User:FisherQueen/Archive60

 {| 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"|

January 2012
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Srobak (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen that template before. I'm sorry that you decided to use the {sofixit} template instead of responding to my question, because now I still don't know what you found that made you think that Tim Truman was a person who meets WP:BIO, or whether you saw sources that I didn't see.  But now I've already sent the article on to Articles for Deletion, so rather than responding to my question here or at your talk page, you should probably respond at the deletion discussion page- I'm watching it, so I'll see your answer there, and you'll find that I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong- once I have a clearer understanding of how this article can be properly sourced, I don't have any particular reason to want it to be deleted, and would happily say so in the discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have missed the point. Srobak (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to demonstrate assuming good faith by talking politely to you at all points, and trying hard not to take offense at being templated like a n00b. If there's a point, other than that I've done my best to carry out the fairly routine work of reviewing unpatrolled pages as well as I can, and that you've been inexplicably rude to me while I was doing that, then I'm not sure what that point is.  But please don't bother trying to explain, as I find that the more you communicate with me, the more difficult it becomes for me to maintain my good manners, and I'm sure, if you're right that this person is notable, that will become clear during the deletion discussion, so there's nothing you and I can accomplish on this talk page other than unproductive squabbling, which I try to avoid. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Srobak
Hi Fishy*,

I saw your note on his talk page and thought I would mention that I keep watch on him for the same and yet entirely the opposite reason - he's a very straight talker, but in my opinion fairly polite in the way he does it. It's also quite amusing, if I'm honest, to see the situations he sometimes ends up in cause of it. In any case, I trust him a lot more than some of them more so-called civil editors around here. Just my two penn'orth (and I can also see why you are upset of course - what I do is imagine a curmudgeon I know in real life who is just like him, maybe you could try that trick?)

Egg Centric 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Chancing me arm a bit with that salutation, no problems I hope?


