User:FisherQueen/Archive46

Eh fuck you anyway ice queen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insigniajoe (talk • contribs)

Please, don't blank other comments to leave messages on my talk page, and leave new messages at the bottom, not the top, of the page, where I can find them easily. And don't forget to sign your abuse with four tildes! Thanks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I add some info to the Iranian nuclear program page, but NPGUY keeps deleting it, making personal insults and seems to have a political view that he want to impose on this page, could you please help me out on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MUCHERS22 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't know enough about this subject to know whether this information should indeed be in the article, or if User:NPguy is right when he says that "This quote is entirely out of context. It was from 2008, criticizing the Bush Administration." You should discuss the information on the article's talk page, or use one or more of the suggestions at WP:DISPUTE, to get consensus among people who are knowledgeable in this area. By the way, it makes editing disagreements much worse to accuse the other party of vandalism, as you did here. This isn't vandalism, simply a content disagreement. I'm not sure why you're asking me about it- the way you repeatedly blanked my messages from your talk page gave me the strong impression that you don't want to talk to me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow! "The Jewish lobby?" This edit is definitely skewing the article in an anti-semitic direction- you are way out of line with this one. I'm not really sure what the point of this one was; surely the article doesn't need to chronicle everyone who has an opinion about Iran? It would be excessively long! I strongly suggest that, rather than continuing to revert to the edits you want, you discuss your desired changes on the talk page, and get consensus that they really are better for the article. People who repeatedly revert the edits of others are often blocked, especially in areas of strong conflict and disagreement, because it's so disruptive- even if they don't technically break the three-revert rule. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Fisher Queen: Haspop is not just a contestant on America's Got Talent. He is well know in his niche field, and has won a number of competitions in the 2000's, including being the champion of popping in France, Europe, and winning the world championship in 2004 with his group, the Pockemon Crew. Also, he has had a solo role in Cirque du Soleil from 2005 to 2009, as the Walrus.

I've noticed that Michael Grimm and Alice Tan Ridley have their own pages, and they are also most well known to American audiences for their participation in AGT. I think that Haspop is not any less known than these two performers. By your own standards, you should have also marked their articles for deletion.

The same goes for Susan Boyle, who was essentially an unknown person, but after her debut at Britain's Got Talent, Wikipedia allowed a page about Susan Boyle. Thus, I do not think that double standards need to be used to select some articles for deletion. I politely ask that you rescind you nomination to have this article deleted.

