I would like to delete OIC1998 and keep my original username Oguracluch.OIC1998 (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that account was blocked because the username rules don't allow us to use the name of a company as our username. Wikipedia has very firm rules against anything that might present the appearance of self-promotion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Really? That... is surprising to me. I still think a talk page shutdown is a good idea, as the discussion was going nowhere. But if he's already graduated from college, it's less likely that he'll ever have the skills he needs to edit here. Still, most people are able to learn, and one never knows. Maybe by the time protection expires he'll have found a new hobby. I've taken up roller skating recently. It's fun, physically active, and doesn't require good spelling. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully he'll find something. Either way, thanks for your help. Brian Powell (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Im an Information system major, not an English major. --4.248.62.253 (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice collaboration, and I think between us, we've got it about right. Some day, I might tell you about Dorothy, one of the loves of my life. I think you'd understand. Cheers, and goodnight. Rodhullandemu 02:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
We are awesome, you and I. We should be secret lovers. You don't happen to be a single, beautiful-in-a-slightly-butch-way redheaded Dutch woman, do you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
One out of five, sadly, but I'll work on the others. Rodhullandemu 15:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You protected the page before I could get the unblock request posted.
Todd Schoolcraft (SchoolcraftT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.62.253 (talk • contribs)
No. I protected the page because no further unblock requests are needed. No one was ever going to unblock you, no matter how many more requests saying the same thing again you made. Don't log out to avoid your block; doing that makes it less likely that you will ever be unblocked. And we wouldn't protect the talk page of someone who wasn't blocked, in general- people need to communicate with active editors. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
My mother once said "Don't putt off til tomarow what you can do today."
You said:
I've blocked the talk page for one month- less than I think is necessary, more than you asked for. At that time, you're welcome to request unblock by clearly explaining what you did wrong and how you'll edit differently in the future. Or you can choose to wait until you're sure you're ready to write for publication. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I accelerating thing along.
"I admit to copyright infringement, edit warring, sockpuppeting and WP: Own I'll bemore of an open-ended editor and respect other's opinions."
Yo'll be getting an e-mail from me with theese exact words in some form or another. if you read this before the e-mails get to you, ignore This is NOT an Unblock request. What I might do is copy the actual request to here and then you could past it to my Talk page to make this official, could it be done? JT
And I won't accept that request, because you're avoiding your block by continuing to edit, and because I still don'tsee you explaining what the copyright policy is- and I don't think you understand it. I'll remove any further communication I get here from a blocked user, who should not be editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I know I'm avoiding my block, but this is importaint that you know this.0 Blueboy96 lied when he that my images (specificly the ones for the article Mountain Parkway Byway) were copyrighted, I found out that the images in said article wern't copyrighted. Bmpowell and Ellen of the road were aslo in on it in my eye.
