Not sure if there's a context that I'm missing here, or if you used a template in error, but isn't this "your request to be blocked" template just asking for bewildered or timewasting "I did not request this" unblock requests in response? --McGeddon (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
No, because I only use it for people who are sincerely requesting a block- people who are clearly vandalizing in full knowledge that they will be blocked for doing so. I've used it from time to time for years, and have never seen anyone confused by it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Permiso para la utilización de los siguientes logos o imágenes en artículo de wikipedia en español
Permiso de utilización de este logo para un artículo de wikipedia
Hola, mira, revisé esta imagen que subiste a wikipedia en inglés, y quisiera saber podría conseguir autorización para permitirme utilizar esta imagen en el artículode wikipedia de IndyCar Seires en español, gracias, la imagen es esta:
I'm sorry, but you aren't writing in a language I understand. I can read English, and a little Esperanto. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
They are asking whether certain commercial logos used in the English Wikipedia are available for use in the Spanish Wikipedia. This is entirely up to the copyright policies of the Spanish Wikipedia. The images in this list are not owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, but by a commercial enterprise. They are used here thanks to a claim of fair use under US law. User:Shinobilanterncorps may want to consult the policy page of the Spanish Wikipedia at es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia: 30% teenaged hoodlums, 30% spammers, 30% nitpickers and rule-enforcers like me, and 10 people who actually write the encyclopedia. Here's to the writers! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I think they're likely already toasting themselves, but I'll clink a glass in their honour as well. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Now how am I not being neutral, when "Shemale" and "bad tranny" are Savage's own words, while in the first link above Savage is in a video (plus a written interview quote) where he openly goes after Bisexuals for not being real? Kate Dee (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you help me understand how to help you? I would like to help you become a useful member of Wikipedia, but if you really don't understand how verified facts are different from your analysis of those facts, or how statements of fact are different than statements of opinion, I'm not sure what I can do for you. If you want to spread the word about what a very bad person Dan Savage is, then you'll need to choose the same sort of outlet that the writers of your sources have chosen- opinion articles. Wikipedia is only an encyclopedia, and can only use facts. I've said that to you already in two different places; did the way I said it this third time help at all? I don't like to see you blocked, when you could be a useful part of Wikipedia's editing team. "Dan Savage is a transphobe" is not a fact. Even "Michelle Bachman is a transphobe" is not a statement that would be likely to be added to a Wikipedia article. They are value judgements, not facts. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Let me put it straight to you then, Fish: What I have put into there is FACT. It isn't OPINION, as even Dan Savage has admitted that he said these things, while they are directly sourced from his work. If you think I have written it in a wrong way fine, change the wording then. The sources I have cited however are accurate. As long as they stay, I'll stop editing those articles. Kate Dee (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You do not understand the rules, and I would be sorry about that. But now that you have attacked me personally, I am no longer interested in helping you. Sink or swim; I stopped caring the second you called me 'transphobic' for trying to help you follow the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I see someone called "LBHS cheerleader" has done bad things on Wikipedia, and as an LBHS cheerleader myself, I can say it was not one of us. I think what she did was stupid and I'm sorry that you had to deal with it? While I can't say for sure she wasn't one of us in the past, I think it make me and my friends look stupid to have someone named LBHS cheerleader banned on Wikipedia. Is there a way you can change her name on here to something else, or at least put on her page that LBHS cheerleader doen't cheer at Lemon Bay? CheerPrincessAshley (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
FisherQueen, I have blocked the above account as a sockpuppet, please unblock if you feel I have erred. Eagles24/7(C) 23:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
As a side note to my last post, let me just say I am glad to see you back and beating me to declining unblock requests with your usual (and maybe my usual, too :-)), uh, aplomb. I had seen you hadn't edited much over the summer and not at all since September, so I had feared you had burned out and left. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I took a little break, and I probably won't be on here All The Damn Time like I once was. I'm trying to approach it more as a public service volunteership, and less as a wise way to spend all my spare time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Help Me
--Persianlime (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)== Help Me ==
Hello, and thanks for the guidance. I noticed this page was slanted with an anti-Maaco bias yesterday and contained negative opinions originally posted in September. I have tried to undo the negative edits and place it in a more neutral language. I have left a talk page for the other editor as well. This is new to me so I appreciate the input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianlime (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me that you are both edit-warring with bias, he with an anti-Maaco bias, you with a pro-Maaco bias. I hope you can work together on a purely factual version, rather than flipping back and forth between two biased versions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I tried to do " more neutral" with my last edit, which he just revised back to the original "Maaco's reputation is low pricing and questionable quality". Also has taken a stub of a quote and drastically altered the speaker's intention. He has not responded to my talk page to him. Other than continuing to undo - what next? How is agreement usually reached? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianlime (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
When discussion between two people breaks down, getting a third opinion can sometimes be helpful. I've used that option before. WP:DISPUTE has a list of lots of things to try for resolving content disagreements. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That will be my next move, if needed. I just edited to remove the disputed sentences (pro and anti- bias) entirely in the hope of gaining neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianlime (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry- tried to "sign" and somehow collaped this conversation into previous. My fault, blame the newbie.--Persianlime (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
New template?