Hwangd01 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwangd01 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of Grimm or Ridley, but Boyle's notability extends beyond her appearance on the reality program, and lots of people wrote about her. I couldn't find any sources writing about Haspop specifically (all I found were articles about the show and its characters), but if you can make an argument that he meets WP:BIO, please feel free to explain yourself briefly and simply at the deletion discussion. It's a shame that you removed the {prod} tag, since that would have given you a week to work on it, but it's too late to change your mind about that now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to bring your attention to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janelle_Pierzina. This woman did nothing other than appear in Big Brother, and you should have flagged her as well. In addition, she did nothing other than appear on the show. She did not have a talent, she just appeared on a show and allowed a camera to follow her for weeks. You are acting in an artibrary fashion of what content gets published, and your action is the very antithesis of democracy on the web. Shame on you. And you are totally wrong about Susan Boyle. She only became famous because of her appearance on BGT. She had no qualifications before that. The fact that there was a flurry of media coverage on her does not mean that she did anything other than appear on BGT. Hwangd01 (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hwangd01, No individual, including FisherQueen, decides anything on Wikipedia. Decisions are made by consensus (general agreement), which is why a discussion or debate is opened before anyone can delete an article. You should try not to take it personably, but participate in the debate enthusiastically. Sometimes you will find the consensus supports your view, but other your view is not supported by certain individuals or by the group consensus. That's part of collaboration (and what you call democracy) and sometimes all of us have to be a bit thick skinned if we first choose to participate. It's exactly this collaboration and the ability to argue positions robustly and in good faith that make Wikipedia so interesting, so effective and so much fun! Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been drinking wine and shouldn't be reviewing articles tonight in that way, but if you think you found an article that doesn't meet WP:BIO, feel free to nominate it for deletion yourself. Insturctions are at WP:AFD .- FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And I am exactly pointing out the arbitrary nature of the decision making process. By the standards that are put forth by FisherQueen, others should have been flagged for removal as well. A system of justice is unjust when it chooses to mete out justice to an arbitrary few. Isn't that the reason why Illinois had decided to put a moratorium on capital punishment? If you are not going to flag Janelle Pierzina, then you should not flag Haspop as well. I want to state emphatically that I am NOT in favor of flagging Janelle Pierzina, that I do not presume to know the will of the people or to be in touch with the Zeitgeist. I think that a Democratic process would allow Janelle Pierzina and Haspop as well as Michael Longcor and Lillian Faderman to coexist. I would add that an order of magnitude more people know the former two than the latter two. This brings up a good point. Who determines the value and the worth of another human being's accomplishments? How many people has Lillian Faderman reached? On the other hand, I would argue that Haspop's dancing and his story of overcoming adversity has inspired thousands of people. His Youtube video has been viewed 906,245 times as I write this write now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTO317AWqfo Hwangd01 (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipeterproject, is this robust enough for you? It's not about me not having a thick enough skin. It's about me shouting to be heard above the Wikipedia insiders, who have the power to arbitrate what ends up in Wikipedia and what does not. Essentially, FisherQueen flagged my article for deletion, because she felt that Haspop was not famous enough. I think I have shown pretty convincingly, that he has been viewed > 900,000 times by worldwide viewers. I think that makes him pretty famous. FisherQueen has written an article about Lillian Faderman, but how many people do you think know about Lillian Faderman. How would she feel if I asked her to merge her article into a bigger article about Lesbian Jewish writers? And I have nothing against Lesbians, being family myself. But in fact, I would never flag Lillian Faderman's article, because I am empathic enough to believe that Ms. Faderman has touched FisherQueen in the same way that Haspop's story has touched me. Hwangd01 (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of words, but the discussion is already happening. Maybe the community will agree with you that this person meets the notability criteria. I don't make the deletion decision. I just opened the discussion, because I thought that the article that I noticed didn't meet the notability criteria. I didn't flag every article on Wikipedia that doesn't meet the notability criteria, because I haven't yet read every article on Wikipedia. I'm working on it, but there are a lot of articles, and it's going to take some time. You said that in showing that he has been "viewed 900,00 times by viewers," that you've shown that he is notable, but the notability criteria say that he must be the subject of writing in multiple, independent reliable sources. That's not arbitrary- it's very, very clearly defined. A person doesn't even have to be seen by 900,000 viewers to meet that standard- as you point out, Lillian Faderman, a scholar whose name is known by far fewer people, meets that standard. You've left long comments on my talk page, but I can't do anything for you- I couldn't stop the discussion now if I wanted to, and after the discussion is over, the final decision is made by someone else. You can feel free to leave lots more long comments about the unfairness of it all on my talk page, if doing that is fun for you, but it doesn't have any effect on the discussion- in fact, no one participating in or closing the discussion is even likely to check here, so they won't be seen by anyone but me, and I have no power to direct or close the discussion. All you need to do is add references to the things people have written about Haspop. I couldn't find any articles in which he was discussed except articles that discussed all of the contestants, mentioning him about equally to the others. But you might find something I missed. You seem highly motivated.