 * I understand what you're saying, but it's problematic at a project that has lots of new users and relies on cooperation to get things done. A user who can't interact with courtesy with other people is a liability to the project, no matter how useful his edits, because he'll drive away other users, users who might have had their own useful contributions to make.  Take the occasion in which I encountered him, for example- there was absolutely no provocation for his rudeness, which came off, not as forthright, but as bizarre- and it was entirely useless to the actual work of the encyclopedia.  I don't know him well enough to know whether he's just having a bad day, because if my experience is normal for people encountering him, that is, in my opinion, a serious problem that may need to be addressed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think his response makes it perfectly clear whether that was a one off. I'm sorry you don't like his style, but (without speaking ill of the indef blocked) contrast it with a similar user: Treasury Tag. Both ruthlessly direct, but somehow the motivation feels far purer in Srobak's case, and that makes all the difference.
 * You may disagree of course, in fact I have realised while typing this out that I can't really convey why it is I feel the way I do, which suggests to me its based on gut feeling rather than logic. So be it. Whatever you do next, I will both understand and have good fun watching. Not that you asked for my opinion . Egg Centric 22:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Three days later, I still don't have any idea why he thinks that person is notable. That's the opposite of direct.  But don't look for entertainment from me; I tend to avoid drama when I can. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope you are satisfied with yourself. That little tattling msg you fired off to fluff and the ensuing shitstorm that it generated certainly did a lot of good for both the article in question and the project in general. *clap*clap* You were advised to focus your energies elsewhere - such as improving the article and citing any of the dozens of sources readily available regarding his work and notability. Instead - your impatience for a response to my reversal of your PROD and your subsequent AFDing the article, combined with the undertoned comments you left in the AFD, my page and this very thread - now culminating with your mis-applied target fixation has not only left me in a position of not being able to improve the article at all for the last few days, but have also pretty much sucked dry any inclination and ambition I might have had for doing so at all, as this is how it turns out. So with that in mind - I am about to redact my "keep" on the afd and you can go right on ahead and shitcan the entire article as there will then be a whopping consensus of 1. Congratulations - you win. I hope you enjoy basking in the afterglow of your accomplishment in detracting useful information about a noteworthy individual who has contributed far more to society and culture at large - not to mention to dozens of works of which there are WP articles about - than you and I combined could ever hope to achieve. And with that - perhaps you will give some thought as to if all... this... "drama you tend to avoid" was worth it for no other reason than simply you do not understand why the person is notable. On top of that - Egg here above has gone ahead and explained quite clearly things which really should be plainly obvious to you (including their necessity)... and even to that you react in such a rash way for the simple reason that you just do not understand. To quote a wize man: "You kill what you fear and you fear what you don't understand." With any grace from God - other worthwhile articles and hard-working contributors will not meet the similar fates in the future. Good day! Srobak (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project- it works because people work together. Rudeness keeps the project from working.  For example, maybe if I knew why you think that musician is notable, I could have helped improve the article, in the way I gather you thought I should.  Since I don't understand your opinion on the subject, I can't help, and the project remains unimproved.  Maybe if that user you were vandal-templating understood what was problematic about his behavior, he could change it.  Since you never explained to him, he had no way to improve.  As I know you know, I didn't block you, and you weren't blocked for anything connected to me- it was simply a coincidence that you were edit-warring in a way that breaks the rules at the same time that you were being rude to me.  But if you often interact with people in this way, blocks are going to be unavoidable.  Here's what happens next: you go out of your way to assume good faith of other users, and to explain yourself clearly and politely when you disagree with other users, so they can understand you and collaborate with you.  Then we both gradually forget about each other's existence.  Or, if you choose, you choose rudeness over communication as part of a continuing pattern, and I won't block you myself without first discussing with other admins at WP:ANI whether that block is appropriate.  That isn't a threat; I'm just informing you of what will happen.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, in case it wasn't clear, I didn't message anyone about you- I do all my Wikipedia business on Wikipedia, so you can easily review my contributions and verify that for yourself. I don't even know User:Fluffernutter.  If I had seen the edits you were making, I would have blocked you for them myself, but as it happened, Fluffernutter noticed them first. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already stated what will be happening next. See my last contribution above. Srobak (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You said you would "AR" me. Since you never answered my question about what that means, I assume I will find out what it means when you do it.  I am hoping that you will "AR" me, just because that's my only chance of finding out what you mean by the term. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are not paying attention, and I am not going to be holding your hand and teaching you how to. See my previous comment which refers you to my previous comment before that in which you will read, comprehend and understand what I stated will be happening next. I will no longer placate to your ignorance. Srobak (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to keep your warning template on my talk page, but it can be disruptive for users who use automated edit-checking systems to look at recent edits, so I'm removing it, and acknowledge that I have seen it. It's better to avoid using templates for regular users, who can be expected to know the rules.  You said some minutes ago that you were filing a harassment complaint against me, but you have not yet done so.  Do you need any assistance? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Users who would see the warning via automated edit-checks or otherwise would benefit from having seen it, and not been disrupted. If a user - regular or otherwise - would like to avoid being templated, they should "know the rules" and conduct themselves in a manner which would ensure they would not get templated. The "regularity" of a user has no standing of policy and guideline violation. A "regular" user is just as capable of breaking the rules which they ought to know just as easily as any other user. See WP:TTR for a more thorough explanation of why it is appropriate to template regular users. Yes, I did say I would be lodging a harassment complaint against you, and yes I will be doing so. However - you impatience has once again shone through by expecting it to already be completed at your behest.  Had I not had to be already dealing with your misunderstandings and harassment veiled as inappropriate "warnings", I might actually already be done with it, now wouldn't I?   Understand that I will do it when I am damn well good and ready.  Maybe it will be after the one for Neogeolegend - maybe it will be before... but it will be when I decide - not when you demand, expect or whatever else... got it?  Finally - as you are not able to provide assistance to people - it would be best if you not make such offers. Srobak (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Take your time. I had lingered online because you indicated that you would be lodging a complaint immediately, but that was over an hour ago.  Now that I know you didn't really mean that you were lodging it immediately, I'll go shower, have some breakfast, see if there's an episode of Colbert on the DVR, read a book - I got a Jules Feiffer collection for Christmas that's rocking my world- make some chili for lunch, have sex with my smokin' hot girlfriend, watch the NFL playoff game (go Bengals!), and then read another book.  I'll check in before I go to bed, if it isn't too late, or in the morning, and see what discussion has happened- I trust the various admins who hang out at WP:ANI to find the comments you've removed from your talk page and the several places we've communicated with each other, and to have a useful conversation that will result in a reasonable consensus, so I'll waive my right to response in favor of my desire to have a nice Saturday. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a real problem with the comprehension of what you read. I never stated immediately, and once again you are demonstrating this bizarre expectation of people to do things according to your schedule.  You must get that in check.  It is impossible to interact with someone who cannot wrap their head around such base concepts as these.  As for the rest of your post... see WP:NOTFORUM.  Srobak (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You have exhausted my patience
Your lunacy will no longer be tolerated. Understand the following:
 * Your conduct and interaction with me constitutes WP:HARASSMENT. You are being ANI'ed for it. This is your notice.
 * You will not post to my talk page any further as you are incapable of acting impartially.
 * Your edit here does in fact change the threading and meaning of comments and how other users will read it, despite your claim to the contrary here. Understand that it is MY comment, which I posted where I intended it to be for proper threading and readability by users. It was not an accident as you claim here.  The placement of my comment was intentional, by design and was not accidental.  You do not get to determine if my actions are by intent or accident. That is my decision - not yours.  If you do not like my comments where I put them - then delete them.  Re-threading them is bad practice - but then again - responding to yourself in the first place here is as well, so it seems you are on a roll.
 * My templating for a self-revert which you reverted here was not in response to any grammar issue. Once again - you insist on telling me why I did what I did, without bothering to pay attention to reality.  The warning for self-revert was for (drumroll....) an actual self-revert conducted here. This user has a history of doing such to simply get something controversial "on record".
 * You have failed completely at "avoiding drama", and instead have caused leagues of it. See my first comment posted to your talk page earlier today.  In it - you will find all that you need to know.  Good day. Srobak (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to your bullet points: (1) Yes, that's fine. You said you were going to do that several days ago, I think- I still haven't worked out what "AR" means- so I've been waiting for you to open a discussion somewhere.  If the consensus is that your edits are appropriate and mine are inappropriate, I will make whatever adjustments are recommended by the community.   (2) I thought it must be accidental, but it is not a 'refactoring' of your comments to put my comment in its chronological order on my talk page.  (3) I see that now; thank you for the link.  Since I had already removed your template, when you reverted me, I assumed you were looking at the same edit again, rather than a different one.  The edit you now indicate is also not an 'editing test,' so the template is still not appropriate, and it is still  not a good idea to use template warnings if those templates will not clearly communicate to another editor what the problem is with his edits. (4) There's no drama here.  This is just me, warning you, and you, insisting that what you are doing is not problematic.  I hope you'll change your mind about that, because, just as I'd always rather keep an article than delete it, I'd much rather see you interacting appropriately and politely with other users than see you blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Srobak
FYI, I've reviewed Srobak's recent contribution history and have blocked indefinitely for completely unacceptable behavior. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Hope your Saturday goes as nicely as planned - I've got shopping and cleaning to do :-( -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PPS: If you do ever get "AR'ed for the full 9", please do let us know what it is -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just looking in after a nice walk in the sunshine. I can't say I'm surprised; a user who doesn't understand civility won't be able to follow the rules about it.  But I do regret it; it's clear that his actual edits to the encyclopedia have been useful, despite his difficulty in communicating with others.  I hate to lose a useful contributor, but I agree that we really can't let someone disrupt the project in this way.  I'm going to try to keep an eye on User:Neogeolegend as well, and see if I can't, over time, deal with that situation a little more effectively than User:Srobak did. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I've tried to make it clear to Srobak that I'd like to see him unblocked and back to making good contributions - I hope he will take the time to reflect a little on the way of civility -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was some good lulz Egg   Centri  c  17:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And FYI - Sockpuppet investigations/Srobak -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that makes me sad. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