You've made crystal-clear what I was already pretty sure of- you have absolutely no understanding of what copyright is, even at a very basic level. All photographs are copyrighted automatically the instant they are taken, except when the photographer has specifically legally released them into the public domain. If you don't understand that, it means that you either have made no attempt to understand copyright policy, or are fundamentally unable to understand it. Now... and I mean this very, very seriously... go away. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I reverted an edit by this IP over a week ago, [2] which appeared to be vandalism with a flip edit summary. I found a thinly veiled personal attack by it on my talk page yesterday morning[3]. I am a US Marine who has worked in the firearms industry/law enforcement/US Military all of my adult life, I compared this as someone telling a PhD on here that they didn't even go to Community College. I took umbrage with this as it seemed libelous, and I read too much into it (it looked like he was calling me an airport rental cop who knew nothing about firearms, etc). I was having a bad day and lost it on the guy. I insulted him/used harsh language, albeit indirectly...through edit summaries. Was it the best course of action? No, and I admit I did wrong, but apparently I'm the only one on Wiki who has ever had a bad day and loses his temper, or at least admits to it. My self and this IP address went back and forth over this nonsense all day[4]. I had reliable third party sources to back my claim, this individual did not. I am a Glock Armorer and the company, itself stands by the higher number of models. It's also published in neutral third party sources. This user apparently only wants to count the number only models (17,18, 30, etc) and not count the numbered models followed by a letter (17L, 18C, 30SF, etc). The count of 37 has nothing to do with his fixation on DieHard2 and the non-existent Glock 7. I warned this individual to stop deleting sourced material.[5] He refused and kept deleting sources, acting snarky so he was blocked for vandalism, by another editor. Four minutes after he was blocked, this other user, Srwm4, showed up after an almost 3 year hiatus, and edits with the same pattern of behavior this other user was editing. Forgetting to sign his/her name, undoing my edits, obsessed with Die Hard 2, etc. This user did engage and use the talk pages and he had me feeling remorse for a second, but this was short-lived, when I realized he duped me. I don't believe Wiki's policy is to delete sourced material based on another editor's "feelings":[6] I did not revert back to the correct version, because I did not want this to escalate and this user appears to be this blocked IP Address in a weird sockpuppet account. He spent all day yesterday tossing around insults and putting threats on my talk page. He actually created a hitlist with my name and Baseball Bugs on it. I left some of this on my talk page because I got tired of deleting it. He was furious that I opened a sockpuppet investigaion on him and that more than anything else makes me think he is the anon IP, if not the guy's brother. He's trying to make that account "vanish" so he can create a new one on the offending IP. Long story short, the guy pissed me off and I overreacted on 3 subsequent edit summaries. I admitted this several times and apologized , but this gentleman won't be happy until I leave wikipedia.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I am a certified Glock Armorer, Life member of the Glock Sport Shooting foundation, and currently own 17 of the 19 models of Glock that are available for civilian sale in the United States (22 less the two .380 ACP models which do not meet the ATF import points provisions, and the fully automatic Glock 18, which is ineligible for civilian ownership per the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act). There are only 22 models currently produced by Glock. There are numerous variations on these base models (night sight options, compensated barrels, alternate coloration, etc.), but there are only 22 models currently in production. I made an allusion to the fictional Glock 7 that gained fame in the movie Die Hard 2. The weapon in that film is described by the main character John McClain as being porcelain, undetectable to airport metal detectors, and costing more than one antagonist character (the Chief of the security team in charge of the airport where the film is located) makes in one month. Because of this movie, many people have the mistaken belief that there are Glocks that have model number between 1-16. That is why I made the comment on the other user's page - a jab made in good fun, and only made after correcting him. It neither an insult nor a personal attack; it was simply an allusion to a movie that grossed nearly a quarter of a billion dollars world-wide and is particularly well-known among small arms (especially Glock) enthusiasts for this blunder in the plot. I kept reverting his edits, because he insisted that there are 39 models currently produced by the company, which is blatantly untrue. A quick examination of Glock pistol#Variants shows my edit to be correct. I wholeheartedly stand by the edits I made. 76.24.147.114 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I am almost 85% certain that a Glock is a type of gun. This concludes my knowledge. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
So Mihernan3 put up another unblock request. It seems better, and I'm sort of inclined to give them some rope. It does contain an amusing misspelling: "a shining bacon". In the worst case, they post more vandalism, and we block + revoke talk page access forever. Thoughts? tedder (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Or we could invite him to do the second-chance work, and see if he's interested. Personally, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell he's planning to make useful contributions, but I've been wrong before. If you want to unblock, though, I don't really mind re-blocking. ;) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by second-chance work? I agree, the money isn't with them, but I'd feel justified in the indef block+talk page revoked if it doesn't work. tedder (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a new one to me. I'll put it on there. tedder (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey Tedder, you used my phrase but didn't link to my awesome new essay on the subject. Now I'm going to go cry, I thought you liked me... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
