Jump to content

User:FisherQueen/Archive39

This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FisherQueen
User Page · Talk page · Archives · Sandbox · Patrol · Templates


HAPPY NEW YEARS[edit]

You just have to imagine me being drunk shouting that in your face. (Note, I'm not drunk) but I wanted to send you a happy new years video which is coincidently my the song from which I got my username.! Happy Wishes to you in 2010.[[1]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll merely add my own greetings to that; I don't shout about what I do here, and neither do you; but I see, and appreciate, your considered input. The quiet contributor is underestimated. Regards, and a happy new year. Rodhullandemu 01:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Saldezza[edit]

I agree that Saldezza was edit warring and I was considering filing a report. However it looks to me as if you were using your sysop tools while involved. [2] [3] Would you consider handing the case over to another sysop for review to ensure this was in order? --TS 20:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure- I didn't consider myself 'involved'; I was just reverting obvious rule-breaking, warning, re-warning, blocking, like I often do. I could care less about Caroline Lucas, and indeed had never heard of her ten minutes ago. I'm entirely open to a review of the block, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
And now she is appealing the block, so she'll have an opportunity to have a different administrator review the block, which is very convenient. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Well while she was doing that I posted this at WP:AN. Oh well. I didn't want this to be a huge high profile thing but there you are. --TS 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It's all good. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to raise Saldezza at AN/I but I see you've already acted. Did you see s/he'd also vandalised WP:NPOV? [4] -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I re-blocked for a week this time. I suspect she'll ultimately have to be blocked indefinitely, but maybe she'll decide to change her strategies on seeing that her way of doing things is not achieving her goals, so I want to give her the chance to make that decision. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Abuse[edit]

Are you a fat lesbian dyke? Ulisses Heureux (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. However, none of those things are against Wikipedia's rules, while vandalism is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Bailout! The Game[edit]

New to wikipedia. Not sure what I am doing wrong. I thought we are suppose to edit content until it is accepted. It still says it is not accepted. Please advise as to what we are suppose to do. lindasueblack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindasueblack (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, what you're doing is making it more likely that the article will be deleted. There's a deletion discussion happening right now. It won't close instantly; it'll stay open for a week or so while other editors discuss whether this article should be deleted. Some users think it should not be deleted, because it's a notable game. Some editors think it should be deleted, because, the way it's written, it's an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. User:Teapotgeorge tried to help avoid deletion by starting to rewrite the article so it's an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement, but you keep undoing all her edits. In addition, you're edit-warring- repeatedly undoing other users' edits- and that's something we block people for. What you should do is either stand back and let User:Teapotgeorge help, or pitch in and help by removing everything that isn't in independent sources (like the reviews), and also everything that uses words that praise the game instead of simply explaining it. Don't expect an instant decision in the deletion discussion; it is often a week before they are finished. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the reviews are done my independent industry experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindasueblack (talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't understand what I said. I said it in the best way that I could; I don't think there's another way I can phrase it. I'll let you make your own decision about future edits, with what you got from what I typed and from your own reading of the rules. Good luck. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

School for Creative and Performing Arts[edit]

Thank you for the kudos on School for Creative and Performing Arts. I have more or less finished it now and have put it up for GA review. I believe (from the talk page) you may be connected to the school. I would be much obliged if you would take a look at it and correct any glaring errors or omissions, especially around the curriculum, etc. I did my best, but it's been a long time. ;-) Vaughanchris (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm delighted with the work you've done on this article- I'm close enough to have a conflict of interest, so I've left the article alone for that reason- I'm delighted that the article is getting the rewrite. I'll look it over for factual errors, though I've had it on my watchlist and have seen at least some of what you did (I think I did even correct a minor error at one point. ) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks solid- you uncovered things I didn't know, especially about the history of the Woodward building and its educational significance. It would probably benefit from a once-over by someone entirely uninvolved; there are lots of people who watch my talk page, and I'll bet that if I just drop a casual hint here, someone who's never heard of the place would review the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A helpful tool for you[edit]

See last contribution in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.55.56.149 btw: Who has unblocked the Hansenet-range? You? Regards 92.227.128.228 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't unblocked anything recently. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Saldezza[edit]

FYI, your original comment; Saldezza adding italics whilst replying. Rd232 talk 13:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I only said 'in my opinion' to be polite, so he wouldn't feel badly about being wrong. Now that I have seen more of his way of communicating, I wouldn't attempt nuance again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny comment[edit]

