User:FisherQueen/Archive55

 {| style="text-align:center; border: 1px solid #000000; background-color:#3CB371; width: 100%" ! style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; color: #000000; font-size: large; line-height: 1.3em;" colspan="2"|FisherQueen
 * - padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"

 User Page · Talk page · Archives · Sandbox · Patrol · Templates 
 * style="text-align:left; padding: 8px; background-color:#DCDCDC"|
 * style="text-align:left; padding: 8px; background-color:#DCDCDC"|

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Greetings
On this User talk:69.250.146.100 talk page, I noticed you said you blocked this guy from editing and hes not allowed to edit anymore.

Whatever he was at before, hes at it again. He either offers no explanation or a phony explanation as to why he deletes massive portions of the Dana Rohrabacher article. I looked at his contributions, they mainly consist of brushing up articles relating to the American Republican party, to make them look good, and rohrabacher is a Republican.

Several key parts of the article have been totally wiped out by this ip, such as the fact that rohrabacher had praised the taliban. This information was backed up by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which has Rohrabacher's pro taliban comments in an article. It was deleted by the ip for no reason. This is one example of many deletions he has conducted, alternatively claiming "the source doesn't support it" or saying nothing at all, when the sources are from reliable news organizations. Anything that makes Rohrabacher "look bad", like support for terrorists, was expunged by the ip, when they were backed up by reliable news articles.Markhoos (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I might not have blocked this user if it were just these edits, and instead helped form a consensus about the article. As it happens, though, this is a user who was already blocked, trying to avoid his block by logging out.  So I've refreshed the block to remind him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Thomasappleyard

 * FYI, I ran a trace about the university IP address (User:124.184.179.214, city/place of origin is Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) he claimed was blocked is in fact not afflitiated with any colleges out there in Australia, the hostname is CPE-124-184-179-214.lns17.cht.bigpond.net.au while the ISP is obviously BigPond. Also, Nick-D has stated that and  are highly likely to be the same person(s), my trace of Premier's IP address (User:124.184.224.64, city/place of origin is Mortlake, which is a suburb of Sydney) is also not afflitiated with any college, the hostname is CPE-124-184-224-64.lns11.cht.bigpond.net.au.  -- Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 12:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He might have lied? A sockpuppet?  What is the world coming to... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"it would be nice if English had a gender-neutral personal pronoun"
Here, here to that. I somehow managed to get through a goodly part of his oeuvre and a pilgrimage past his house back when I lived in New Orleans without ever knowing anything about his gender identity. I love learning new things through other editors' research on Wikipedia - keep it up. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I only recently learned he was a transman. I read a few of his horror novels in my youth, but they were a bit too intense for me.  I recently discovered the new cooking and love books, and I just love those.  I hope he isn't permanently retired from writing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thisislondon8
I see that you have blocked Thisislondon8. The editing strongly suggests a sockpuppet of some editor that you and Drdisque have both taken action against. Do you have any idea who it might be? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably confident that it's User:173.164.25.165, a publicist from Crown College (Tennessee), who has been trying for months to turn that article into an advertisement for his school. He's been coming back periodically to try different strategies, but as far as I know, this is his first named account.   This is the first time he's shown an interest in messing up other articles, but I can't imagine who else would be removing the link to Christian fundamentalism from that article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it now- it's the edit he wants to make, plus vindictively undoing edits made by people who've pissed him off. Very classy.  If he comes back again, I'm going to email his employer and let them know that he's vandalizing Wikipedia while presenting himself as an official representative of their school. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, at first I thought it was that editor too, but then I noticed that virtually all of their edits were reverting you and one other editor (presumably, as you say, people who've pissed him off). This made me think that the editing of Crown College (Tennessee) might also be just because you edited it and pissed him/her off, rather than because that was the edit he/she wanted to make. I don't actually see any evidence that that edit featured more prominently in the editor's purpose than any of the other ones. I also couldn't see any sign that Drdisque had pissed that editor off, so I think it's probably someone else. I have found a few editors that have come into conflict with both you and Drdisque, but none of them recently, so it looks to me as though it's probably a revenge attack from someone who has nurtured a grudge against the two of you for a long time. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's possible, too. Do you think I should unblock her?  ;) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. The edits were pretty well 100% disruptive, and the block is fully justified, even if for different reasons than you had in mind. In fact if anything I think there is a case for a longer block, perhaps even indefinite, as a vandalism only account. However, I don't see any harm in leaving it as it is: we can always block again if and when trouble recurs. I was wondering what other account or IP the same person has used mainly out of academic curiosity, but also with the view that the more we know about someone who uses sockpuppets accounts, the more likely we are to be able to spot them if they do it again. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