First, I've never liked you. I just stalk you and rope you into silly admindrama. But.. didn't know about your essay. I'll certainly use it. WP:ROPE is right up there with WP:PLAXICO in my mind. tedder (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You know what's funny about these type of cases in that a lot of them seem to end very anticlimactically with the user just kind of going away after being unblocked. The drug store managing PHD candidate hasn't made a peep since being unblocked a week ago. I guess they feel like they "won" but then they realize that they really can't go back to doing what they were doing or they'll be blocked again. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and I've also seen this before. "Hooray! I'm unblocked! Of course... I'm not even remotely interested in writing an encyclopedia, but at least I'm unblocked." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen. Please be a little more careful when blocking users at WP:AIV. Sure, all of the IP's edits may have been vandalism, but if I'm not mistaken, they have never received a warning level 3, 4, or 4im warning suggesting that they would be blocked if they continued vandalizing. Now of course, this isn't really a major thing, but just something to keep in mind. Regards, FASTILY(TALK) 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I did consider that, but when I saw the nature of the edits in question, and that he had been repeatedly warned, I thought that perhaps it would not be necessary to give him another two vandal edits before the block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this[7] a matter of BEANS or DFTT? I found the whole incident harmless and rather amusing, and was about to say so but perhaps our amusement encourages this sort of thing? Anyway, thanks for helping clean it up. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to feed the troll, so I just quietly made it go away. I hope that's okay with, you know, the community. It might have been fun to poke it a bit first, but I didn't. I hope the community doesn't object to my slightly-out-of-process actions, but I thought that, if she was here for entertainment... best to give her very little. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This User:inuit18 is valdalisme the article Jamal-al-Din Afghani, but not with his account but only with ip-address and talks bad and he is scolding in his own language and you didn't understand it. Ask it to User:Ketabtoon to translate it for you. look here [8] and here [9]. If he can't talk like a gentlemen, than he has no rights to talk bad and scolding, and hide his face by editing this post without his account (he did it also in the past, look and read my talk page User talk:Abasin). I think is not right and wikipedia most do something against it. If you (User:VirtualSteve) are the one who has blocked me 2 times. I will see what you are doing with this. I will see your justice and of wikipedia. May justice triumph.Abasin-اباسین (Tofaan-توفان) 16:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with this dispute to know whether that ip is the same person; I think you want someone more familiar with User:inuit18's editing pattern. In general, when a problem arises, asking for help at WP:ANI is more effective than going to one admin who may or may not be able to help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thought you'd be interested to know that User:SchoolcraftT has been active over at Wikimedia Commons. He's been re-uploading images that were previously deleted and adding new ones [10]. He also seems to think that deleting his earlier images was vandalism [11]. I've left a message for User:Zscout370, the admin who deleted his images in the first place, asking him to take a look and maybe consider blocking him. I've tagged the stuff SchoolcraftT uploaded for permissions issues and/or copyright problems as best I could. Brian Powell (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
So I was right... he doesn't understand what copyright is yet. I'm not a frequent user of Commons, so I'll trust you and Zscout370 to fix it. This is me, rolling my eyes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... that is interesting. I had noticed yesterday that Oscar seemed to be making edits that were odd, and also biased, and those two editors do seem to be tag-teaming in an edit-war. Frankly, if they are unrelated, they're both likely to be individually blocked for edit-warring and pov-pushing anyway. Possibly by me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Not that I'm canvassing or anything..but can you look at my supposed WP:AN3 violation. CTJF83chat 22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Hate to say, dude... I think you've got four reverts there, and since it's a content dispute... you might have to gracefully accept a block even if he was socking. I've had days when I had to stop, take a deep, cleansing breath, and remind myself that I am not allowed to cross 3RR even when I know I'm right, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
He must've done something wrong. The first one was 12 hours ago and unrelated, after that only 3 CTJF83chat 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the admin who reviews that one will agree, and let you off the hook. I ain't closing it, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have forgotten to let him know that you've nominated his article for deletion. You also forgot to let him know that you opened a discussion about him at WP:ANI.