Hi FisherQueen, despite the extremely painful (no pun intended) context of this unblock decline reason, the closing sentence is one of the funniest comments I have ever seen here. Cheers and joyful 2010! - DVdm (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I always feel a little sad when a block has to be made under WP:CIR, but for the good of the encyclopedia, it has to be done. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Annika Väisänen[edit]

Hi! I don't know why you nominated my article for deletion? The references are fine, you must be blind if you don't see my name in them? --Linnea78 (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several reasons. One is that, under the conflict of interest guidelines, we all agree not to write about ourselves- if you are truly notable, then someone else will write about you. Another is that, when I looked at the sources you cited, none of them seemed to be a full-length article about Annika Väisänen. Many of them were no more than a paragraph long, and clearly about a different subject. A third is that there was nothing in the article's description of you that seemed to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Many people model and write, but a major encyclopedia does not need articles about most of those people. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the article Annika Väisänen?! WP:OLD Despite a large number of arguments put forth by both sides for 7 days, it's quite clear that no consensus was going to be reached there. Therefore, the result was no consensus. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". --Linnea78 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't deleted that article. Since I was the one who had nominated it for deletion, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to close the discussion. However, I've looked back at the discussion, and there is a clear consensus to delete the article. The only person who favored keeping the article was you (using two usernames and also editing while logged out), but you didn't make a good case that the subject meets the notability criteria. Don't worry; if you are truly a notable person, then it is inevitable that someone else will write about you, when better sources that make your notability more clear become available. And if you are truly a notable person, you almost certainly have more important things to do than waste your precious time trying to write about yourself on Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Question[edit]

How do I indicate an article is not written with a neutral tone? Hawk8103 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You can use a {{npov}} tag on the article or section, and then explain on the talk page what you think the problem with the article is, if it's an article that lots of people are working on, or on which people are likely to disagree. Or you can just fix it as well as you can, if no one seems likely to disagree with you about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

LBHS Cheerleaders[edit]

What do you make of this? This user who is an LBHS Cheerleader but seems to be harmless added the blocked template herself? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not malicious, but definitely disruptive. If we ignore her, maybe she'll go away. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and yes- many high school students can and do edit Wikipedia in delightfully useful ways. This person, however, seems to lack the basic skills required- spelling, grammar, research knowledge, and the ability to work politely with others. I'm not anti-student. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand. I look down upon those younger than me too. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Note[edit]

Hi, i dont know who the hell these people are that are trying to impersonate me and my friend sierra, i am in fact the true sarah and i have no idea how they got my myspace or sierras facebook. we are very freaked out , and just to let you know that was NOT us. im not on the cheerleading team anymore so i dont know why they keep refurring to us as "cheerleaders" . so please tell this person to stop or else law enforcement will get involve because this is impersonation and its against the law. Sierra's dad is a officer of the law and he has the power to find you and arrest you. -thanks , sarah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.126.141 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't that important; none of them appear to be making useful edits to Wikipedia, so blocks all 'round. Since you have made a legal threat, I'll go ahead and block you as well; I look forward to being arrested by Sierra's father later this evening. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Woah, woah. Sarah was making a legal threat against the person impersonating her, not you FisherQueen. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. She isn't allowed to make legal threats against anyone, and whatever game she and her classmates are playing, Wikipedia is not a playground for them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If you were following the sockpuppet investigation as of late, you'd see that those other users you were talking to were impersonating these two girls. I talked to one on MySpace and confirmed that they were fake accounts. The IP who started this thread is the real person. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
...who also hasn't contributed anything useful to Wikipedia, or expressed any interest in doing so. If she's interested in writing an encyclopedia, and better able to do so than her classmates, she's welcome to say so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Crestwood[edit]

