When you want to read a lecture to a Balkan user or to enforce a rule, please remember that how you perceive a question depends in a large measure upon how it concerns you. The farther away you are, the less it matters; the closer, the more. What is to you an academic trifle is to people from ex-Yugoslavia a question charged through and through with emotion. Many of them saw the war with their own eyes and some of them lost family and neighbors to it -- if not to this one, then to the last one. Please remember that when you confront them. --VKokielov (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
And as to the rules...It is an old delusion in the West that an equitable law can exist. It cannot; if I want to kill you and you want to live, then the law which keeps me from killing you is a dam: by and by I'll find a way to go around it and kill you anyway. The only thing which may stop me from killing you is if I stop wanting to kill you. It's the same here. You will not convince the nationalists to stop fighting unless you can show them that what is in their heart is also in yours; that you want to understand them, rather than show them where you know better than they and send them off. --VKokielov (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what, specifically, you're referring to. In general, war is a terrible, terrible thing, and no one is allowed to fight them on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Since you too are involved in the jobxavier issue, I’d posted some evidences at Akradecki’s talk page. Thanks. --GoogleanResults 08:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have one too. Can you look at my proposal here, and comment either there or privately to me as you deem appropriate?—Kww(talk) 02:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Generous. But if is her first time trying the sockpuppet game, a second chance might be effective. Of course, you'll need a checkuser willing to do the follow-up check... I ain't a checkuser, and that's okay with me, as I lack technical chops. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
can I improve your "this user misses jeffpw" userbox template? 75.166.82.125 (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure; if I don't like it, I'll just change it back. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Just thought i'd ask, didn't wanna get blocked.By the way this is JJCoolD, just forgot to log in when I asked you. JJCoolD 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Is he the tall one or the short one?JJCoolD 23:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
In the wedding picture? Jeff is the short one; the tall one is his husband, Isaac. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
did it work? I dont know if its just my computer, or if it actually doesn't workJJCoolD 23:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it did work. I like it; I think I'll leave your change there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If you get tired of being my go-to admin on this'un, please don't hesitate to tell me. Thanks for all your help. Precious Roy (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind so far; I'm still moderately amused by her. It's sad, of course, but funny for me. I confess that I'm kind of curious about her as a person; I wish I could meet her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Deletion logs are the record of when an article has been deleted; I don't know what you mean by 'lift' in this context. Please don't create any more articles on this subject; Wikipedia is not a forum for advertising. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok.
I don't write that content of advertising
If could you allow me, I want to attach different and new content on Miles&Smiles
Before you consider it, make sure that you aren't employed by that company, and that the company meets the notability criteria. Also, make sure that you aren't copying content from anywhere else. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Terribly sorry to bother you, ma'am, but I think AllPurposeCultural may be another sock of our good friend. This edit contributed positively to the article, but restored a bit of fan opinion which previous FoJ socks insisted upon including.Mr T (Based) (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I see your point, but I'm not 100% sure yet. Perhaps a checkuser, or a few days of observing her edits? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that edit was actually a reversion to an older version of the article. Should have spotted that (non-working images etc). I take it it is FoJ again?Mr T (Based) (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The reason why I only made one good edit is because I (other than my game with EVula) was preparing my talk page. I just hadn't gotten ready to edit yet. Please unblock me. --User:WeezleBeezle (talk)/64.107.78.194 (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
You are blocked; please refrain from editing Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, would it be possible for you to look over the recent efforts by User:Sfan00_IMG, myself, There have been concerns
expressed that I am somewhat too efficient ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Upon release of his block, he immediately ran right back to Brenda Song and restored 99.99% of the contested edits.—Kww(talk) 13:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Re-blocked, for 48 hours this time. That is not okay. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've personally had it with him, but your mileage may vary. He reintroduced all the changes, I reverted and asked him to discuss it on talk. Reintroduced a lot of them today, and I reverted them because they were undiscussed. Feel free to comment on my behaviour as well, as I feel like I may be getting pretty close to a line.—Kww(talk) 13:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong. Fact tags are added on point s that need verification. That is Wikipedia policy. The points for refs have been laid down already on the talkpage(Archangel1 (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)).
