If I add {{Sandbox heading}} to my public sandbox, will a bot come and wipe the page clean once every 12 hours? Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 04:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Am I allowed to edit semi-protected page? I have been a user for well over four days and have made more that 10 edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymonkey1123 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to your first question. I generally blank my sandbox manually when I'm finished with it. As for your second question, when you are autoconfirmed you'll be able to edit semiprotected pages; just try, and see if it works. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
@Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!), no, I have left material in my sandbox page for several days, though it is relatively new, and am keeping a few words there permanently which function as headings, like a template to organize my sandbox work. So far, I have not been autoerased by any bots. Like FisherQueen, I manually blank material in my sandbox when I'm done testing it out there, but I am not deleting my template words.Pandelver (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Regarding your reversion to the article Black Prophet, which you made without edit summary, please do not do so again. Weakopedia (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you didn't see the reason for that revert when you looked at it; it contained the insertion of some blank code that would have disrupted the look of the article. By choosing to leave a newbie template on my talk page, you've added my contributions to those that are reviewed by patrollers helping to correct problems; I respect your feeling that all of my contributions need to be personally reviewed, and will leave it in place. Hello, patrollers! I hope you're having a nice day, and enjoying my little edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Does the all-seeing eye look like a vulva to anyone else? Or is that just me? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for putting that image in my head! Someone out there must surely have written a thesis about Sauron as an example of vagina dentata. Favonian (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is very kind. It seems to me, however, that if a new user, while making their seemingly legitimate contributions, should add a stray space then the best thing to do would be to remove the space rather than the new users contributions in their entirety? It seems that removing their contributions without providing an edit summary to show that your concern was with spaces and not content does not afford that new contributor the opportunity to correct their error. I think in this case that the "look of the article", which as yet is not a great looking article by WP standards, is secondary to the seemingly legitimate contributions of said user. If I, as a slightly less new contributor, cannot derive from your contributions the reason behind them, then that new user certainly will not be able to. The bottom line is that if you want a new user to avoid adding wasteful spaces then you need to tell them that, or at least include it in your edit summary while reverting their entire edit. I am sorry about the "newbie template" but, you know, reverting without edit summary to correct a mistake of style contained within someone elses contribution is a newbie class error. You are, of course, free to do whatever you wish with the notice. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Where did you get "essay:Do template the regulars" from? There isn't one such essay as far as I know. And why would you believe that FisherQueen, a well-established administrator, would make unconstructive edits? HeyMid (contribs) 08:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have seen WP:DTR - that essay (which should be considered "with discretion" for it "is not a Wikipedia policy") has an interesting section titled Recipients should still assume good faith which I think you may benefit from reading. If you are having trouble finding the essay "Do template the regulars" please drop me a line on my talkpage, I'd be happy to show you how the search function works. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. You still care about this edittwo days later, but your comment indicates that you have not actually read the edit. You don't appear to care about User:Ronaldvanutrecht's experience (you haven't interacted with him to help him in the intervening time). You don't appear to care about the article Black Prophet (you haven't done anything to make that article better in the intervening time, either. And yet here you are, leaving sarcastic remarks on my talk page again two days later. If your primary goal is not the fun of sarcastically reprimanding me, I can't imagine what it is, since you don't seem motivated either by a desire to help or by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. No, I'm not going to try to remove the template again. You've already reverted its removal once, so you must think it's important that the recent changes patrollers review all of my edits. There is no technical way for me to go back and add an edit summary, and User:Ronaldvanutrecht hasn't asked me for any explanation, so there does not seem to be any useful action I can take that would help a user or that would make the encyclopedia better. Those are my goals, so there's nothing more for me to do here. Since your goal appears to be different, please feel free to keep leaving these strange, unhelpful, mean-spirited little comments on my talk page. If that gives you pleasure, I would not for the world want to deprive you of that pleasure. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I love that essay. I didn't write it; I just have a link to it on my userpage so I can refer to it easily when I need to cite it. Note that its existence doesn't really support the creation of parody articles in Wikipedia mainspace, since it is not at Wikipedia, and is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Yes, not the mainspace, just the Wikipedia family group, and not claiming article in the narrower encyclopedic sense. Even the label parody is a tucking-in from the language of the person who raised the issue of parodies. This esay's got some fun jibes. Wry taste you have! Pandelver (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Every time I see your name in Recent changes, I smile, because it reminds me that you were kind to me, many years ago, when I started editing. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I remember those days fondly... I miss you on the recent changes patrol, now that you're a Big Shot (tm). But somebody's got to do the Big Shot work, and better you than me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm in the middle of getting this word added to Webster's and a few other notable locations. Unfortunately, as I just made the term up, I'll have to bribe them. Give me a few days and I'll have some major sources I can cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipv6man (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like this isn't a real word (yet), so I'll go ahead and delete the redirect for now. When the word is added to Webster's Dictionary, though, we'll definitely re-create the redirect. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually it sounds to me like you're a huge asshole. - Ipv6man (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow Ipv6man, you must be a really slick briber to get dictionary committees not only to approve neologisms so fast, but to get them to put on extra print runs and slam their webmaster into quick public updates. I use WIkiRhymer, let's please make sure it gets entered for a Scooby Doo rhyme for everyone who hasn't read the updated Webster's yet. What kind of bribes work for you? I once thought I might use a plate of chocolate chip cookies.Pandelver (talk)
Woops Ipv6man, left da house so soon?Pandelver (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
excuse me? I fixed up the page's sentences and put [[ around some stuff and fixed the spelling. what is the problem? and dont tell me what to do on MY page. I havent bothered anyone, please leave me alone. thank you. 65.32.47.2 (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The edits in question are this and this. If you'd like to add that Rogan is an 'adult entertainer,' you'll need to include a good source. If no good sources are available, you'll need to stop adding that information to the article, as I believe you've been warned before. If you choose to add that detail without sourcing again, you'll be blocked from editing for a longer period of time, and I am confident that, if you choose to be blocked, you'll accept the block gracefully. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Joe Rogan mentioned on his podcast that he wanted it on there and he always wanted something else in which someone added. I forgot what it was.
I don't see how CNN or whateveer "reliable source" is anymore credible than the man himself. I guarantee if CNN published that he was gay and he said no on his podcast I am sure you would remove it. So why is there a difference here? 65.32.47.2 (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
'Mentioned on his podcast' isn't a cite, and I am unclear on whether he actually is an 'adult entertainer,' or just joked that he'd like the Wikipedia article to say so. Given that lack of clarity, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to demonstrate that this is accurate. Simply link to any newspaper article, or magazine article, or even a review of his porn films, which confirms it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like for you to respond to my last statement and question. 65.32.47.2 (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I would be happy to respond to the last part of your comment, but first, please provide a link to the CNN article which says that he is gay, and to the discussion of removing that from the article. To be honest, I suspect you of making that up. In any case, it isn't really relevant to the question of whether or not there are reliable sources verifying that he is an 'adult entertainer.' What does 'adult entertainer' mean in this context, anyway? Is he a porn film actor? A prostitute? A stripper? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
What? I didn't say that it happened. I said IF. Now re-read the statement and answer the question.65.32.47.2 (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The question is 'what is the difference?' The difference is that the story you made up is something that happened in your imagination, and so it doesn't affect Wikipedia in any way. It isn't really related in any way to whether or not there's a source for the information you want to add. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Did you really not understand the statement? Ok, let me rephrase it into a question. If CNN published an article that stated Joe Rogan was gay. This would be put up on the page correct? Now if Joe Rogan mentioned on the podcast that he is not gay. Would you remove the article? If so, in what would it be different than this situation?