Michael Longcor is an interesting case. He's a very, very small-scale musician whose work I like. I used him in a discussion once an example of someone who, though I liked him, wouldn't meet the notability criteria. And when I created the link, which I expected to be a redlink (a link to a nonexistent page), I saw instead a bluelink- I was truly surprised that someone had created an article about such a little-known artist! The article was a mess, though. I cleaned it up and rewrote it, and added the sources I could find- a few articles that had been written about him, and awards he's won in his field. Then I nominated it for deletion myself, because I wasn't sure that my improvements brought it up to Wikipedia's standards, and I wanted other people to express their opinion. It was a short discussion, but two people agreed that he did meet the notability criteria- I was happily surprised. Contrast what I did (did everything in my power to improve the article, then nominated it for deletion because Wikipedia's rules are important to me) with what you're doing. If you think the article on Haspop can be saved... go save it. Find the sources, and add them. Make your case in the deletion discussion. Wikipedia's rules are the same for everyone, 'insiders' (that just means experienced users) and new users. Everyone who can read and write can understand the rules and make a case for their desired outcome. If you are right, others will agree with you, even if you are new. You have left pages of words on my talk page, but not one of those words was a link to an article written about Haspop in an entertainment magazine- and that would go in the deletion discussion, not here. That's the only thing that would help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And, no, I wouldn't say that I've been 'touched' by Lillian Faderman. I was just working on articles about winners of Lambda awards. I'm not really a Faderman fan, though I have read a few of her books and didn't hate them. It's always a mistake to get too emotionally caught up in an article, because it's inevitably edited by people who disagree with you. Most of us avoid writing in subject areas where we have passionate feelings, because our feelings inevitably get hurt. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to develop a little thick skin, FisherQueen. It is not those who write the articles who should be told to have thick skin, but those who decide to throw others' work on a pyre, who should develop that thick skin. I choose to write on your page, because it is there and you should be called out for your self-righteousness and pompous attitude. Hwangd01 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC) And don't go to my page, and delete the words that I've created there, that I choose to have displayed there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwangd01 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hwang, with all respect, I think you need to research a little better how Wikipedia works. Name calling and personal attacts are both unecessary and uncalled for. I also note that you haven't contributed to the deletion debate. That is the proper place to argue your case. FisherQueen is an experieced and fair editor and you should really try to apply the concept of good faith. Wikipeterproject (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have clearly explained everything that needs explaining, so there is no reason for me to respond to any comments that are rude, or that attack me. I've spent my time trying to help you understand the rules, and trying to help you avoid the deletion of this article if you can. I've done that politely, even when you got angry and chose to blame me, personally, for the rules of Wikipedia. If you have any more questions, I encourage you to use WP:HELP to find the answers to them, since I am under no obligation to help you, and, given your rude way of speaking to me, I don't choose to help you any longer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, did anyone ask for your help? You flagged my article, remember? I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, that's all. And you should be the one to have thick skin, if you are going to flag other people. Whatever. Hwangd01 (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey dude, just a friendly suggestion here (and I've had stuff deleted, so I know how hard it can be) - If you want to save the article, spend a bit of time finding references to support the notability of the subject, and go explain your reasoning on the deletion discussion page - I see you haven't even commented there yet. As it happens, there are a couple of "keep" opinions there already, so you really would be much better off expending your effort over there than being abusive here to people who are just trying to follow Wikipedia policy - when the closing admin makes a decision, they will not look here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This page: William Lane Craig. Thanks! Theowarner (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Yes, I think I can. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

On 30 July you protected this page. The content dispute/edit war has continued. I was wondering if you would look at the page history and review the dispute that's gone on on the talk page, decide which of the two fought-over versions should be the default until the dispute is resolved, and then protect that version. If you've got the time. Thanks. Srnec (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Admins do not 'referee' content disputes, and I would definitely be the wrong person in any case, because I truly don't understand this one. But I agree that there's a serious problem here. I actually unwatched both articles, because I realized that I was in over my head- check out WP:DISPUTE for some things to try, and I'll protect whatever version is currently there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's still semiprotected, which I'd done when the ips were edit-warring. Since registered users are doing it, I'll just increase the protection level. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, in case you are still following the issue, there is a further forum formal comment on the chatsite. http://www.tessmage.com/formal_statement_by_tessera.htm. - Off2riorob (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange. With all those words, you'd think he'd at least mention that they needed to be looking for a reliable source for the information they want to add. After all, that's the only thing that actually matters. Thanks for the laugh- I hadn't bothered to look back at the site, and would have missed his charming description of me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and look! He finally remembered to call me a 'Nazi.' That makes me feel better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