Apologize? I don't see how an apology is in order, at least from my end. You removed the story. That's not an appropriate response to a section that is too long. If wanted to make the effort to trim the story, that would have been appreciated. Instead, you took two seconds to delete the entire section. So I believe that it was appropriate to undo your edit. — goethean ॐ 16:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I invited you to apologize for insulting me in an edit summary. You do not need to apologize for disagreeing with me, of course, but I'm disappointed that you thought that, because you disagree, you have an obligation to be insulting. I can see on your talk page, now that I look closer, that other users have also tried to advise you to avoid insulting your fellow editors, as recently as a few hours ago. I also see a discussion at WP:ANI about your bad habit of insulting other editors. You should be cautious; users who ignore the rules of good manners are often blocked, and doing so just hours after a warning and while administrators are still noticing the ANI thread and looking at your recent edits was not wise. I withdraw the invitation to apologize; it would be meaningless for you to do so to avoid a block, if you couldn't do it just because you were sorry for insulting me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
...especially since you have just made the exact same edit that you insulted me for making. Realized that I was right about the undue weight problem, did you? That's why we don't insult other editors- because it's more embarrassing when we have to admit that we were wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Altana Capital[edit]

Hi. Why did you delete page Altana_Capital ? I am owner of the web-site of this company. Thanks for some information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero alt (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted your article because I thought it was about a subject that didn't meet the notability criteria, but I'm open to the possibility that I was wrong. If you'll provide me with links to three articles that confirm this subject's notability, in newspapers, magazines, or significant online sources, I'd be happy to undelete the article, and I'll even add the sources to it so no one else will mistake it for an inappropriate article. In addition to that, it was a copy of material published elsewhere; Wikipedia does not publish copyrighted text unless that text has been legally released by its owner (and a message on Wikipedia, from someone whose identity is unverified, does not constitute such a release), and even if we did, we wouldn't publish a company's own publicity materials as a neutral encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some links to articles: http://www.kommersant.ua/doc.html?DocID=1303624&IssueId=7000346 (in Russian) http://economics.unian.net/rus/detail/28247 (in Russian) http://comments.com.ua/?art=1260465350 (in Russian) http://stocks.investfunds.com.ua/news/21227 (in Russian) I promise that I will change the neutrality of materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero alt (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't read Russian, I'm not able to evaluate those sources, but you can use deletion review to ask that the article be undeleted; there are people at Wikipedia who can read those sources, I just don't happen to be one of them. You should probably review the conflict of interest guidelines as well.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FisherQueen, you're my hero[edit]

I realized I hadn't stopped by in a while to say hello! This is one of the best unblock decline reasons I've seen in a while and made my afternoon. Cheers to you! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't even kidding on that one. These nationalist disruptions happen in the most inexplicable places... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
That they do. It is always entertaining to see them addressed so poignantly, though. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Trisha Novotny[edit]

You asked for references with this submisson.


Here are links to articles written: http://www.kitsapsun.com/photos/2009/aug/23/85713/ http://www.blogtalkradio.com/trisha-novotny http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/07/2091989.aspx http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/aug/23/gig-harbor-moms-bring-their-dot-com-streaming/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpeila (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! In this case, I can't undelete, because the version I deleted was written in a way that was purely advertising. But, assuming that you aren't one of the people who creates this web series, feel free to use these sources to write a neutral version. If you are one of the creators, don't worry about it- at Wikipedia we all agree not to write about ourselves or our own web sites, but if you are running a notable web site, it's inevitable that some of your many fans will write an article about you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The IPs[edit]

Who is this person and why have they latched onto me?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been hitting me, too, and I honestly have no idea. Possibly Zzuuzz's habitual vandal? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have so many of them I've lost count :) Possible answer on my talk page.. They seem to request unblock a lot. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I AGF'd[edit]

...over here. Hope you don't mind. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Can my account be unblocked?[edit]

FisherQueen: IIRC, a while ago I tried to correct some minor (spelling/grammar perhaps?) problem on a page without creating a user account, and was prevented from doing so because anonymous edits had been blocked from my (ISP's) IP range? So...I created a user account, only to find that my user account had been auto-blocked...because of the IP range. I applied to have my account unblocked, but, exasperated at how ridiculous the process of making such a small change had become, I gave up. My time is not worthless. I intended today to create an article, but realised during the process that notability criteria were not met, I also realised that my account was still blocked and that my request to have it unblocked had been actively declined. I have no specific edit in mind and my account will no doubt remain dormant until I come across something in need of correction. When that happens it would be nice if I didn't have to spend an inordinate amount of time to do so. Could you unblock my account please? Thanks. Adamazing (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this request. If you were blocked, you would not be able to post to my talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage changes[edit]