The former is optional. I will do the second now, but I don't have any template so I am going to wing it. Since I am doing the latter, I'll do the former, although I usually don't do the former. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I did not vandalise JL 09's account and I have no plans to so what they are attributing to me is rather baseless. BoyMuslim is clearly impersonating me to discredit me. I feel sad that admins have resulted in witchhunting. Please stop. I have no history of user vandalism and I would not dare to. It is disgusting and a pure waste of time. I know that you would ban me but please stop attributing socks to me, only the fruits, the 'l', the 'r' and the 'b' are mine. The rest, like JyrusTheGreat are falsely attributed to me. I do not overlap socks. I prefer to use one "active" account at a time and at that time it was the 'b' one.--23prootie's ghost (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
And yeah, I'm a ghost because you forced me to commit this. Please stop ressurecting me by attacking me from beyond the grave. Thanks!!!--23prootie's ghost (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to apologize for the missteps I made in the Burke case. You have a good heart and a kind spirit, and, believe it or not, I am not a heartless bastard. User:JelrGREEN didn't come off initially as a grieving friend, and his edit summary ("I re-entered info about Mark Reedy. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE, unless you want an ANGRY town coming back and editing it again.") threw WP:AGF out the window. I saw red and rushed to WP:ANI because I have seen another editor display this kind of arrogant behavior from day 1 and I was unsuccessful in my efforts to nip that case in the bud, back in the bad old days, so I saw red. I am glad we all seem to have successfully worked out a compromise in re Brendan Burke. Believe it or not I was actually considering a suggestion, before another editor posted it, that we could always merge the salient information from Brendan's page to his father's, but I decided against it for fear that I would appear wobbly. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure you aren't a heartless bastard. Though after a few hours patrolling new users, I sure start to feel like one. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Have you taken a look at the new entries at the AFD/Brendan Burke page? Maybe this is the "angry town" that User:JelrGREEN was referring to. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You know what? I don't care that much whether this article stays or goes. I'll bet if a person went back and nominated this article for deletion in a year, when it isn't in today's paper, no one would even notice. Just sayin'. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
As a gay man who frequently uses Wikipedia, I'd like to address why some of us are pretty pissed off by this proposed deletion. First of all, the joking and elitist attitude of some of the editors- drinking beer and watching the Superbowl- while they discussed removing the article. Also, interested readers who are not editors are not supposed to object. So what if a prominent gay website informed us of this action, how else are we supposed to know? Secondly, the people pushing heaviest for deletion/merging include individuals who write hockey content for this website. What's their goal- cleaning up Wikipedia or hiding information about that homosexual player? Thirdly, perhaps you are not aware of the history of homosexuality in the United States. We have historically been forced to hide, remain closeted. It is still happening (e.g., Don't Ask, Don't Tell). How many openly gay athletes are there? Not many. The fact that Mr. Burke came out openly as a gay man was considered very important by the gay/lesbian community. He and his father were role models. And along comes another attempt to hide this information away, using all sorts of obtuse jargon that non-Wikipedia editors have no clue as to what it means. Maybe, as FisherQueen claims, the article will be deleted in a year. Maybe, instead, Mr. Burke will be remembered as a hero by gay athletes for his courage. Deleting/merging the entry will ensure that fewer people learn about his accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.11.9 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that people who are coming here because some blog (I don't know which one; it wasn't one of the ones I read) told them to aren't familiar with the rule- WP:BIO that we're trying to decide if this subject meets or not, and so they're crashing in yelling OMG CENSORS instead of saying something useful. No one's trying to set up role models. No one's trying to hide gay people. The only question is, is this person notable? I've never heard of him, so I had to rely on the news stories, which seemed to say that his major accomplishments are (a) being gay and (b) dying. If you're saying that his notability is as an athlete, we generally say that an athlete is notable if he's played in the highest level of his sport, but as far as I can tell, this person never made it to the NHL. I know someone who died tragically, and there are literally hundreds of news articles about her death. Maybe even as many as Brendan Burke. But she isn't the subject of a Wikipedia article, because dying in a newsworthy way isn't, in itself, an accomplishment. I was sad. I cried. But I didn't write an article about her on Wikipedia. If you want to have the article kept, you need to show that he was the subject of so much writing before his death that he was an important athlete even though he wasn't in the NHL. Maybe that's true, but I haven't seen those sources yet- and I did look. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir: Would I be subjected to a block if I posted the following on User:Centpacrr's talkpage?