edit removal
Hi, did you know you removed my post? diff? Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weird... I got an edit-conflict and repeated, but didn't intentionally remove anything. I've seen that glitch once or twice before.  Sorry about that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I put it back. I thought as much but I just wanted to make sure you didn't find some issue with it, regards. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Message
don't bite the newcomers: cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can discourage new users. Consider using Friendly to welcome newcomers, and placing Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, without the risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. on their talk page if a first effort needs deleting articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision unsourced biographies of living people created after 18 March 2010 can be proposed for deletion using a new "sticky prod" process. Using Twinkle is recommended for this; or see template:prod blp for instructions for manual tagging From Virginia Mortgage Bankers, LLC this company was entered into Wiki a couple of hours ago and its already gone? It was not even completed yet Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brockenbroughjohn (talk • contribs)
 * You were not 'bitten.' The advertisement you created was deleted, politely.  WP:BITE doesn't mean that we should leave advertisements in Wikipedia; it merely means that we should clearly and politely explain why they were deleted.  Which we did.  It would be wise for you to learn a little bit more about what Wikipedia is and how it works, and please, don't create any more advertisements for your company.   Also, you put this message in the middle of another user's message.  Please, leave new messages at the bottom of a talk page, not in the middle. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for UCSD Kubiak Lab Rules Incident
An editor has asked for a deletion review of UCSD Kubiak Lab Rules Incident. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
 * I can not believe that wiki will delete this incident, it is unbelievable important for the civil rights in US. Please include this incident to keep my sincerely respect of wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.180.153 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a 4 years old wikipedia user, I've never seen a current event with wide and diverse media coverage deleted repeatedly with so weak justification. Can you show me how UCSD Kubiak Lab Rules Incident can be an attack page? Is there original conclusions or comments? Does 4 indepedent newspapers' report articles not ensure its notability and credibility? Million of wikipedia pages do not have even a single reference.

I would love to hear your explanation and/or alternative solutions. Helloterran (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to be something that just happened, but not something of long-term significance. Wikipedia is not the news.  A teacher makes a joke on his web site, his students don't think the joke is funny, the joke is removed.  It's something that happens in some classroom somewhere every day.  At Wikipedia, we sometimes ask, 'Will this still be important in a hundred years?'  In this case, I don't think this will still be important in one year, even.  This article has no reason for existing that is not related to a desire to widely publicize what a bad, terrible person this teacher is.  That's what makes it an attack page.  Wikipedia is for subjects of encyclopedia significance; we are careful not to use the encyclopedia to harm real people who are of no particular significance. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Imagine a professor use the "N" word talking about black people in his lab rule, I doubt you still think it would be a insignificant event. This professor already admit what he did is inappropriate and UCSD already apologized publicly. How could simply narrative description of this event be called "smear"? It is simply description of facts. If this professor is daring enough to do such things, I do not understand why we could not simply describe and publish what he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.126.183 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Teachers have said 'nigger' in class. It has been briefly reported on in local news and special-interest news.  And then it has gone away.  And Wikipedia does not have articles about it.  But did you miss the part where the web site's joke wasn't the professor's, but that of students who worked on his web site?  In trying to smear his reputation, you are also actually lying about him.  I don't know whether you feel badly about that, but you should. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to hear you explanation as well. I don't know which country you are from but in America we take racial discrimination cases very seriously and apparently you don't agree with this. The latest version of the entry was pretty unbiased, and even professor Kubiak admitted that the posting on his website was of poor judgement. If he admitted to that, and UCSD is having internal investigation, how could it have been a personal attack? I request that you restores the deleted page. (Gyucdavis (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC))
 * All three of you need to remember to put new comments at the bottom, not the top, of the page, as it says on the note you saw when you made these edits. To me, the article appeared to be written purely to smear this professor, and the event itself appeared not to be of the sort of significance that one would generally expect to find in an encyclopedia article.  If as the first of you said, there is a deletion review discussion happening, then I'm sure, if I was mistaken, that the article will quickly be undeleted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 08:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is outrageous. You do not think it is a big deal. Okay, let's make it a big deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV is the appropriate place to discuss this, not here. Before you participate, please review WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO, WP:NOT, WP:CIVIL, WP:MEAT and WP:AGF. All are relevant to this discussion.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the various subject headings; this is one subject, not four. All the new and anonymous users who are commenting here, please read WP:NOTNEWS very carefully, and then, if you think that this event will still be important a hundred years from now, go and explain why on the deletion review page.  Now that discussion is happening there, it would not be appropriate for me to undelete it myself even if you all convinced me of the rightness of your position.  Stop, instead, and reflect that maybe you have misunderstood what Wikipedia is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:123.231.114.171
Thanks for replying on that talk page. Once I realized who it was with their most recent post, I stopped responding.

I started a thread about the user at WP:ANI which covers some of my background with 123.231.64.0/18. While I'm not entirely comfortable with their outing threat, I can safely say that I have no connection to the organizations involved; and based upon their IP, the user appears to be far enough away for me to not be too concerned about any potential physical threat from being outed.

My bigger concern is attempting to retain as much openness as possible with my actions on Wikipedia. To achieve that, once I recognize the user, I'm trying to hand off any further dialog with them to others. The main purpose of the ANI thread was to get other eyes looking at the issue - as I feel more comfortable knowing my actions have been seen by other users. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what this person's gripe with you is, because he isn't communicating it very effectively. If you really are a terrible person and a genocidal racist in a way that is harming the encyclopedia, I'm confident that someone will notice that who is better able to communicate more clearly about it.  I'm not really sure how someone goes about committing genocide on the internet in any case, but I'll admit that I would support blocking User:Adolf Hitler if he wanted to get heavily involved in editing articles like International Jewish Conspiracy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My involvement with the user traces back to, although a comment at ANI suggests it's the same user that had previously caused disruption for others at.
 * They were edit warring at Reporters Without Borders, which resulted in the page being semi-protected several times for increasingly long durations by multiple admins. When they then moved to the article talk page to edit war over the re-insertion of personal attacks, the talk page was also semi-protected.  Since then, they've periodically engaged in vandalism by blindly reverting random edits of mine (ironically, in at least one case several weeks ago, they restored racist comments to an article by reverting my revert of another user). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)