He probably saw you complaining, hehe, oh dear. I looked for a citation to support the patch claims but didn't find anything reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked, too, and didn't have any luck. It would have amused me to add one of the patches back into the article, just to demonstrate that I wasn't really trying to persecute them and really didn't object to any sourced information. But I couldn't find sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm reminded of a short story I read a long time ago by W. Somerset Maugham, in which he told of a small book he picked up about a card game (Bridge? Poker? I can't remember). The book, he wrote, told him a lot more about the author than it did about its subject. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I liked the line about my being intimidated by the 'natural feminine beauty' on his web site. All the naked women on his web site are computer simulations. I am, as it happens, a fan of natural feminine beauty, but I wouldn't normally associate that term with cartoon women. Especially not cartoon women as crudely drawn as the ones I saw there. Naturally, like any decent American, I'll always have a special place in my heart for Jessica Rabbit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am with you there, low resolution simulations don't do it for me either, wheras that Jessica sure is a bunny X. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're women who don't exist! (but Jessica Rabbit is special). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it, though - Why was the bulk of the page directed at FisherQueen? I'm pretty sure I was the one that incurred the original wrath and rage with my... book-burning, I guess. He's right about one thing, though - Sometimes the internet really is like a vast insane asylum. A god-awful, twisted, mangled train-wreck that you just can't look away from as it unfolds, or entangles as the case may be here. Eik Corell (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Two possibilities. (a) You were simply edit-warring with him, and he felt that he still had the power as long as he was still reverting you. Grrr, men at war. Gr. I didn't go to war with him. Nothing to fight in a manly way against with me. I just explain the rules, request his block, protect the page, and all that manly war energy has nowhere to go but writing impotent abuse on a different web site. (b) You are apparently the owner of a penis. I, on the other hand, have a vagina. His web page indicates that his feelings about people with vaginas are complicated and filled with anger and fear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tessmage fans! Welcome to Wikipedia! If you're interested in adding information on a fan-made patch to the article on Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, please post to Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines with a reliable source, like a significant online gaming site or a gaming magazine, that discusses that patch. We've searched, but we can't find one- we need the help of someone who is more familiar with the resources available. If you've come to leave a personal attack, please confine them to this section, where I can easily find them. Don't forget to insult my gender and my sexual orientation, because they're easy and fun. Be creative, and watch your spelling and grammar, because your personal attacks will be graded. Attacks that are left in the wrong section should be moved to this section. Thanks, and enjoy your time at Wikipedia- I hope that some of you will like the place and decide to stay and help make it better. We can always use knowledgeable volunteers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Would this be a good source? While I'm not a fan of Tessmage, nor, frankly, am I sad to see it go, I did remember that Kotaku had an article about the "True Patch" and thought I should mention it (I heard about the debacle via the Steam forums). (66.207.84.170 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

I think the whole debate became a moot point when Tessmage deleted all of the related materials- there's no longer anything to link to. I sort of bowed out of the discussion after that, but I'm sure everyone still has the article's talk page on their watchlist. The sad thing is, someone posted a very good source late at night- by the time we US editors woke up and saw it, Tessmage had already decided we were ignoring the source and deleted his materials. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I added indef as I think the template is funny, but the previous form of indefinite block on it didn't make sense to me. I borrowed the "indef" function from other block templates. Otherwise, the goal is that the text for the temporary or timed block remains exactly the same. mechamind90 02:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Edit: My test appeared to be successful on preview edits. mechamind90 03:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, since you were involved before and a admin. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources saying whether this guy ever lived in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania? Someone just added him to the notable natives section of that article, but I removed him because the article says nothing about him living there. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize how many of the sources I used to write that article no longer lead to the articles I used! Stupid newspapers and their stupid non-permanent web presences.... blah. I know he lived in Beaver County. I don't know whether he lived in Beaver Falls or not, but it seems very likely... but no, I have no sources. I could ask my grandfather, who told me the story, but he (a) does not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, and (b) is dead. Sorry I can't be more help.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for checking. I wanted to get this book some time back, but Amazon ran out of copies; it's partially on Google Books, but "green man" returns no hits, and the only "Robinson" that the search found was an Edward G. Robinson. Curious, are you very familiar with Beaver County? I'm emotionally tied to the place after having lived there for four years. Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as newspapers — I'll generally cite them as print sources when possible, since those don't rot if they're made into microfilm. For example, when I wrote Charles Wintzer Building, I found the story online, went to a library a couple of blocks away from the building, consulted the print copy to ensure that it was the same as the online story, and cited the print version. Nyttend (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

