I've already had to clear my name once and spent a whole month doing it.....I'm not Dericks1x and have only posted using this user name. It's the only screenname I've ever had on Wikipedia and all the message boards I frequent.
I saw you said something along the lines of "ban them all and let Gosh sort them out" well...That's how I was kinda banned in the first place...Well...That's kinda how I got caught up in this the first time (that and requesting a checkuser on one of those "socks" of Dericks), seriously....Derricks is psychoic I believe I've been getting emails from fake email addys for the last couple of weeks talking about "fighting back" and "messing with edits" so I'm guessing it's Derick.
Alison cleared my name, it was proven. She knows my real identity in real life so I'm obviously not a "sock" puppet person. One thing, I see that I'm being referred to as a "TV reporter" and I don't know where that came from. Wish that was true..lol But sadly fame isn't something I have except on Seahawks message boards.
I've been fighting this banning and finally Allison took the time to listen and check and she went above and beyond the call of duty to clear this up, in spite of stuff I shouldn't have said to here on Dramitica and such. She's more than humbled herself in clearing my name and I thank her for that immensley.
Just thought I'd throw that out there since I see Derick is still trying to somehow weasle me into his/her little game. Not a "sock" person, heck, this is my only account. If I had another I wouldn't have gone to the trouble to get this one restored.
I apologize if my use of humor made you think I was targeting you; I do believe that you aren't the sockpuppet. I was thinking of User:Marlinette, who was clearly tangled up in a sockfarm somehow. Notice that, though I said 'block them all,' I didn't actually do that- instead, I was leaving a note for Alison hoping that she'd use her checkuser abilities to check out the other user and clarify the situation, but I can see how my phrasing didn't make that clear. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Naw, I understand now....Just a little paranoid now after that whole incident. Still getting emails from that psycho Derrick. --seattlehawk94 (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's easy to see how the whole situation would make you a little nervous... I've had one or two Wikistalkers, and it's creepy as hell. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen, I'd love to know what template you used on this newbie's talk page. It's exactly what I've always wished existed, but never created, in terms of talking to newbies. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing! People always compliment me on my custom block template, but this is the one that's my own favorite. Like you, I wanted a more newbie-friendly template for notability deletions. Please feel free to use it, or to do your own version with the fishie stripped off. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much! -- Zanimum (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
From a college ip? I never heard back from the London Public Library, but maybe they blocked her from using their computers after all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
BJBot keeps on messing up my user page. Could you please help me stop him?-Disneyvillainman (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No, the bot is removing non-free images, which are under copyright and can only be used in certain articles and under specific conditions. It's quite right to remove them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I notice that it hasn't been all that long since you directed these comments at me, in which you insulted me, then told me to shut up. You appear, therefore, not to need any help from me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
How do you figure this is a sockpuppet? It looks to me like they tried to write a typical CSD A7 article, and then posted templates like the ones on their deleted article on NawlinWiki's talk page, who was the deleting admin. Vandal behavior, to be sure, but I just don't see sockpuppetry. I was going to say that after over 4 months, a second chance is appropriate, so long as we have a better idea what the user wants to do than just "not vandalize." Mangojuicetalk 15:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize- I thought they were just targeting NawlinWiki, and didn't see the A7. Feel free to undo my decision in that case- that'll show me to forget to check the deleted contribs. Yes, a second chance seems reasonable. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you look at my Contributions and see if I qualify for rollbacking rights? HairyPerry 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I... I don't know how to give rollbacking rights, or what the criteria are for doing so. I'm a failure as an administrator! (hangs self) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh its ok, your not a failure as an administrator, once again its ok, but could yo do something else for me, I can't understand the add request instructions for rollback, could you help me? HairyPerry 16:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone had actually deleted the instructions accidentally about a week ago, but it looks like you figured it out anyway! Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just went to look at the Wikipedia page for my employer, Scripps Health, and noticed that you had deleted it citing G11. How would one go about reinstating the page? It is my feeling that the page in question was no more advertising that that of any of our local competitors:
I also feel that the former Scripps Health page did a good job in representing our organization's dedication to our community, our mission and our deep history.
Any advice you can offer about page reinstatement would be highly appreciated.