I think it is also fair to point out that the user who first added the AfD tag has a extensive record of ten extended blocks on his record for vandalism, disruptive editing, 3RR violations, etc, over a period of four years and thus should be given little credence as an arbiter of what does not belong on Wikipedia.
I disagree. It is not fair for you to make judgments about events that occurred years ago and about which you know nothing, which far more reliable and knowledgable individuals have already gone over with a fine tooth-comb. It is sad that you would resort to McCarthyistic tactics just to win an argument. I guess you're just one of those pitiful middle-aged plus voyeurs who peer through transoms and look into other people's pasts for thrills. If you are an example of enlightened liberalism then those terms should be excised from the vocabulary. I don't wonder you don't accept service awards or Barnstars; I doubt you would ever get any. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Personal attacks are never a good idea. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
But would it constitute grounds for being blocked? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That's the wrong question. The question is not, "Can I get away with this and avoid being blocked?" The question is, "Is this a polite thing to say?" Although it's entirely possible that a block for chronic incivility could be in your future. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
So User:Centpacrr can attempt to discredit me by pointing to things that happened four years ago and you are concerned about incivility? Carried to its logical extension, he and his ilk can seek to discredit me anywhere on Wikipedia by showing my block log because he feels I am not qualified to participate in AFD votes, etc.? Doesn't that seem worse than incivility, which I have been around long enough to know is often a catchall to cover almost any opinion someone else doesn't like. I am not even going to address the moronic idea that I am a homophobe because it is irrelevant and cannot be used to justify, even if it were true, which it isn't, the McCarthyist, Machiavellian abusive behavior of Centpacrr, Luminum and anyone else, who in the meantime, has found common cause with them. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You forgot to accuse them of being nazis. Just sayin, once you've pulled out McCarthy and Machiavelli, you've got to go for the triumvirate and call them a nazi. Look, in all seriousness, this eye for an eye approach is not a good idea, nor is converting your user page into an attack on users you don't like. It lowers you to do such things. Be the bigger person, and don't take the bait. You haven't been blocked for anything you actually did since your return. So just be proud of your block log, as a sign of your reform and ability to learn from your past mistakes, and you will find you have regained the moral high ground. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Draganparis admitted to having at least two other accounts. I believe you should investigate what the other sock is and see if it has also been disrupive in the past. GK1973 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi FQ. Noticed your exchange with 142.31.5.3(talk·contribs·WHOIS), and something puzzles me. According to Blocklog for "142.31.5.3" they were blocked for one year starting October 28, 2008. Someone from that IP address has indeed been editing since the block expired (not just the talk page), yet the ugly, pinkish block message is displayed at the top of their contribution list. Most confusing. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I double-checked. There's currently a block on the whole range for persistent vandalism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for checking. "Layers within layers..." Favonian (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course, it's entirely possible that the person currently talking on that page is, himself, one of the vandals in question. One never knows, though- maybe he's one of those lovely and valuable Useful High School Students. They should be encouraged. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A not-completely-disillusioned teacher. Glad your sort still exist :) Favonian (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The secret is realistic expectations. And alcohol, of course. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll drink to that! Favonian (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
it's all rainbows and sunshine when you're a Nazi.