Great- it sounds like you are ready to stop calling your fellow editors 'lazy' and ready to start adding the references yourself. I'm glad to hear it. I must have missed that when I was reading your comments at Talk:Special Boat Service. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Wake up WP:LGBT! It's time to kick in gear and get some things done!
Project News
Wake up!
I say this to myself as much as I say it to all of us. I work a lot by myself or with individual editors who spend time at Featured Article Candidates. It seems on November 5 a fog was lifted off my brain that helped me realize that we have massive potential in this project to get things done. Take this allegory, for instance: On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1980, my 10th-grade American history teacher started class by unfurling The New York Times. She pointed to its triple banner headline: “Reagan Easily Beats Carter; Republicans Gain in Congress; D’Amato and Dodd are Victors.” “Save this paper,” she told us. “This is the start of a whole new era.”Judith Warner from The New York Times
It definitely seems a start to a whole new era now. If planets align correctly to remind us that whatever advances we may have made in electing what appears to be an extraordinary president in the US, the moons that revolve around those planets also serve to illustrate it's not that simple. Florida, Arizona, and California all appear to have banned same sex marriage. As someone who was married in California and lives in Florida, this is particularly poignant. We seem to be at the juncture of two converging paths. If we maximize our efforts and take the right ones, we might just be able to affect some change for ourselves.
Though what we do is an interesting hobby for some, we have the power to make a difference. California's ballot initiative to ban gay marriage was a fierce fight. It's being challenged right now, but just look at how Wikipedia played a role in that: in October 2008, 360,238 people read its article. On November 5, an astounding 467,000 people read it. I commend the editors who work on that article—both those who support and oppose it. A look at the talk page shows a concerted effort to keep it civil and accurate.
What can we do?
How do you fight ignorance? With information. That's what Wikipedia is for. This project is overwhelming with 8,576 articles in its scope. We can continue to work piecemeal as we have in the past, or we can focus on goals. These are examples of areas we can concentrate on.
Current political events
LGBT Media and Literature
LGBT History
Sex and sexuality
Articles about political issues in the US and around the world that have been especially relevant within the past 5 years
Depictions of LGBT people and issues on television, film, newspapers, magazines
Topics about gay rights activism and the opposition to it
There are more than 8,000 articles to work on. Can we build a list of priorities? Can we build enough enthusiasm to work on these? What if we had editors who oversaw progress in these areas and reported to the talk page or in the newsletter? Surely someone here wants to report on the progress of sex articles.
Tony Perkins (irony) from the conservative Family Research Councilwas heartened by the recent passages of gay marriage bans. The Republican Party is without direction. What's going to take the place of a moderate voice will not be pleasant to our ears. Watching and improving articles of subjects that have opposed gay rights in the past will be of vital importance very soon, I predict.
But WP:LGBT is not a very active project
All we can do is start somewhere. The first step is answering this newsletter on the project talk page. Join in the discussion.
More things we can do
Give out more barnstars, and let each other know that what they're doing is valued.
Create a guide to stave off burnout, because editors in this project get burned out faster than others. There are many hills to climb.
Bring back the monthly collaboration project.
Participate in LGBT Peer reviews.
Get familiar with the characteristics of Good Articles and get our top priority articles to WP:GA.
Use the Newsletter, Moni3! You can suggest what to send out in the newsletter, too!
Offer research materials, copy editing, ideas, and support to your fellow editors.
Keep the project talk page informed of problems and discussions we should know about.
Proposal: Put Importance Levels on articles
If this was decided long before I was a member, maybe it's time to revisit it. Other WikiProjects, such as WP:Novels determine that some subjects have an importance category: Top, High, Mid, Low, or None (undetermined). If we decide that our most core articles, it might help to organize which articles to address first. Top importance, for example, would be Gay, Homosexual, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Sappho, Oscar Wilde, Stonewall riots, for example. High importance would be Homosexuality and psychology, Harvey Milk, Mattachine Society, Harry Hay, or Daughters of Bilitis, and so on. This can be a matter of discussion, or perhaps we could have someone in charge of determining these levels for all the articles we have tagged.