We really should have "because your account is being used for attempts at password-hacking that would embarrass a Nigerian scammer" :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
There are so many templates we need and don't have. I really want to make a "You are blocked because you have no useful skills" template, also. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that would be nice, and it's so much more polite than some of the ones I'd like -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor
For this incredible post. Calabe1992 01:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes, I wish I were a nicer person. Oh, well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Mostly, people who are deeply invested in a fringe POV aren't able to reason their way back to reality- it's a known bug in the human brain. But it never hurts to try. I didn't bother to continue engaging, and I'm really not sure what he means by 'indiginous' - human beings aren't 'indiginous' to anywhere but Ethiopia, on the long time scales he's thinking of. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
One day your approach might just work on an editor. That would be a good day. I don't understand anything about how editors like that see the world nowadays when they have information at their fingertips. Puzzling. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd be willing to bet that his social and family life is so invested in this point of view that to open himself to another way of looking at the world would be to risk disrupting his life in dramatically awful ways. There are certainly dark times, even now, when I think I'd be willing to trade my hard-won knowledge for the certainty of fundamentalism, and the complete sense of belonging I once felt in my family and church. But you can't decide to unknow things, and ultimately, I think the price I've paid for my mental freedom is worth it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I'm fortunate in never having been schooled in any dogmatic system of belief, and one of my most liberating moments was when I fully understood the release that accepting "I don't know" as an answer to life's hardest questions can bring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that it would be possible to even explain how it feels to understand for the first time that no one is listening to your thoughts and judging them; that you are entirely alone in your own head, free to think anything at all in complete privacy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Can't put it into words, no, but it was possibly the most valuable understanding in my life - that there is no celestial North Korea out there (as a far better writer than I once said) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Scizophrenia
I really have no wish to appear antagonistic, but your recent edit on the userpage of a user who claims to be schizophrenic is not medically helpful. Sorry. schizophrenia can only be treated with specific pharmacoological agents, and even then cure is difficult. If this edfitor is indeed schizophrenic then suggesting non-pharmacological treatment is not to his advantage.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
?? I don't remember suggesting any treatment for schizophrenia at all. I suggested he should get a science tutor because his science knowledge is depressingly poor, but that doesn't have anything to do with his alleged schizophrenia. I do sort of assume that he doesn't have schizophrenia, because if he did, he would probably know what schizophrenia is, but I was under the impression that schizophrenia was more or less uncurable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I perhaps read more into your post than you intended to be there. Schizophrenia is containable, but not curable. although it usually burns out after some years. I do not believe, on the basis only of his postings, that this user has the condition. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Chaz
I think it is a bit of a jump to say it is hate speach. Chaz clearly is not a man, was born a woman, and. Claims to be a man, without having male sex organs. He/she/it never went through with the sex change surgery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariasanageles (talk • contribs) 18:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I assume you are not a native English speaker? In English, "it" is a pronoun that is only used for things.People get the pronouns "he" or "she," and in this case, as a person who identifies as a man, "he" is grammatically correct. "It" will be perceived as saying Bono is a thing, not a person, which is definitely going to be perceived as hate speech by English speakers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)
I'm not sure "it" qualifies as "hate speech" under the law, but there's no question it's insulting. The obvious solution is to say "Chaz", as there is no notable dispute about that designation. :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your creative block messages, and efforts on Wikipedia. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
So...
Why bother hating this Crab-eating Macaque? He has no real influence on my life.