Markle1111 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The previous version was written in the tone of an advertisement, which is common for articles written by someone with a conflict of interest who is writing hoping to promote the organization. In addition, it appeared to have been copied from the organization's own promotional materials. That's why we encourage people not to write about their own organizations. Since you're employed by them, you aren't the right person to write the article, but don't worry- if the organization really is notable, it's inevitable that someone outside the company will read about it in independent sources and find it interesting enough to write about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Duly noted but I'm afraid I can't take credit for writing the page - I had made some relatively minor edits later in its life. The page _was_ originally written by a member of the community and every effort was made to keep the language balanced. I understand that you are probably quite busy but please take the time to compare the language of our previous page and that of our competitor pages mentioned above. I am obviously quite eager to have the page reinstated and if that means deleting some of the more 'marketing-rich content contained in the page, I am happy to do so. Markle1111 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It's okay, you don't need to recreate the article. In fact, employees of the company shouldn't create it. If the company really is notable, people outside the company will be interested enough in it to write about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry - maybe I'm not being clear: the article *was* originally created by people outside the company. The only 'corporate' edits made to it have been made in the last year. Would it be possible to get the article reinstated as it appeared a year ago? Markle1111 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I can still read the earlier version, and there's no possibility that it was created by people outside the company, because it is pure advertising. It even refers to the company with the pronoun 'we.' Undeletion would be pointless, as removing the promotional material would only leave a very limited shell of an article, a few sentences long. It wasn't even sourced, so it would probably just get nominated for deletion immediately if we did recreate that version. It really isn't a big deal; an encyclopedia isn't a business directory, and doesn't need articles about every business in the world, and I'm sure this organization is listed in the relevant business directories, where people who were searching for information about it could find that information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Very well - then I would request that you delete the similarly marketing-heavy articles about our competition that I mentioned above. Markle1111 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Please feel free to nominate them for deletion. If you think an article doesn't meet the notability criteria, you can volunteer to rewrite it (after all, you are not a representative of that company, and have no conflict of interest, so there's no problem with your working to improve those articles). If the subject can't be rewritten in a way that makes it appropriate, you can follow the instructions here to start a discussion of whether an article should be deleted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at the articles you mentioned. University of California, San Diego Medical Center meets our criteria pretty well; it's sourced from independent sources and pretty neutrally worded; it isn't at all similar to the advertisement I deleted. Sharp Healthcare isn't nearly as promotional as the one I deleted, but if you're interested in improving it, it could certainly use some independent sources and a revision by someone outside the company. Maybe someone who works at one of those hospitals will do the same for yours one day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, I did not vandalize anything, Queen. What do you speak of? - Homosexualiaticas (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought you'd stepped away, but it appear that you were waiting silently. Sorry to pre-empt the inevitable block. Acroterion(talk) 15:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It's absolutely fine. I admit that I was just giving him enough rope to make sure no unblock request would have a leg to stand on, but the block was inevitable, so it's fine that you did it first. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
We were thinking along the same lines. Enough rope and all that. Acroterion(talk) 16:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the first unblock request. I have accepted his second unblock request as he has agreed to seek mentorship and to abide by the image use and non-free content policies. Figured I'd shoot you an FYI. I'll keep an eye on him in case prior behavior recurs. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
that's fine; good luck to you both. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The talk page for Qilinmon which was deleted almost a month ago because the user is indefinitely blocked has been recreated due to bot messages. I'm only notifying you because the user who deleted it is inactive due to health reasons. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I've rewritten all the material you thought might violate copyright and cited almost everything. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uncoverer/Liberty_Fund . Please unblock so the revised article can be re-created. It is now better cited than most of the other articles in the List of publishers, many of whom have no evidence of notability as an organization, some of which I happen to know are either out of business or only ever published one or two books. Uncoverer (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure quite what you're asking me to do by 'unblocking'; you aren't blocked, and the article isn't protected from editing, so you can feel free to make your desired changes to the existing article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, last time I tried that I wasn't allowed to. Evidently someone else unblocked it. Just posted revision. Hope you accept it, pending further work. Uncoverer (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have recently had my article on Land of Destiny deleted (a game I am co-developing, which now has over 4000 registered users). This was because it was short-listed for deletion automatically, and when I had written my validation, the page no longer existed. After reading the applicable rules, I remade the page with my validation, and it was deleted a second time, for the same reason. I would like to know what I am doing wrong so that I can amend whatever was insulting in my formatting. Finally, the back-up on my personal talk-page was deleted without reason, so I feel that I should receive an explanation. Diego Bank (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