My whole family comes from the area, so I visit frequently, but I've never lived there myself. Love the woods. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ok Wspjaskson (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Wspjaskson

To you that I am not a fan. 79.75.128.61 (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that would make me sad, or make me laugh, if I had any idea who the hell you are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Back in 2006 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to nominate it at AfD. I have told the requester it needs references for notability. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection. It would be nice if it were sourced... but I've mellowed a lot since 2006. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Only 1 year? Unless I'm mistaken, vandal-only accounts are blocked indefinitely. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to choose one-year blocks for people who simply aren't old enough to use Wikipedia usefully yet. This year's fifteen-year-old vandal often grows up to be next years sixteen-year-old useful contributor. A personal preference that probably doesn't ultimately make much of a difference, since she'll have forgotten her username and password by then, most likely. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You guys are full of it. You keep deleting my pages for what damn reason? shakur green is a real producer, musician and songwriter. I interviewed him on HOT 97 and he has a publishing deal with Royalty network which all his works are stated on there official site. it's sourced , its reliable and it belongs on wikipedia. YOu deleting my stuff when I see crap on wikipedia that doesn't even need to be on wikipedia thats not being deleted. Now im asking please remove your deletion tag and go about your business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInsider299 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

An exact copy of Talk:Shakur Green--intelati 23:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you misunderstood the messages you've gotten- his own official site does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for independent verification. The article has been there, unsourced, for two weeks, which I thought was long enough- the facts in the article need to be verified by sources independent of the subject, like newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books. If you add citations to independent sources, the article won't be deleted at all- I searched, but couldn't find any. Incidentally, it's easier for me to find your comments when you leave them at the end of my talk page, rather than in the middle. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, could you please me how to add the proper citations for my articles, so they wont be deleted at all. If you could I would really appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInsider299 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Instructions on how to add them are at WP:CITE. If that's confusing, you can add a simple link into the article or into the reference section- I'll be glad to check in later and help you clean up the formatting. If you haven't already done so, read the reliable source guidelines, so you don't accidentally add unreliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I did the best I could do on this article, Sorry I may not know the ends in out and may have a hard time learning how to use Wikipedia html codes properly. But I still know a good article when I see one. I did addmore sources , that I thought were reliable but the must important one I have is the publisher website and from my knowledge the publisher isn't in a partnership with Green nor does he own the company.. all they do is collect his royalty's. The Royalty Network is a company he signed with to handle his production catalog.

in the coming months he is due to be featured in XXL Magazine , November Issue. The Royalty Network website is the best I got right now. If you could do any to prevent it's deletion . Please help. As I read and move further I will learn how to properly setup articles on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInsider299 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume that by 'featured' you mean that they're doing a cover story about him? Normally, the rules require multiple sources- more than one- but that would help a lot. There's no way to prevent deletion if sources don't currently exist, but once the article (or articles) are published, just go to deletion review and explain that the subject now meets the requirements, and ask for it to be undeleted. It's pretty easy to do; the process is just like the deletion process- people will discuss the sources and weigh in on how they meet the guidelines, and then someone will review the discussion and go with the consensus. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they will be doing a cover story.

Can we delay the deletion for a few days, I will contact his publicist and ask if there is anything magazine he's currently in and if so I can updated the source with that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheInsider299 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to delay the deletion, since it can easily be undeleted when the sources become available. I'm not aware of any way to delay deletion of an article- any administrator can close the discussion when consensus is reached. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Balagonj786 began to edit again the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. page. Balagonj786 was banned many times for distorting the accuracy, neutrality, spelling and grammar of this page. Furthermore, Balagonj786 refused to cooperate with other Wikipedia users and he still insist his own version of the page. And now, after he has been blocked, he is still doing this. Can you please ban this user again and revert the page back to what it was before he edited it? Because everytime a concern Wikipedia user trying to fix it, Balagonj786 and his apprentice Jailbreaker212 still insist their own version. Thank you very much.