deep breath* I don't know how much better I can ask this so please read carefully then respond. 65.32.47.2 (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you don't understand, but I can't read the imaginary CNN article, and I can't read the imaginary discussion about it, and I can't hear the imaginary comment on his podcast, and so I don't know what might happen. I'm not sure why you're wasting effort on your make-believe story, though. Is this person really an 'adult entertainer?' The article about him doesn't mention any part of his career that seems to fit that definition. Is he an 'adult entertainer' now, or is that something he did in the past? What, exactly, did or does he do? How do you know? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In any case, it's late, and I'm off to bed. If you find a good source, feel free to link to it here, and I'll be glad to review it after work tomorrow. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not a "make believe story". It isn't even a story! I'm asking you a QUESTION yet you're committing red herring. Unbelievable. Just admit that you would remove it if he said to on his podcast. You're being difficult for NO reason. Terrible. 65.32.47.2 (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The link you are creating on the article is to Pornographic actor. What pornographic films has Joe Rogan appeared in? You are being difficult for no reason- if Joe Rogan really is a pornographic actor, this should be easy to verify, but you, not I, are the one who has the details that would help us to verify it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like it if you would re-read the question, understand it, then answer it. It's not a story. It is simply a question. You're committing red herring. Please refrain from doing so. I am sure you're much more educated than that. 65.32.47.2 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The answer to your question is, 'That is very unlikely to happen.' CNN is not likely to out someone in an article unless that person has already come out publicly. That's why I can't speculate on what might happen without reading the CNN article to find out what evidence or sources of information they had, and then listening to the podcast, to see why Rogan denies being gay when he's already come out on CNN. None of that has anything at all to do with your desired edit, though. What pornographic films has Joe Rogan appeared in? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
So if Joe Rogan denied it on the podcast, you would remove it? 65.32.47.2 (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're able to find out what pornographic films Joe Rogan appeared in, and can verify that with a reliable source, please feel free to add that information to the article. If that's more work than you want to do, I understand- don't worry; if it's important, someone else will read about it in some independent source and will add it to the article in time. Good night, and sleep well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to know where I stated he was or is a pornographic actor. 65.32.47.2 (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear FisherQueen,
A page that I created was destroyed under false reasoning that there was no point to it and no significance, there are many reasons why that page was there so you will please return that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brigadeir998 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I deleted your article because I thought it was about a subject that didn't meet the notability criteria, but I'm open to the possibility that I was wrong. If you'll provide me with links to three articles that confirm this subject's notability, in newspapers, magazines, or significant online sources, I'd be happy to undelete the article, and I'll even add the sources to it so no one else will mistake it for an inappropriate article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
If this subject doesn't meet the notability criteria but you still want to create an online profile, you might try Biographicon, which is a directory of biographies of all kinds of people, not just the kinds of people who are the subjects of encyclopedia articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. You created the page with the false claim that orange kool-aid is a medically proven effective burn treatment. There are no sources, because you made it up. That's why I deleted it. Your correct response is, "I'm sorry, and I won't do it again." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
You must be a very sad and bitter individual with no sense of humor what so ever!
Could have let that article be be for a couple of days or hours... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRB01 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Is that what you said to the principal when you were caught writing on the bathroom wall? It's a shame you aren't interested in helping to write an encyclopedia; without really participating, you aren't likely to discover Wikipedia's funny side. Vandalism isn't funny, though- it's just lame. If you're curious about how to have a sense of humor and still create a real encyclopedia, check out WP:UA. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Aah, Fisher Queen! No sense of humour, eh? Funnily enough, one of the things I have always liked about you is your sense of humour. Often very understated, but clearly there in the background. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, not sure if this is the proper way to contact you. Please advise if it is not. Regarding your message to me, I apologize for the mistake. I erroneously thought you were referring to my edit saying the article was "not helpful." Apologies.
Your apology is accepted, of course. I was briefly annoyed, but then when I looked back at the history, I saw how easy it would be to conflate those two edits. I'm not personally invested in either of the disputed sources, because I don't know how you would get reliable data on how many reports are false anyway. One of them is lying, always, and that one is likely to keep lying for a much longer time than any study tracks. There are more knowledgeable people than myself in this area who will doubtless have some insight. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Lets be honest here if your born a man you are a man no offence to her if she was a lady id go her in a heartbeat but unfortunately she has a cock!:0Youndbuckerz (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC
That isn't a source. Do you understand what a source is? Lady Gaga uses drag-queen aesthetics in her performances in a very intentional way, and smilingly encourages the rumors that she is a drag queen in order to get publicity. She's very clever about publicity. But I've never seen any source that makes any plausible claim that she is really a drag queen. Neither have you, or you would have triumphantly linked to it here, instead of just insisting that you know. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