If you've carefully read WP:WEB and WP:COI, then I think you already know that the problem is not in your formatting. This doesn't appear to be a topic that is so significant that an international encyclopedia would need an article about it. If it becomes notable in the future, you can be sure that someone who wasn't involved in developing the game will think it's important enough to write about, too, and you won't need to lift a finger. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Diego Bank (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing the unblock request backlog, didn't want to go reviewing my own haul. Love the pic at the top of the page by the way. --fvw* 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I only did two or three, but you're welcome. I find that most unblock requests can be answered with a simple, 'no.' :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been following your conversation with Spudicus with great amusement. :) Keep up the great work! --Elonka 15:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, he hates you. I'm sure that's a crushing blow to you; I really thought you two crazy kids would be able to make your love-match work. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well, he needs to improve his courting technique somewhat.[1][2][3] ;) --Elonka 17:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You don't think that's sexy? Weirdo. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Timing matters. :) --Elonka 21:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes it does girlfriend.IanMSDOS (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
An open question to people who speak computer: I don't actually speak computer at all, but I have a sneaking suspicion... is User:Spudicus's plan actual nonsense? "... I shall not be able to attack until I have found the sercurity users.And it takes time to hack so many firewalls" sounded like it might be gibberish... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
One notch above gibberish. More like "I learned everything I know about hacking from Hollywood".—Kww(talk) 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I wondered. I just finished reading Little Brother, which is a very good novel about hacking, and the characters in that book sounded quite different from User:Spudicus. They also were able to fight against the Department of Homeland Security using their wits and their hacked XBoxes, which I didn't even know one could do. I thought you needed at least a MacBook in order to battle the forces of evil. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
My wife turned an old Playstation into a quite nice Linux machine, so those game boxes can do more than you think.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I did not learn how to hack from Hollywood, I learned how by by-passing my school's block on YouTube. And I think my old plan is to ambitious. Per haps a Trojan-Horse style slave virus would work better?Ian9x (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't blank it. I just removed some stuff that made me look bad. People might think I'm a crook or something. How are they to ASG, if by stumbling into my talkpage they see all those skeletons. 140.174.9.14 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, why can't I have userboxes like everybody else? I know according to my contributions I have made some, in my short life, hair raising edits but is that really a reason as to not allow me to assimilate.140.174.9.14 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems you have blocked me from editing my user page. What I do not understand is that you gave this as your reason "Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked". Seriously, What does it mean? I didn't do anything wrong. In what way was adding userboxes inappropriate. Also, why aren't you talking to me. Well you obviously, replied by page protecting, but why aren't you talking to me. 140.174.9.14 (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you in a hurry? I am not online all the time. You have a user talk page; it's at User talk:Kikbguy. But you can't blank the talk page of your ip, nor are you allowed to edit, even while logged out, if blocked. I apologize for not re-blocking you- I thought the block on your account was still in place. I'll correct my error. Please, refrain from editing Wikipedia; since you're blocked for using alternate accounts inappropriately, it isn't likely that you'll be unblocked, but a good rule of thumb is to stay away from Wikipedia for one week per sockpuppet account or ip used before requesting an unblock of your original account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Argh; my wacky firewall is blocking me from the 'block' function on this ip. I'll do it when I get home, if no one beats me to it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
It is against wikipedia policy to remove unblock requests from pages! I have read and vandalized some of those pages to!!!IanCheetah (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
He once made a good-faith edit, so it isn't fair that he was briefly blocked for vandalism[edit]
hello, and i would just like to let it be known that vandalism is described as " deliberately harming or destroying an article with such bad intents". i must say that this is simply not true about my changes to andy fish. all of it was 100% true, and was meant to show the character about the artist. i enrolled in one of his classes and he told us the stories about his cat and about how he likes the way people from different parts of the country talk. if you feel differently, please let me know. -mattyboy786
woah! i left Acroterion a similar message, and now i've realized that i was actually doing something wrong. i had no idea, as i've only been a user for a few days. from now on, i'll be sure to take this into mind, whenever i edit something :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattyboy786 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There are so many people on both sides who just try to make the article reflect their own opinion. It's nice to have an editor who understands the concept of neutrality and can correctly spell 'homosexual,' no matter which side of the disagreement you're on. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
According to my dictionary, Esperanto-speaking cats say miaŭ. Maybe the compiler of that list used a shortcut rather than figuring out how to format the special character? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
hey can you get the GFDPS for me.
thanxPlanckshift (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this, but since you've been vandalizing so far, I'm going to assume that the answer is 'no.' -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
no i was just testing to see if you are online.
all that stuff above was just randomness.
anyway, about that edit you deleted, good thing you caught that, i thought i was editing in the discussion but obviously not.
