User talk:Indyfitz

Hello, Indy, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. -- Logotu 18:17, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

Nummies
WP:DFTT Please. . Thanks --Justanother 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Brutarian, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Change of redirect
I've changed the redirect on your userpage- using a redirect there makes it difficult for people to use your userpage to communicate with you, because it redirects them to an article about you, which is kind of confusing. I changed it to a statement that still links to the article, but leaves people who click on your username the option of sticking around to leave you a message on your talk page if they want to, so you don't get cut off from communications. Please feel free to let me know if you need any other help. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way
I think that the two articles you are working on probably are about notable subjects, but in my searching, I haven't yet found the reliable sources that we'll need to satisfy the Wikipedia requirements. I'm hoping that, being more familiar with this magazine than I am, you'll be familiar with some significant writing about the magazine and the person that you can cite, so that we can bring these articles up to Wikipedia's requirements. Let me know if you need any help with that; I'd be glad to be of assistance. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The thing is, there isn't much online to cite--and simply finding things online doesn't always make it proof of notability. Through my former association with Brutarian, I know all of this firsthand. I suppose I could put up a page on my Web site about Brutarian, and then cite that, but that gets to be a little silly! I could also cite the former Brutarian Web site, available in the archives at the Wayback Machine, but again, much of this is firsthand knowledge. How do you cite firsthand knowledge? And why does it appearing on a Web site make it notable, but firsthand knowledge is not? Neither can be confirmed, I suppose. It's a quandary, one that Wikipedia battles every day to the point of silliness. It's like my friend says about getting a legal ID: You need ID to get ID. You need a SS card to get a driver's license, or a birth certificate to get a SS card, or a license to get a birth certificate, and so on. But sooner or later, SOMEONE just HAS to take your word for it. --Indy 11:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be online; we can also cite newspapers, books, etcetera, using the same forms you would for offline research. And just appearing on a web site doesn't cut it; it needs to be written about in detail by a source we can trust to be accurate.  But if there aren't any sources at all, that's when the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria- Wikipedia only publishes information that is available in secondary sources, but it isn't meant to be the first place that information is published.  That's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that's what encyclopedias do.  If you're writing about firsthand knowledge, not information that has been published in reliable sources, then you should seek to publish it somewhere else first- Wikipedia has a core principle which says that we don't publish original research. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Heheheh... funny thing was, I was just randomly reading an entry on a video game called Peggle. The entry rambled on with every single detail of the game. Hardly encyclopedic--but of course meets all the requirements, since someone published it somewhere else. Yet it seems a bit, I don't know, frivolous and overrun for something like a video game. So how does one decide that an online source is something that can be trusted to be accurate? Having contributed to Brutarian once upon a time, and having a deep first-hand knowledge of it and its editor/publisher, one would assume that I am in fact qualified to, say, put up a Web page somewhere just to justify it then appearing on Wikipedia--just as the Peggle people are considered a trustworthy source for posting everything about their game on their Web site. It gets confusing and perhaps a bit frustrating. I understand the point and the principles, but jeez. --Indy 13:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The guidelines on which sources are considered reliable are here. If you found another article that doesn't meet those guidelines and want to help improve it, that's awesome- I haven't gotten around to every one of the million and a half articles on Wikipedia yet myself, and even with lots of volunteers helping, there are still articles that frankly need either a lot of work, or deleting.  Once you're familiar with the guidelines, you can help improve it or nominate it for deletion, whichever it needs. All those guidelines can be a little labyrinthine, but they're what keeps Wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia, and keeps it from turning into MySpace. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David M. Fitzpatrick
I have nominated David M. Fitzpatrick, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/David M. Fitzpatrick. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. fschoenm (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Dominick J. Salemi
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dominick J. Salemi, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dominick J. Salemi seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dominick J. Salemi, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brutarian
An editor has nominated Brutarian, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Fisher Engineering
A tag has been placed on Fisher Engineering requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Shrimp fishery
Would you please explain to me the eccentric edit you made to Shrimp fishery. Your edit summary said you "fixed vandalism". It looks like you perpetrated it to me! --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a line appearing as the result of some kind of tag at the beginning of the article. The tag was surrounded by and the text being displayed was a random sentence that was uncited, uncapitalized, completely confusing, and had nothing to do with the article. Perhaps I should have copied the bizarre text and pasted it in, but it didn't occur to me. I would suggest you not make accusations of vandalism without verifying your claim first. Try asking politely first.Indy (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On further reflection, let me clarify things. First, I regret not having copied and pasted the strange sentence. But it appeared under the article header but before the beginning of the article. It referenced the term fishery, misspelled "fishry," and made some weird statement about a specific individual apparently losing a bet. When editing the page, the line was not there; it appeared to be called by the tag in the template tags, which I unfortunately cannot remember. However, make no mistake: there was no way in hell this line belonged in this article: uncited, nonsensical, confusing, and a disaster of formatting, capitalization, etc. Clearly, I removed it. I did not vandalize anything. All that being said, after reviewing the history, I see that you were the last person to make changes to the article before I removed that tag. Was this tag supposed to call something, but called the wrong thing? I don't know, since I don't see it in the history. Anyway, it was a legitimate change; maybe not vandalism, maybe some strange thing amiss, calling the wrong template, or maybe a template was replaced with this text. I have no idea. But the sentence that appeared there clearly didn't belong! If something like that happens again, I'll copy, paste, include a screenshot, write my congressional representatives, run a correction in the newspaper, have a document notarized, etc.Indy (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think it's the "fishery topics" tag (which I can't tag here, or it displays it, naturally)... I don't think that was there, and I don't think when I viewed the article the table was there. I think the "fishery topics" said something else, a single word, and was responsible for the bizarre sentence that appeared. I tried variations of the word "fishery" as a template in the sandbox, but couldn't reproduce the line that came up. Is it possible a template was played with? I'm in the dark. But I didn't vandalize anything.Indy (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey... relax... it's my fault and I apologize. It's not your problem at all. I'd forgotten that someone earlier had vandalised that template which is embedded in 17 articles. That was the problem and you were trying to fix it. So thank you. It bamboozled me too to begin with (feel free to delete this exchange if you want to!) --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Heheh, no, let's leave it. It's a good reminder to anyone how easy it is for confusion to breed more confusion. In retrospect, I should at least have copied the line and pasted it, since I didn't even understand what was causing it. All's well that ends well. I just looked at the template, and aha! That's it! The line I was talking about! So I'm not insane! :-) Ah, all's well that ends well.Indy (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. When you recently edited Paucidentomys vermidax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)