(You can delete this section after you read this message. Thank you very much.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughn (talk • contribs) 02:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

School for Creative and Performing Arts is currently a Featured Article Candidate. Since you have commented on this article in the past, the review may be of interest to you. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there any tools that I can download that can help me revert vandalism easily? I seem to be finding a lot lately and find it annoying to click rollback vandal with Twinkle all the time. Is there another program that makes it easier? Látches (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I fight vandalism manually, but there's a list of vandal-fighting tools at Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. I don't know if any of those is what you're looking for or not. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried vandal fighter earlier today but I couldn't figure out how to use it. Can you recommend a program? Látches (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't use any of them, so I don't know which ones would work best for you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll ask another admin. Látches (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could get some input from you on my section on WP:AN/I. It's called "User:Donald Duck behavior". It appears to have become unnecessarily heated after the discussion was pretty much over. I've also got a user basically accusing me of lying. - Donald Duck (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your choices are basically 'continue discussing, and try to solve the problem' or 'ignore it and wait for everyone to get bored.' I haven't been following your edits closely enough to know which would be wise- if you have been making lots of bad choices (a) is probably a better choice, and if you haven't, then (b) will work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I will admit that I have made some bad reverts recently and in the past, but everyone has bad streaks every now and then. I think I'll do "B" and ignore. I took a look at my section when the discussion was supposed to be over and learned from it. If you'd take a look at my October 2009 archive, Oh-No-It's-Jamie said it best at the end of his second comment. =) - Donald Duck (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So I just got my Huggle rights suspended for six months by DGG, which I think is unfair. Will you please take a look into it and see if anything can be done? For more information, you can check my AN/I section or my talk page. - Donald Duck (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd just do without it for a while. I tried anti-vandal software for a while, but I found I was making lots of mistakes with it- I got too many false positives because I was going too fast- and now I do it by hand and am a lot more accurate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You probably remember the debate that took place on the above article a week or so back. It's flared up again. Same issue, except it's more about sources to support another unofficial patch. I remember you were involved in the debate regarding the sources for one of the patches; the "True Patch", recognizing one source as good enough. Well, that's one of the things mentioned. I've gathered the sources that the user says supports the "True Patch", and I was hoping you could have a look and offer your opinion. Eik Corell (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh... can it be someone else's turn this time? I'm at the 'protect the page, then delete it, then block everyone who has ever edited it, then salt the earth so nothing will grow there for a thousand years' stage with this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the nuclear option. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[1] → He made a reference to an IP that was recently causing the disruption earlier on ANI. An "innocent person" would not be able to make that connection. That was clearly Georgie requesting unblock there. –MuZemike 22:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as much. Sometimes I just throw on a little extra 'good faith' for decoration. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I've restored a speedy tag removed by the article creator (while leaving your PROD in place). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. In fact, speedy deletion would be entirely within policy- I just was feeling generous, since the thing is still under construction. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've recently come across the {{Hasty}} template, which might not be the best for this particular article but is nice to keep in mind. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case, there seems little doubt that it's Just Another Damn Spam Article (tm). So I'm not that worried about it. That is a handy template, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And since the creator removed both tags, I'll just go ahead and delete it. Saves time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello FQ, this is another invalid Bangladeshi cricket bio by User:BanglaGuy1. It's just a copy of an existing page with one name in the infobox exchanged while the statistics and source link of the original person still remain. I've contacted the author on his page but apparently he doesn't seem to understand what I asked from him.

And on that note, I just saw that you threatened him with the big fish slap. ;) De728631 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a good-faith editor who's trying to help but not stopping to read his messages. I made it a very short three-hour block, just to get his attention and persuade him to read the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)