any way, quick question, does what i write in discussion actually get read, and if so how long does it take to get a reply? Planckshift (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If you leave a message on someone's talk page, yes, they will probably read it. They may or may not choose to reply. I don't know what you mean by 'discussion;' Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and doesn't have any discussion forums. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering if you might be able to help us long suffering LGBT editors out with an IP hopping editor who seems to like using the article shemale as a soapbox for their unreferenced pro-prostitution POV edits. Even though their edits are consistently reverted, we can't get them to discuss anything on the talk page. They just come back a while later on a different IP and do the same again. Any chance that we might be able to get semi-protection in the hope of getting them to talk to us? --AliceJMarkham (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem; I can see the problem you're having in the history, and have slapped a two-week semiprotect on the article. I hope this helps. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Traveling today, so I won't be able to provide my normal monitoring of things. This report seems to be languishing. It won't break my heart if you decide to take no action, but I'd at least like it to get a moment's attention from someone.—Kww(talk) 13:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell if he's being deliberately disruptive or is just very, very confused. Either way, he ignored the final warning and recreated the lost talk page again, so I laid a short block on him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I changed my mind after a closer look at his edits; I think this is a good-faith user who got upset and frustrated when he got some confusing templates where personal notes would have worked better. This newbie got bitten a bit, I think, and is just confused and annoyed; I'd like to give him another chance. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't have my heart set on a block, I just thought that something needed to happen.—Kww(talk) 13:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I noted that you left a comment on my talk page and I thought you might be able to help seeing that you're an administrator. I'm rather foreign to editing on Wiki, I've only done it once for a tiny error on a P&P page earlier this year as you've noted and a few days ago when I tried editing another tiny error on a Nick and Norah's page I was told I was blocked because of a possible shared IP address with another vandal. After following the instructions on getting my block removed I'm now being told that I'm a sockpuppet and being blocked for an indefinite period of time. May I know how I can clarify with whoever blocked me and get my user account unblocked because this is rather unfair? And by the way you said that it is too much of a coincidence that I tried to edit something when my IP add got blocked - well unfortunately it is a coincidence and now I'm really regretting that I even tried to edit a tiny error in the first place for the Nick and Norah's place and get myself into this mess. I'd like to note that I can't even be a vandal even if I wanted to because I just figured out to use the basics of this talk page in the past hour.
I'm not sure if I can leave comments like that on talk pages - if it's wrong perhaps you can just delete this and reply me on my talk page and perhaps I can give you my email and you can better explain this whole thing to me. I'm really very confused and upset about it and I think I should just stick to reading articles in the future and not attempt to change any tiny error which is now not worth all this that I'm going through.
I apologize for your ability to edit here; I thought you were already blocked for using this account to evade your block. I've fixed the problem now. If you think you've solved the problem that made your block necessary, you should make the case for unblocking you on your original account rather than creating a new account. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talkcontribs) 17:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I am confused about the fact that i can possibly advertise a sunken ship! I am not offering cruises on it which would be very difficult. If you can call a sunken ship advertising then there is something very wrong with the administrators policy's. I just want to write a historical article about the village where i live surely i am able to do this without being harrased. The references are the only thing which you asked me to do. A sunken ship and a church explosion from WW2 are NOT advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakefield (talk • contribs)
I'm sorry that you're feeling harassed. We appreciate an article about this place; I am not saying that you are advertising, but that the article praises the place, when it should simply state the facts. We appreciate the work you've done so far, and that {pov} tag is a little notice for more experienced editors who are interested in helping with cleanup. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering you, but I have small question and I didn't know who else to ask, so I'm asking you. My question is whether or not I should follow what the template included in this edit says? I thought "Critical repection" sections were allowed? I mean even the fact that a featured article, such as this one has that same section has me confused. -24.92.46.22 (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to this question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if you remember User talk:76.167.244.204, but his block wore off, and he's back at the same antics [4][5] and so on. Couple of good sleeper edits, but that's typical of him. Figured I'd drop you a direct note since you're more familiar with it. Yngvarr(t)(c) 10:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Just doesn't seem to understand the concept 'indefinite block.' I've tried to clarify it for him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and effort. I was going to mention about the template verbiage, make useful contributions after the block expires, but you already took that out. I think that's one of the things which confuses him, but they're just standard templates. Yngvarr(t)(c) 13:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think he's confused at all, but just hoping he can argue his way out of being blocked. If only he knew how easy it is to be unblocked just by learning the rules and making a plausible commitment to following them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