These are the editors I've seen working (and I know I'm forgetting a few). There's more of you out there I haven't seen. Some of you are new. We need all of you. Please help.
Miami, January 18, 1977 after the gay rights ordinance was passed: While Bryant and the others were creating the beginnings of the repeal effort, (gay activists) Basker, Campbell, Kunst, and the other (gay rights) ordinance supporters congratulated themselves on their success and then quickly disbanded... There was no organized recognition or celebration of the victory. As one activist remembered, "We just went home." They had little idea of the battle that was before them. - Fred Fejes in Gay Rights and Moral Panic, 2008
Don't go home yet, please. --Moni3 (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)
#REDIRECT [[I’m gonna kill you, you transsexual faggot. Then I will eat your entrails and piss on your dead body.]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnortyShorty (talk • contribs)
#REDIRECT [[#REDIRECT [[I will have your heart fed to dogs and shat out for my amusement. I will then have your obsequious brain torn from your foul head so that I can use your empty skull as a piss pot.]]]]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsdfklkjsfdkjskfd (talk • contribs)
Well, I'm not a transsexual; it isn't clear if you know what that word means. And I'm not a faggot but a dyke. Your insults are, frankly, depressingly derivative of Kevin Smith in several places. Well done on the correct spelling of "obsequious." www.dictionary.com is a wonderful resource, isn't it? And you formatted one of the two redirects correctly, too! I give this vandalism a C-. May you do as well on your next junior high school essay. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
He didn't dodge his block; it was only for 24 hours, and has expired. But you can feel free to make a case for his indefinite blocking at WP:ANI; I don't feel able to block for this one edit, myself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I appologize, I thought it was still in effect. Never mind. --Tarage (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Pleased to see that you have taken heed of our warnings. Hoary and Jim have quickly taken care of protecting our article so it is now impossible for some local students to damage our campaign. Happy Christmas and don't forget, we’re open until 8.00pm every Thursday:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.125.54 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You are a local student screwing around. You're wasting your time, as you've learned- not a single one of the edits you were trying to make is still in place. Stop now, or stop later, when you've grown up a bit, but you'll accomplish nothing, and undoing your edits and blocking you takes almost no time or effort at all. There are millions of other editors to do it; we can take turns until you get bored. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
He's added his books to several articles. He's also the publisher [1] so I've removed the link and left what I hope is a friendly message (and a menu) on his talk page. dougweller (talk) 06:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Another day, another thousand self-promoters. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know why you reverted my edits to Talk:Drake Circus Shopping Centre and History of Plymouth. The talk page doesn't need a seperate archive box, as there is already one on the talk banner and can you really say that a shopping centre is of high importance to WPDevon? I also added a reference to the history of Plymouth with a reliable source, because it had innacuracies as discussed at Talk:Plymouth. Vittel Salt (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the things I'd miss out on if I didn't read your talk page, FQ. That's some amazing reverse psychology—acting like an overzealous marketing doof in an attempt to get the mall's website removed from its article. Bravo. And this bizarre situation has been going on for some time (removing the link, etc). I had no idea. Cheers! Precious Roy (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
maybe its the protection of kids from pedophiles such as hoary/webhamster that is all they are interested in58.136.58.218 (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/HanniMontLol looks like the clerks are waiting on an observing admin to act. Since I'm not an admin, I can't act. HanniMontLol's block needs extended to indefinite, as it is a sock of FortyFootEcho. As you can see from my comments in the case, I believe that Q8Love is deserving of the same fate.—Kww(talk) 12:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
How about Q8love?—Kww(talk) 12:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Right now the user is in a vicious circle - blocked for misbehaving, he trolls and socks and misbehaves more. I think Prepelos could be constructive if this cycle could be broken. Gimmetrow 13:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused: are you saying that Q8love should not be blocked, even though you believe the account to be a sock?—Kww(talk) 13:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