You know full well I was not directly targeting you, FisherQueen, and that I was using "Nazi" in a generic sense that is widely recognized nowadays. But you DID directly attack me and were extremely vulgar and rude. If anyone owes anyone an apology at this point, it is you. Danflave (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
She shouldn't have sworn at you, but you also shouldn't have used the term. It was clearly aimed at people saying delete for the reasons you stated. Both of you overstepped. I would just step away from each other. -DJSasso (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yea, there's no reason to get upset at the idea of being compared to Josef Goebells, he was clearly a happy and well adjusted person who loved children. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The word nazi used by Danflave is perfectly sensible, as it means someone who abuses their power, in this case deletionists. The only person here who was crossing a big line is FisherQueen, and I expect she will make a sincere apology soon. Thorin (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You MUST (that's right I am emphasizing this word) look at the etymology of the word and the context.
From enotes.com "In modern times, the word "Nazi" has meanings that go beyond this. We of course use the word to apply to the actual members of the Nazi Party. But we also use it to refer to anyone who is a fanatic about a cause, especially one who wants to force others to agree with/be like them." and "Either way, the word's meaning (its "semantic range") has grown considerably in the last few decades of the 20th century. The popular comedy show Seinfeld introduced us to "Soup Nazi," for example, and women activists for equal rights are sometimes still derisively called "feminazis.""
Today there are "Shoe Nazis," "Spelling Nazis," "Style Nazis," etc. The list is extensive and could go on for pages actually.
The etymology of words change over time or vary by place. In the US a "biscuit" is called a "cookie," "Crisps" are "Chips," and "Chips" are "French Fries". Over time a "computer" stopped being a job that a person held, and started being a reference to a machine.
People have been PASSIONATE (there I go again using all caps) about this subject, but being offended by some of the comments that have been made really does take an assumption of bad faith on the part of the "offendee" in some instances. Lou2u (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Right, and accusing people of abusing their power is crossing the line when there is no evidence of it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Comeon guys, the hyperbole is only making everything worse. Y'all know (or, you should know) that the word "Nazi" is a widely used euphemism (actually, metaphor is probably more accurate here, since "euphemism" is supposed to be a "mild, indirect" substitute for another phrase) these days. Becoming oversensitive about these things only makes it harder for everyone to cooperate and collaborate. — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 17:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
My issue isn't the word itself as I have said. Its the accusation of bad faith on behalf of the people who wanted to delete. -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Just because it's used "in popular culture" this way doesn't make it ok. A lot of hip-hop artists use foul language in their songs. By that same logic, that would make it ok for FQ's response to have been "I'm tired of all these pro-keep-the-article motherfuckers up in this bitch trying mess with my shit, and I'm gonna bust a cap in their wiki-asses if they don't back up off me right quick." Resorting to name calling is the last refuge of those who have run out of legitimate arguments to make. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL! nice comeback there! Anyway, all I'm trying to say here is that you guys have long ago made your point. Rubbing salt in the wound isn't helping. Quit being trolls and act responsible by trying to deflate the situation for once, rather then feeding the drama (as is all to typical around here) — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
If you notice that is what I was trying to do above, until you decided to jump into the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
We should probably continue this on one of our own talk pages then, but personally I don't see continuing to make further accusations, and characterizations of "going over the line", as letting it go or deflating the situation. — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
To use the term "nazi" to describe someone you don't agree with is an unforgivable sin against history and a disgrace on Wikipedia, meriting a block, in my humble opinion. a pretty awful thing to do. How do you know you're not calling someone that who is Jewish or whose family otherwise suffered actual harm during the Holocaust? The term should be reserved for those who actually merit it, neo or paleo. To justify in any way such misuse of an inflammatory term, by User:Danflave or his defenders, against a good person like User:FisherQueen is almost as bad. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
But let me get this straight, Rms - it was appropriate and fine for her to say "Well, fuck you then!" to me in a public forum? Danflave (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
When you refused to retract your implication that her actions and attitude were comparable to thoss of Adolf Hitler after being asked to do do so? Yes, it was. I think we can let this lie now unless FQ returns sometime today and has more to add. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
