like she's been using multiple accounts to edit-war over that one article for a long time. Have you read this? But I wouldn't ever undo another administrator's block unless it was clearly a bad block; if you think she should be unblocked, you should give good reasons to the blocking admin, not one of the random reviewers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
No the block was good, but if the user says they won't do it again and it's believable (Not obviously lying or have a history of doing so) then why not unblock? Anyway I think we can forget about this, I didn't know about hte socks, thanks for your time.--Pattont/c 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as you say, it all hinges on whether the promise not to do it again is believable. There have certainly been cases where I supported unblock for someone who made a believable claim that they wouldn't do it again, but there's a lot of personal judgment involved in what constitutes 'believable.' In this particular case, it didn't ring my personal 'believable' bell, but I'm always glad to be wrong. And even in cases where I did believe the person, I went to the blocking admin and said, "I really believe this guy; would you consider unblocking?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You recently blocked User:Michael27ca. Could you please have a look at User:Michael35ca? I believe it is the same editor, and he is adding considerable copyrighted material to articles. He is also reverting reasonable attempts to remove this material. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Certainly is the same user, so I've indefinitely blocked him as a sockpuppet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Interested in acting as a referee? if not interesed or feel you can't give a fair ruling can you forward this to someone else?[edit]
The Second Amendment article has multiple references to a book by an author who INITIALLY received either a $380,000 or a $400,000 grant ($400,000 may be $380,000 rounded up) from a Foundation pushing gun control prior to writing that book which supports gun control. Indications are that he continues to have ties to the Foundation and received more money later. That Foundation has used its money to buy up at least 3 issues of law reviews and stuff them full of anti gun propaganda masquerading as unbiased legal opinion. Articles from pro gun authors were not invited and not accepted by the Foundation which has full editorial control over those issues. The author is question (Saul Cornell) was editor of one of those issues. As editor of that issue he obviously had a hand in the unethical silencing of opinions contrary to those of the Foundation that bought the issue.
It seems to me that anyone who accepts $400,000 from a Foundation pushing gun control and then writes a book supporting gun control, while at the same time engaging in the unethical silencing of opinions contrary to those of his buyer is a smidgen less then unbiased on the issue. I personally think that because of the large sum of money involved and the continuing ties, Mr. Cornells book is equivalent to paid propaganda from that Foundation.
Please advise if something like this is considered biased under wiki rules. Also please advise if that author deserves to be referenced over twice as much as the next most reference source. Cornell is cited 7 times, the next most cited author has only 3 cites. Obviously the material from Cornell is verifiable since it came from his book and other papers, the question is whether this source, who in my opinion is basically a hired outlet for paid propaganda, deserves to be in the article, and if he can be used and cited, and whether he should be cited so often (over twice as much as the next source) and what kind of bias warning wiki has that can be included in the article to indicate he puts out verifiable but unreliable material if his material is included.
Link backing up "bought and paid for issues of law reviews" and $400,000 grant
The Joyce Foundation has sponsored symposium issues of some law reviews, generally offering to pay for the symposium if an external editor is selected. The editor carefully solicits and chooses the articles to appear in the symposium. The Joyce Foundation then pays for the cost of copies to be distributed to judges and legislators. Law reviews that have cooperated in this manner include:
Chicago-Kent Law Review (Vol. 76 No. 1, 2000, edited by Carl T. Bogus)
Fordham Law Review (Vol. 73 No. 2, November 2004)
Stanford Law and Policy Review (Vol. 17:3, Spring 2006, editorial contributions by Saul Cornell)
The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board’s December 2002 meeting, Obama’s last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose was to influence a future Supreme Court case:
Thanks for any help you can give 68.160.172.2 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like something you'd discuss on the talk page of the article. Administrators enforce rules, but don't make decisions about content. There are some suggestions at WP:DISPUTE about handling content disagreements. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Been there! Done that! The only person objecting to taking this material out of the article insists that a "publishing house" is a "source". I pointed out that a "publishing house" is not a book, nor a story, a legal document, a historical document etc etc and therefore not a source. As far as I can tell the other person is either insanely anti-gun or paid to watch the article and stop anything that may be pro gun from showing up in it. Nothing else accounts for the way he nitpicks at everything that weakens his position or strengthens the pro gun side. Personally I would put money on option #2. Anyway he wanted a referee to resolve the issue and as I don't trust him and I believe that if I let him choose the referee he will get a friend of his who agrees with him, and not someone at random. If you feel you can give a fair ruling on the dispute please post it here
which you may also want to read for more background.
