- I don't live anywhere near Seattle. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trio The Punch. Since you have now blocked Sarah Baartman I think we may not need a CU any more. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Checkusers don't generally bother with obvious sockpuppets as this one is. I would be vaguely curious about whether she has any other socks in her drawer, but that'll become obvious enough, I think. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've asked the checkusers to watch out for potential sleepers anyway. Let's wait and see. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Coren has actually found a handful of other accounts which I have now blocked and tagged. Trio The Punch has been indeffed for maintaining this troupe of alternative accounts and I have revoked talk page access for all of them given TTPs latest talk page escapes. On that note, I even received an email from him last night where he tried to convince me that I was wrong, so I wouldn't be surprised if the involved admins in this case got some mail anytime soon. De728631 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand why he was bothering with all those accounts, or why he wouldn't enter into dialogue, or why he didn't seem to understand what other people wrote. But then, I often don't understand other people on Wikipedia. I think I'll go for a walk. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FisherQueen. I think the Major might run into WP:NOTLINKEDIN problems next.--Shirt58 (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher Queen please userfy the deletion yobronzino/user Brando Palomino Bronzino - as per encyclopedic edit 76.102.201.240 (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take down your proposal for deletion, please. I am about to put down references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloonsman16 (talk • contribs)
- I'm not convinced that reliable sources have written about this subject, but if you can add good sources, then of course the article won't be deleted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are very reliable. More reliable than most sources on this website are. By the way, Cody is a guy and is not very happy with being called a girl or with the fact that the page for his film is being taken down. The film will be out soon. Also, how is a blog by the director of the film less reliable than half of those news sites that are not even written by the makers of the film. At least these blogs are made by Cody Kear himself. You'll see when he makes a the film and gets it distributed. If you do not leave this up, Cody will be mad. The film will be out soon enough. Oh and rethink this thing about unreliable because the blog was created by Cody himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.19.74 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't edit while you are blocked. It is against the rules, and makes it possible that you will be permanently blocked. While you are blocked, please read the reliable source guidelines. If you think that the rules about notability and verifiability should be changed, you are welcome to try to start a discussion about that, but those are foundational rules of Wikipedia, so it's not likely that others will agree with you - to change those rules would be to fundamentally change what Wikipedia is. It would be better to just write about your project on your own web site. Now, please respect your block, and refrain from editing again until you can do so while signed in on your account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take down delete, please. userfy as per reliable sources restore please> vandal personal attack >verified encyclopedic edit in progress 76.102.201.240 (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to undelete it and move it into article space, although you and the other user will have to stop edit-warring over it. What are the reliable sources we can add to verify that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see you're blocked. You misunderstood what a Wikipedia talk page is for- articles go in article space, and things that won't ever become an article don't belong anywhere, except maybe on your own web site. It isn't okay to try to use Wikipedia to promote a person, and that isn't what userpages and talk pages are for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This block is a waste of my sweet time, FisherQueen. All I wanted to do was make a Wikipedia page of an upcoming All Programs film. This is getting on my nerves. This is none of your business and is making me very angry. This is a business of me and the film. I am getting so tired of you raining on my parade. I added sources but you call them unreliable. This is the film business. This is a future. This film will start the Cody Kear career of making movies. I have had it up to here (three feet above my head) with you doing this. If this account gets taken away, I'll have to introduce you to the whole of 2013. This is the future of Cody Kear. I am tired of this. You're worse than the worst people I know. I am done with you. Bloonsman16 out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloonsman16 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did it make you feel better to type that? Because I wasn't even at Wikipedia when the reliable source guidelines were written, although I admit that I think the arguments for them are stronger than the arguments against them that you are making in this message. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way I mean business and when I say I mean business, I mean business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloonsman16 (talk • contribs)
- Please don't use my talk page to promote your web site. But when your movie is the subject of an article in a significant film magazine, we will definitely want an article about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on an essay on how to interact (or at least what to expect when interacting) with the young on Wikipedia in my userspace at User:Acroterion/Dealing with the young. A lot of our administrators and editors are themselves rather young and don't have much experience in dealing with people under 18 from an adult point of view. While my views are all well and good, input from somebody like you, with actual professional expertise and experience would be welcome. There are a few other admins and oversighters who've spent a lot of time in this area that I'll consult as well. It's not intended to be negative or an excuse to stereotype young users, but for now I'm trying to set down the themes I've seen over and over again in the past five or six years. It might eventually fill a persistent hole in the guidance-to-editors-and-admins area. Acroterion (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to sincerely apologize for my stupidity in the last week. I just got angry because I was blocked. If you had sent me a message instead of just blocking me, I would not have gotten so angry. When my movie is a little bit more publicized, I would like to make the page again. This time I will have correct sources, get Wizard or some other magazine to write an article, and get everything together. I would really like to be forgiven and once again I am sorry for my idiotics.
Cody Kear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.19.74 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgive you entirely. However, you are blocked, which means you are not allowed to log out and keep editing. When the time comes that you're ready to edit, request unblock, and explain clearly what skills you've gained. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) And remember, Cody, that you are not supposed to be trying to mis-use Wikipedia in an effort to publicize yourself, your movies, your career, and so forth; that's called promotion, and has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you for summing things up so beautifully. Then there's the matter of your keeping the discussion focused - another demerit.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know anything about mixed martial arts, and I don't care about flag icons, and this fellow isn't explaining himself in a way that would help me be more knowledgeable about either of those subjects right now. I thought when I responded to his recent unblock request that here is a person who is not likely to have a long and happy time at Wikipedia, based on his way of interacting with other users, but I'm trying to be fair and only deal with what he's actually doing now, to the extent that I can figure out what the hell he is doing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're doing an excellent job, and his response, of course, is consistent with his past/present behavior. I don't know anything about MMA, either, other than (1) it's a contentious subject area on Wikipedia and (2) I have never received as much pushback as I did when I blocked two edit-warring MMA users (Jonny and the other one) based on the report at WP:ANEW. I suspect that at least some of the people who edit MMA articles are, uh, somewhat combative.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The part I actually am not sure about is what, specifically, User:JonnyBonesJones thinks about the use of flag icons on MMA articles. I read all the discussions linked by the OP, and looked at some of his recent history, and couldn't find any place where he had explained clearly what he thinks should be done and why. I don't know why he thinks disrupting articles will make a point better than... saying what his point is clearly and simply. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I see you 2 talking about me. So you guys know nothing about MMA, interesting... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's right. I know a lot about Wikipedia's rules, but almost nothing about MMA. Is there a place where you have clearly explained how you think flag icons should be used in MMA articles, in a way that someone like me could understand? If there is, I'd like to read it, because I don't understand your position on the subject. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained it to you in ANI. Listen, hows about you WORK with MMA editors like me to help improve wikipedia? Not alienate us, block us, then call us combative. I really would like to help establish better rules when it comes to MMA. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