For keeping your head, when all those around you failed to keep theirs...

 * I have not seen that before; I think it is my favorite "award" now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Fahad Khamees That's a nice picture; thank you for donating it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC) ....Thank you mate very vey much for the messeage..--Neogeolegend (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for you!!

 * You've met, I can see on your talk page, some really unpleasant people. I think you're a person who has knowledge that can help the encyclopedia, and who is trying to help even though English isn't your native language.  I respect that, and I'm going to try to look in on you from time to time, helping you understand the rules and trying to help with the English issues.  And I'm going to do that without putting template warnings that are unclear and hard to understand on your talk page.  However, if you decide that writing in English is too difficult for you to do well, there are Wikipedias in almost every language, and I'm sure the Wikipedia in your native language would also be happy to have your help.  Am I right in guessing that your first language is Arabic?  If so, I can't read a word of http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/الصفحة_الرئيسية, but you might find it interesting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks
Thanks again!! I appreciate your support. As you said I can't understand block warnings templates! they annoying me and talking to me like a robot which makes me confused and lost.--Neogeolegend (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

i need your help!
I am blocked in commons due to my lack experience at beginning of using Wikimedia commons image uploading. Now it has been months since the blockage! even I can't talk to them. I just want you to inform anyone there to unblock me please because I know the policy now. Thanks In advance. --Neogeolegend (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know much of anything about Wikimedia commons, I'm afraid; Wikipedia is my only site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my God!!
I'm afraid; Wikipedia is my only site!! Oh my God!! You are very kind & polite, I didn't mean to frighten you!! anyhow you still the best here. I respect that comment.. see you around. --Neogeolegend (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "I'm afraid" is colloquial English for "I'm sorry" or "I regret." It doesn't mean I feel fear about Wikipedia Commons. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do kind of fear Commons, but in a general uneasy way not in an "AAAAAH ZOMBIES" way. :) Syrthiss (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You Are Useless on Wikipedia
You forgot to add a message to this header, User:94.197.153.179. Let me know if you need help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved from top of page
Jan 2012. I received your message about external links for continuing medical education page. Our external link is the same as many of the links already listed. For example MER has a link and they are a non profit cme company, same as us. Is it okay to add the link back? bejnes Bejnes (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may not use Wikipedia to advertise your web site. If your web site really is the best, most reliable source of information available on a subject, then other users will cite it when the use information from it.  Please see WP:SPAM for more information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I"m sorry to be a pain but every other external link on this site leads to cme provider websites, same as ours. Why are their links okay but not ours.  We are a non profit provider.  I appreciate your insight on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bejnes (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that there really isn't any way for you to correctly add links to your own web site to Wikipedia. If you think you've found links at Wikipedia that are violations of the external link guidelines, the most helpful thing for you to do is to remove them, not to add additional inappropriate links.  Please feel free to remove any inappropriate links that you find.  If your main goal is helping to write an encyclopedia, there's lots of useful things for you to do.  But if your main goal is promoting your web site, that simply isn't what Wikipedia is for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Request Assistance
FisherQueen, over 2-years ago your patience and compassion encouraged me to "not give up" as a newcomer (my first edit – October 13, 2009 / and due to you, I have never been "blocked"). Since that time I have tried to educate myself about Wikipedia Policy/Guideline and have honestly ("good faith" – stewardship) tried to comply with such.

SOURCE – October 14, 2009 (FisherQueen's encouragement to the newcomer "Skyeking")

SOURCE – October 13-14, 2009 (FisherQueen's guidance and compassion)

Regarding this VHEMT Article, during the 27-months following my "first" article edit, I have collaborated ("good faith" - stewardship) with numerous Editors to finally develop an "easy-to-understand" and comprehensive article.

Once again, I may not understand about Wikipedia Policy/Guideline – hence, my asking for your assistance. My request for "Administrator Assistance" is located here.


 * -*-Skyeking's viewpoint is that Mark Arsten's "draft" was a wholesale revision of the entire "original" version (December 10, 2011).


 * -*-In turn, Mark Arsten's viewpoint is that Skyeking's revision back to the original version is a wholesale revision.

FisherQueen you being a teacher, then you know, "one word" can change the meaning (or intent) of a single sentence. The original version (December 10, 2011) had been "slowly" (27-months) developed word-by-word, by numerous primary Editors.

Mark Arsten's complete overwrite of the "original" version could easily be construed as a form of vandalism – that is not to say that Arsten not acting in "good faith" – yet, there are numerous "one-word" errors (intent???), omission of primary information and website links, a major change to the article's format, prejudicial content (slanted wording), and so on.

Please be aware that Wikipedia's VHEMT Article is highly controversial – therefore, said article is a “target” of vandalism (overt and covert).

FisherQueen, your assistance is truly appreciated.