When I said "fuck you," I intended to express very strong, very negative feelings. I wasn't trying to be polite; I was angry and said so strongly. I am not now going to pretend that all I meant was that I hope he has a fulfilling sex life. My meaning was clear. His comment is just as clearly meant to be as insulting as possible, and so the people who are trying to parse it to be less insulting are being unjust to his intention. No one will ever know how close I came to committing Wiki-suicide, blocking him from editing and then just slamming his talk page with fuck yous until someone else shut me down. I really wanted to do that. I acted with enormous self-restraint. "Nazi" is not harmless; it is a grotesque insult. Just in case he didn't understand that, I made it clear to him that I took it that way, and gave him the opportunity to retract it. I am entirely incapable of reconsidering on that discussion, since it seems to consist of me making a good-faith edit, then two days of being called a homophobic, power-abusing, bigoted, deletionist Nazi for doing so. That makes it impossible for me to reread the discussion and maintain a positive, open mind. And, after two days to reflect, I repeat: User:Danflave, fuck you for insulting those of us who disagreed with you in good faith. Fuck you sideways with a sharp, pointed farm implement. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
That is still no apology :)Thorin (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Heya Fisher, I just wanted to pop in and give ya a little moral support. I know that you've just got the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and while our views on exactly what that may be might differ very slightly there's no doubt that you, I, and many others who are here to stick around and actually edit can work together. The most ironic thing here, to me, is that I'm the straight, beer guzzling, hockey fan here, and I was on the "other side"! (LOL) politics makes strange bedfellows, indeed. Anyway, give it some time is all, and we'll take care of the organizational issue once all the hoopla dies down and cooler heads can prevail. I plan on revisiting the issue in a month or two, myself. Keep on keepin' on! — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 06:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey FQueen, Danflave was talking about "closed-minded, deletion-happy Wikipedians" being delete Nazis. Apparently, you see yourself in that description.--Norm, Vancouver, Canada (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
My user page has been a target of vandals for a while now, so can you please semi-protect my user page for me, Thank You. --Clarince63 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You may want to revoke his talk page privileges too after he attacked you. Eagles24/7(C) 00:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, I saw this and reblocked them. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm shocked that the person blocked for personal attacks would stoop to personal attacks. And I'm not sure what a knickerpicker is, but it sounds like fun and I'm willing to try it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 05:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like someone else beat me to the block. Eventually these kids will discover boys or rap music or beer and get bored with Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I brought it up at AN/I for an immediate block, but I was wondering if you could start a thread at WP:SPI so we can get checkuser involvement here (especially since it appears LBHSC habitually uses open proxies that would need to be blocked). I'd do it myself, but as settlement in a disagreement with another user, I informally agreed to avoid getting into issues related to LBHS Cheerleader except when unavoidable, in which case I would have an administrator (like yourself) deal with it instead of getting involved in discussion myself. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages) 22:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I read WP:DISPUTE, but I don't quite understand what I should do. I went to the Project page first. But what should I do next? Please tell me where I should go to solve the disputes? Thank you in advance.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:3 says that you can use it only when just two editors are involved. The issue I am concerned about involves at least four editors.--Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You can try one of the other things on the list, then. Sometimes, we have to accept that consensus is not with us, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Or you can make sockpuppet accounts and get indefinitely blocked, I guess, if that sounds like more fun to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jackie Owens, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Owens. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Already deleted per WP:CSD#G3. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The talk page stalker strikes again... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose! This is an injustice against the spirits of the fictional victims of Jackie Owens! Wikipedia is biased against nonreal people! Strike! Strike! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
FeralDruid has instructions on SRQ's page for how to lose Jimbo. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't feel any need to do that; if SRQ wants to make the talk page unreadable, I don't mind not reading it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what your problem is, but MINE is the fact that my username was stolen by someone trying to bias the hell out of an article, removing links to an organization critical of same, pushing bad wikilinks (the difference between a tear gas canister, and a "canister shot" which is basically a tank-fired grenade, is MAJOR), and then proceeded to "report" me to block my username in order to cover their own reversions.