If you feel you can't rule fairly for some reason then please refer it to someone you believe can do so.68.160.172.2 (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Administrators don't rule on content, and I don't see the discussion you're referring to; you don't appear ever to have posted anywhere at Wikipedia except my talk page. Better to use WP:DISPUTE strategies. As far as I remember, "Ask an administrator to decide" isn't one of those, since the rules don't give us that power. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
14 Saul Cornell paid mouthpiece of the Joyce Foundation - POV bias issue
Click on link provided and then check the bottom of Section #14 of the discussion page where the following appears.
You and I may disagree about what constitutes a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources for a description of my belief. This is Wikipedia policy and is not subject to compromise. I am willing to seek a third opinion to resolve our disagreement about whether the books published by the Oxford University Press qualify as reliable sources or not. Are you willing? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you willing to give a third opinion on what constitutes a source? If not can you refer this issue to someone who you think can give a fair ruling?
Verizon keeps changing my IP number so you can't see my previous history. You ran across me when I got banned a week ago for the second time in short order. The person requesting my banning is the same person who thinks hat a Printing house is a source. Notice that since the IP number changed I have not posted on wiki as an indication of my good faith to that banning.141.154.9.241 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If you were the one that bocked the IP address above for bock evasion please be aware that the block on my old IP address should have expired a few hours before I first posted here. The bock started on the 18th and was for a week. My first post after that was 1 week and few hours after the block started.
The one week block was started Feb 18 18:30 of whatever timezone
My first post after that was to you, yesterday, one week and a few hours after the one week ban happened and after the ban expired. Check timestamp of my first post above for confirmation.
This is from another computer and if you ban this computer as well for block evasion, instead of unblocking the other one, I will cast mild aspersion on you, your ancestors, any children you may have, any cats you may have and of course, the horse you all rode in on. Not that it will effect you in any way, but it will certainly make me feel better.18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.232.11 (talk)
as your the first admin i see (after looking through a few pages), can you stop the blatant canvassing onthis article by USer:G Purevdorj. all the users that voted "delete" have a message left by him telling them to hurry to the article to delete it. as their edits primarily concern mongolians, and that they have pro mongolian POV not to mention the fact that this is canvassing against policy, can you strike out the "delete" votes thanks.
his canvassing (some in foreign languages, mongol and german) its sort of obvious what he is saying.
Hi, we have a problem with this person. He openly scorns attempts to block him and has returned to edit warring the same issue that earned him the block in the first place.[3][4][5] I suspect he has also created the username Zooplibob (see contributions)to edit war the exact same thing (can you do an IP check on that user to confirm?) So I'm requesting either a range block or a longish semi-protect on the Drudge Report page. Thanks ► RATEL ◄ 23:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I am, sadly, technically retarded, and have no idea how to perform a rangeblock. I'll bet if you stop by WP:ANI, there's someone smarter than me there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that you have reverted User:Toroko 's edits here [6] and other places. Well, the fact is that he is right. The title of Hungarian rulers were Kings of Hungary and not Kings of Hungary-Croatia. Croatia was governed by a ban or viceroy. Thus all the articles concerning Hungarian kings are bascally wrong on this. See www.britannica.com [7]. Most of the articles were changed around February 2007. --Bizso (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