More or less. Some people thrive on being miserable of their own making. Quite a few established users are like that. Some sockmasters are like that, too (not all - some just like the attention and are not capable of getting that attention through positive contributions.) They feel abused, so they sock to troll and get back, leading to more blocks and reinforcing the feeling of being abused. If Prepelos could be convinced to just pick one account and stick with it, the cycle might be broken. Gimmetrow 13:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added the talk page to my watchlist; I'm poised to block at the very next inappropriate edit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to fade out like that ... my ISP lost its connection to Curacao, so I've been isolated from the outside world. I'll go along with this, but I would like to see Gimmetrow propose a real strategy for getting this editor to behave. We've got a serious socking problem in the Disney Channel areas ... there're days that I suspect there are only three or four editors working on that whole region. We need to get it under control somehow, and I'm not sure that just thinking positive thoughts about Prepelos will do it.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I added it to my watchlist rather than immediately blocking because I was hesitant to block on a 'possible' from Checkuser. I could be wrong, though, and if anyone else wants to go ahead and block, I have no real objection. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, these socks are not vandals. They make quite a few constructive edits, and they have learned some things. Their writing is better than it used to be, and they know something about WP:V - enough to provide links much of the time, and to remove badly-sourced text. They rarely troll. The problems are that they've been caught flickr-laundering before, and they revert back to old versions regularly, which is disruptive. Some of the latter is a response to getting caught for the former. I think they might respond to positive feedback, if only communication were easier, but since they make new accounts all the time, communicating with them is difficult. Gimmetrow 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"Not vandals" I can agree with, but I don't have much patience for edit-warring Flickr launderers, because that pretty much describes the chronic problem in the Disney Channel area: constant addition of improperly licensed images and trivia, combined with an inability to seek compromise.—Kww(talk) 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
...because so many of the editors in that area are under the age of 13? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely a major part of it. That's one of the reasons that I view my role in the area as partially educational, and try to explain to them what they are doing wrong and how to do it better. "Don't try to get your way by using multiple accounts" is one of the most important lessons in my book, and I'm generally in favor of being fairly harsh in getting that point across. That's why I'd like to see a plan. I'm all in favor of education, but that doesn't happen without a plan.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this! I've unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That was a confusing one; I initially declined because of that user's edits before I realized that they weren't vandalizing. Thanks for unblocking. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you receive my e-mail and choose not to respond? Or did it get lost somewhere? I won't take any offense if you chose not to respond, I just want to verify receipt.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't always remember to check my wikipedia email. I've gotten the message and responded to it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind putting a temp block on Stears81. You've blocked him once already and he has been vandalizing articles for the past 2 days.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I see more edit-warring than vandalism, though maybe I missed something. I did block for the edit-warring, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you mean to block Hblrhgfhgakfh,jdskf for a year or did you mean to block him indefinitely and just clicked the wrong length?--Ashbey…whisper… 21:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer in one-year blocks. This year's fifteen-year-old vandal may well be next year's sixteen-year-old useful contributor. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Good thinking :-) Cheers,--Ashbey…whisper… 21:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
But would you want to try and re-type that userid into the library computer again and again?? ►BMW◄ 12:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for welcoming me -- though I've been editing Wikipedia for some time without a user account. I'm wondering when my new account will be allowed to edit semi-protected articles?
BindingArbitration (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)BindingArbitration
I think it involves having at least four days and some specific number of edits. You should be able to edit the talk page, though, to explain what edit you think should be made; another user who's watching the article may well agree with you and jump in to make your desired edit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You will be able to when you are autoconfirmed. :) (10 edits/4 days for most people) —Ed17(Talk / Contribs) 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.[edit]
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear FisherQueen,
I hope that I am contacting you the correct way since I am a new contributor to Wikipedia. An article I recently wrote was deleted today but I think that it may have been deleted in error. The article in question was titled Marriage Privatization. There was no discussion of deletion and to my knowledge it was never marked for a speedy deletion. The article had been listed for only two days. Is it possible that this article was deleted in error along with another article that was titled Marriage Privatization Model? They were two different articles with similar names. If the Marriage Privatization article is to be deleted I would hope it would only happen after a fair debate and not because it has a similar name to a much shorter and different article marked for deletion. I accept that the Marriage Privatization Model was deleted as it was a very narrow article about one aspect of the larger topic. However, I would like to see Marriage Privatization restored as it was a larger comprehensive article. The article discussed the concept of Marriage privatization which has been treated by a substantial variety of writers from diverse backgrounds publishing in different public outlets for over a decade; Wikipedia otherwise makes little or no mention of the topic. Thank you in advance for your help!