...I looked in vain for your userbox confirming the allegations by the now-blocked user Justaman (or whatever it was). So, did I overlook something? Or was he making that up? :) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
A man who is deeply invested in the idea that men are superior to women finds it easy to believe that strong, independent women hate men. After all, they would hate anyone who treated them the way they expect women to submit to being treated. So it seems obvious to them that lesbians must hate men. I honestly don't think they can wrap their minds around the idea that many lesbians live in a world where men are of very little importance, and no more worth the energy of hating than, say, macaques. But for someone whose version of reason is the assumption that all Mormons participate in human sacrifice, all feminists hate men, and everyone who disagrees with them must be corrupt and evil, 'reason' is not going to be effective for communication. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I actually have a real problem with the doctrines of the Mormon church, which is hardly surprising for a lesbian atheist. I think a person could reasonably call me 'anti-Mormonism.' But I have a problem with the things that the Mormon church actually believes and does. A person who invents appalling crimes that Mormons must be guilty of, because they are such awful awful people? I think that User:Justamanhere is exactly what he claims not to be: not anti-Mormonism, but anti-Mormon. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, which clarify some things. I was trying to figure out how he thought you were both a man-hater and a Mormon, as the two philosophies do not seem compatible. On reflection, we might actually be giving the guy too much credit. He may well be nothing more than a garden variety troll. My observations square with your comments, namely that the average lesbian doesn't "hate" men, she simply doesn't think about them. Kind of like my attitude towards Manchester United or the Indian national cricket team. There are exceptions, of course. It was pretty obvious that Andrea Dworkin hated men. But she might have had good reason to. Another stereotype is that lesbians had bad relationships with their fathers, and that sent them off in the "wrong" direction. However, I've known lesbians who adored and idolized their fathers. So much for that stereotype. As regards Mormons and human sacrifice... well, weren't early Christians accused of cannibalism, in connection with consuming the "body and blood" of Jesus? That accusation proved to be exaggerated (as far as we know). ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a lesbian because men are terrible. I'm a lesbian because women are awesome. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
No argument there. :) Am I the only guy on the planet who finds Rosie O'Donnell attractive? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I liked it. Rosie in leather and bare shoulders. Nice. :) (Dana Delaney was hot too.) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
FQ, I am virtually certain that this user, with whom you have recently interacted in her unblock request, is a sock. I could be wrong, but see my last posting on the talk page. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
My private hypothesis is that this is some sort of PR thing, pimping up Wikipedia pages on commission. Could be one person or more than one. But the similarity in edit-styles while promoting multiple different companies is what leads me to think that. I'm certainly not going to unblock her when her previous edits were promotional and she hasn't engaged in any kind of discussion that would indicate she's interested in anything other than PR. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Could be: but cerainly unblock is a very bad idea.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
So I get a message saying, "A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam Granato is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted." Fine, except that no discussion is taking place. The article is gone. Why? Apparently because of G11, suggesting that the page was, "exclusively promotional." Er... the page was not exclusively promotional. Can I get a more detailed explanation of what happened here? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I nominated the article for deletion and started the discussion, and notified you of it, because I wasn't sure that Granato was a person who met Wikipedia's notability criteria. Not long afterward, a different admin looked at the article and decided that the rules allowed for the article to be immediately deleted as an exclusively promotional article since it was written like a campaign ad, full of sentences like "Frank Granato Importing Company has become a Utah legend and the state’s leading purveyor for authentic Italian and Mediterranean food, thanks to the Granatos’ strong work ethic and a belief that customer service is what matters most." If you think that Granato does meet the notability criteria, and you are willing to take on the job of rewriting it with a neutral point of view, it's possible to have the article undeleted- it would be against the rules for me to just undelete it myself, but if you make a request at Deletion Review, you can get a discussion going which might well go in your favor. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The rockers and Mods are rivals ok.
Hello,thanks FisherQueen, but there are several historical(Exemple: http://www.retrowow.co.uk/retro_style/60s/mods_and_rockers.html) accounts of the rockers and the mods are rivals, the mods called the grasers, grease as an offense. the skinheads did not even have a relationship with the rockers. Please, I go to edit, to correct the "rockers". ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisehelp (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the subject to know whether you are correct or incorrect about the facts. The problem is that what you wrote was grammatically unclear- it made the sentence stop making sense. Is it possible for you to put the correct information into standard English, of the sort one might write in a school essay? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You mean you have never seen Quadrophenia (film)? Not the best movie ever but worth a watch. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I see you deleted it as "Recent redirect from implausible typo, link or misnomer". Here is a discussion which determines the hat is properly called a bycocket or bycoket, and the question "what type of hat is a Robin Hood hat" has just popped up on the ref desks again. It's also a red link in Index_of_fashion_topics#R. Shall I recreate the page and have it redirect to bycoket? Card Zero (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The article that I deleted was a simple redirect to RuneScape, which appeared to me to be nonsense. I have no objection to an article about the hat existing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