And then I was never informed of where the "discussion" of this took place in order to make a comment back, and now I'm fighting some stupid fucked-up bot that keeps removing the discussion when I try to put it back to fucking reply to it.
To top it all off, I try to include a link inside your fucked-up "unblock" template, and it comes out blanking the damn template.
So you'll excuse me if I'm a bit pissed off at the moment. This place is one of the most fucked-up, messed-up shitholes I've ever seen in operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Pancake By Irn (talk • contribs)
Thank you for reporting your block-evading sockpuppet; I have blocked it. If you want to request a new username, you can do so by following the instructions on your original user talk page. Amusingly, you could have just created an appropriate username and edited productively instead of creating a username that breaks the rules in the same way and using it to come swear at me on my talk page. But since this is the most fucked up shithole you've ever seen, you probably won't want to use it any longer anyway. Goodbye. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, that looks like a big waste of time, then. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Rats, by his self-admittance he admitted to using that other IP 3 minutes before I completed the post here. No matter, he is guilty as charged for wasting our time. Toodles~! --Dave♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you said "all other edits have been vandalism." in the edit summary of [12]. Although I find that the revert is correct, it doesn't look like vandalism. Maybe it is just a newbie editor. Remember to assume good faith. Imagine that editor seen that edit summary. If its edition was in good faith it can get insulted or annoyed and maybe instead of trying harder to learn quits or turns to real vandalism. More encouraging summaries do more good. franklin 22:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not a good faith editor- check the contribution history and the history of his talk page, where he already blanked his you-are-about-to-be-blocked warning so he could start vandalizing again. I have no idea whether the facts in his edit are legit or fake, and given the bit about the hippo and the fact that I was in the process of blocking him for more vandalism, I didn't look it up. Just another bored kid. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
My mistake. Forgot that the thing could have had a context. franklin 22:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
It's all good. So, can hippos really safely visit the CN Tower? Because that would be cool. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
LOL. You know, there is actually a sign there (if I am remembering right) that says something like that to reassure people of the safety. I don't know hippos but it didn't broke when I was jumping there to frighten a friend. It is not that with my weight that can be counted as a guaranty of safety but just saying. franklin 23:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a new item on AN/I which marginally concerns you.
I would like to ask you personally about out discussion on my former talk page. For me it looks like you demand an explanation for a block by the blockee instead of by the blocker. I couldn't provide one, since there really isn't any explanation. Do I misunderstand you? --91.55.83.124 (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't understand what you were trying to accomplish with your edits, and you seemed to be more interested in having a thrilling drama than explaining what you were trying to accomplish. I still don't understand what you were, or are, trying to accomplish with this ANI thread or this edit. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with a better encyclopedia. But I don't really care that much, so since you don't seem inclined to clarify, that's fine. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Just assume good faith: With my initial edits I wanted to improve Wikipedia; with my AN/I report I want to get rid of insults and harassment. Is either one objectionable? --91.55.83.124 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Your edits didn't improve Wikipedia, and it isn't at all clear to me why you made them. No one has insulted or harassed you, and it isn't at all clear that the ANI report will affect anything at all. The evidence that I have, so far, makes me inclined to think that your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to annoy people. Of course, I could be wrong. But I don't care very much. If you want to make Wikipedia better, you are free to go do that. I'm not going to reply to any further messages from you, though, because if your goal is to make Wikipedia better, you can do that without my help, and if your goal is to annoy me, I don't have any obligation to help you with that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