Regards, Hermesmessage (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Hermesmessage
Yes, when the deletion discussion closed, I deleted the other article, which was created by the same person for the same reasons and seemed to be about the same subject and have the same problems discussed in the deletion discussion. Of course, I could be wrong, and you are welcome to appeal the deletion at deletion review. However, I notice that this subject appears to be your only interest at Wikipedia. My respectful suggestion is that, if you are Lawrence Torcello, you should focus your energy at Wikipedia in writing about subjects you aren't directly connected to, and trust that, if your ideas are truly of international significance, others will inevitably read about them in reliable sources and write about them in the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear FisherQueen, Before I engage in the review process I would appreciate it if you would take a second to look at the article you deleted. I was part of the review discussion for the first article. The reason the first article was considered for deletion, according to the discussion, was because it was on a potentially non-notable neo-logism. In response to the objections raised in the deletion discussion, and in good faith with the critique, I wrote an expanded article to correct any problems. The new article, the one you deleted without discussion, showed that this is indeed a notable topic and evidenced multiple reliable sources on the debate dating back to 1997. The original article was only one part of the larger discussion that seemed a solid place to begin at the time, since it was referencing an article that appeared in a public policy journal. Subsequently, I showed that in addition to the discussion in the public policy journal I initially wrote about, the topic has been covered in the LA Times,Boston Globe, think tank position papers, Slate magazine, Capitalism Magazine, talk radio forums, etc. I provided reliable documentation for each. A number of the people I reference discussing the topic are the subject of Wiki pages in their own right (Alan Dershowitz, David Boaz,Wendy McElroy, Larry Elder, and Michael Kinsley). In addition, open speculation on my identity as a Wiki contributor amounts to an attempt at outing (WP: Outing), it is inappropriate, and by Wikipedia’s own standards, it is a form of harassment: Wikipedia: Harassment. It is certainly not an appropriate reason for deletion. As far as I can tell such speculation stems from the mistaken belief that my initial article was original research (Wikipedia:NOR). It was not, as I have repeatedly pointed out with additional documentation. Neither of the articles endorsed a position on the topic. In both cases the topic was neutrally introduced, and positions held on the topic were documented in multiple reliable resources. I can of course rewrite the article and leave Torcello or any of the other writers’ treating this topic out of it, but then it would be a less complete, less neutral entry. I have recently found out that another academic article has appeared on the topic just last month by Cass Sunstein (another notable writer), and I intended to include a discussion of it in the expanded article as soon as I looked at it myself. Finally, this is my first attempt to write a full article for Wikipedia, but that in no way indicates that this is my only interest at Wikipedia. Aside from being irrelevant, I would point out to you that every contributor must start somewhere. I have, however, made editorial contributions to Wikipedia in the past under a different user name. Finally, let me make clear that I understand why my initial, shorter entry on the “MPM” was deleted; I am not questioning the decision to delete my initial article. Regards, Hermesmessage (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Hermesmessage
Given the situation, I'd feel that I was acting against the AfD to undelete it; I think it would be better if you went through deletion review. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marriage Privatization. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hermesmessage (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are you being so sarcastic to Jorgito0246?
I am not saying i support that user i am just saying why so much rudeness to a user that made an unblock request?
--ICarly Tucson Arizona (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reporting yourself; I wouldn't have even realized you were using sockpuppet accounts again if you hadn't let me know. I see you still are having the same problem understanding the image use policy. I've blocked your duplicate account; we prefer that you only have one account at Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I really enjoy your sarcasm, honestly. You have a great sense of humor, which is, in my book, a great quality to posses as an administrator and a Wikipedian.
Cookies? After Thanksgiving, I feel like I don't want to eat anything for a week. :) I try to use my powers of sarcasm for good, and not for evil, usually. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