Wiki Regards, Skyeking (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume that these are the two versions of the article you are referring to? This is a content disagreement, not vandalism- admins step in when rules are being broken, but we don't have the ability to referee in content disagreements.  It's within the rules for other people to revise an article, too- that's part of Wikipedia, even though it can sometimes be really, really irritating.  I suggest that you, rather than demanding the full reversion to the older version, start discussing one specific thing that you think is factually incorrect or a violation of WP:NPOV.  I'm afraid I don't really see what is wrong with the rewrite; there are several places where it seems to be an improvement in writing style and coverage, so why not just fix the things about it that are errors, by discussing those needed corrections with the others who are working on that article?  No matter how hard we've worked, no one owns a Wikipedia article.  I have articles I did major work on that now have very little of my writing in them, too- Grand Guignol, for example. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Straight Pride
Hi. I noticed that the talk page for Straight Pride had been deleted by you. Was there some on-going deletion discussion? The notice associated with the deletion indicates that it's a talk page for a deleted article. TreacherousWays (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The talk page apparently was deleted a long time ago, before the article was re-created. Calabe1992 18:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are four deletions listed; if the article was restored, why wasn't the talk page? Shouldn't there be at least some explanation or re-direct to AfD discussion? TreacherousWays (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone created a new page with the same name. None of the old stuff was restored, so the talk page remains deleted with the old stuff. Calabe1992 18:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. The heated comments in the edits section made me wonder. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Deleted July 2007, new version created August 2011.  It looks to me like the content and sources of this new article aren't that different than those discussed at Articles for deletion/Straight pride (2nd nomination) before the article was deleted... if anyone wants to nominate this for deletion a third time and make sure of it, I think that would be reasonable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Thank you for removing the deletion template. Petersontinam (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I also left a message on the anon's talk page. He's welcome to start a second discussion if he wants to, but not just by putting up a template that points to the closed deletion discussion from January 7! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that they have the right to start a discussion on deletion and the right to believe it should be deleted. It just freaked me out that anyone could, without a nomination reason, tag the article again. I'm too new here to understand some of the why's and wherefore's. Petersontinam (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's reasonable arguments on both sides. My personal opinion with these situations is, go with whatever the current consensus is, and wait a year.  If, a year later, people are still writing about the subject, then it's truly notable.  If all of the sources are still from the week of his death, then WP:NOTNEWS applies and the article should be deleted.  Only time can tell if the person has enduring notability by Wikipedia's definition or not.  None of that, of course, reflects in any way on the person himself.  It's possible to be a very admirable person, but not the subject of a Wikipedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, after such a dramatic deletion discussion the first time around...I would hope that the article gets more than 2 weeks to prove it's notablility. Too bad there isn't a "protection period" of at least 3 months as an actual policy. There is so much to do here, and fighting over the same article over and over sure does take time away from other tasks. If a deletion discussion happened again in the very near future, it would not be a bit different than what has already taken place. Just a terrible waste of time for everyone. Either way, thank you for removing the template due to the fact that the user did not use policy to initiate it. Petersontinam (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Hi,I have made ​​some changes to the page Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore..and English is not my first language....so I wanted to ask if you can check for grammatical errors.thanks--Cormeo (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

hi
Good Morning !! and thanks for the pleasant blockage !!..you may like this article here Big Ben Aden.. --Neogeolegend (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Global Warming Controversy
Given that Harassment and blocking is one of the complaints, you might be interested in Requests for mediation/Global Warming Controversy. Or then again, you might well not William M. Connolley (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear FisherQueen,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify
Excuse me, but the point on ANI was about the personal attack of another editor; exactly why is it that people are discussing punishment for me? Have a good explanation ready. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may poke my nose in here: Ankitbhatt, when you post on a noticeboard, other editors are not required to address only the issue you want addressed, if they think there's another issue at hand. In this case, while the other editor used some rude words, it became obvious that you were misunderstanding Wikipedia policy, and when people told you that you became angry. The editors who handled that thread on ANI handled both of those issues. They warned The Yeti to not be rude, and they warned you that your policy argument was wrong and you appeared to be becoming very aggressive in demanding other editors do what you wished, even if it was wrong. No one will be blocked from this episode, as long as both you and The Yeti modify your behavior the way it was recommended for you to, so the matter is settled. Continuing to leave angry-sounding messages like this for users who commented in the ANI thread is counter-productive. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is still no clarity on that issue yet, and the examples being cited are wrong for a reason. I have seen the example of news embargo, but this is a different case; however, since everybody will be delighted to discuss my blocking opportunities at any sort of matter, I want the other editors to first post as to why I am wrong. If I can be clarified, then I will automatically step out of this; much as many people (including you) think me as a good-for-nothing troll, I have much more useful work to do especially on some important peer reviews. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah its clarified, thanks anyway. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How to determine if an IP is blocked
Hi, you mentioned that you could not find a block on. The way to tell if an IP is rangeblocked is to go to Special:BlockList and enter the IP address in the search bar. You can see the rangeblock for the above IP here. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic
You are awesome as always ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 22:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)