I noticed you removed my addition to the article "Same-sex Marriage," at the bottom of the section "Controversy" under the sub-heading "Children and the family." The concise reason stated on the article-change history indicated that you did not see how the cited sources support the paragraph. I explain my reasoning at the bottom here. Perhaps we could figure out what--if anything--should be put in the place of the removed paragraph. The paragraph was actually a shortened version of one that appeared January 14 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage&oldid=337798486 for convenience). That paragraph is quoted in full below:

Opponents of same-sex marriage respond by claiming that research on children parented by homosexuals is biased, poorly conducted, and unscientific.[138] They point to journal article reviews by Lerner and Nagai (2000), Baumrind (1995), and Williams (2000) that indicate that research supporting the same-sex marriage argument "suffer[s] from severe methodological flaws,"[139], is "based on small samples of convenience, retrospective data, or self-report instruments subject to social desirability biases,"[140] or fails to publish "significant, but left unreported" data contrary to its conclusion.[141] They point out that some research has been thrown out due to blatant bias concerns, such as during the 1997 Florida hearing Petitioner v. Floyd P. Johnson.[142] Critics further suggest that important research contrary to LGBT movement has been overlooked or has not received its due scrutiny, like a study concluded by Stacey and Biblarz in 2001. After reviewing 21 studies on homosexual parenting and its effects on children, Biblarz and Stacey, the latter a proponent of gay-marriage, report the following: "Our careful scrutiny of the findings [the researchers of the 21 studies] report suggests that on some dimensions--particularly those related to gender and sexuality--the sexual orientations of these parents matter somewhat more for their children than the researchers claimed."[143]

My concern is that--in the absence of a paragraph like this one--the article is too weak because it appears somewhat biased. I have sympathy for both sides of this debate and would appreciate your input as to what would be appropriate. Perhaps we could come to a conclusion as to what would be fitting for the article, if anything.

In order to somewhat "defend" the scope of the paragraph above is that it provides one of the strongest academic arguments currently employed by opponents of same-sex marriage. Proponents point to strong, peer-reviewed research to back their case. Opponents do not have the same magnitude of research to support their view, and therefore seek to undermine the credibility of the proponents' research. Both sides have relatively strong naturalistic arguments, but I think it strengthens the article on the whole to include both. I think you have a lot to offer and I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Hackerj23 (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's consensus at Talk:Same-sex marriage that this paragraph is part of the best possible article, then that's fine; I'm not the boss of same-sex marriage. That discussion belongs on the talk page there, though, not here where no one will see it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're back.[edit]

I'm very glad. Wikipedia is better for it. Yay! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not back. You just imagined me. You are a crazy person. Are you getting enough sleep? Sleep deprivation can cause hallucinations, I've heard. Then again, I hallucinate in my sleep, so I guess there's no way to avoid it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Oddly enough I haven't been getting enough sleep. I think. Maybe I dreamt that, and I'm actually wonderfully well-rested, dreaming of my insomnia. THE MADNESS!! IT QUICKENS!!!
Well, no matter hallucination or reality, I'm glad you're back in some form. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed content from this page[edit]

Sorry about that - it remains in the history if you need to review it - but it violated a fair few policies, and in respect of third parties at that. I am accepting brickbats and trouts, if thought necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (In fact, someone else beat me to it - but I am in a generous mood and will be accepting the blame anyhoo! LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Normally, it amuses me to keep my vandalism in my talk pages, so I can chuckle over it in my archives for years later. In this case, however, I think that WP:RBI is the correct response; feel free to revert any more edits from this user. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What am I missing[edit]

I unblocked, checked for autoblocks ... what am I missing? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing... he just edited his userpage, so he can't be blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

About West Jefferson High School[edit]

I am still in progress of clean up and citing the sources of this article. It may take a few days.

--JacquelineX (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're using reliable sources to get information, it's easy to add the sources when you write the paragraph. You should wait until you have sources to add information to articles; that way, you'll know you are not relying on your own original research. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My Page for Rynaee[edit]

Hi there, Sorry I'm new to this but here are some refrences that I have regarding to the article 'Rynaee' : http://whenboysbecamegirls.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-12-14T02%3A46%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=6

http://trans2.blog4.fc2.com/blog-entry-655.html

http://trans.blog3.fc2.com/blog-entry-89.html

http://cafe.daum.net/annietaclub

http://blog.oricon.co.jp/ryn

http://community.freechal.com/ComService/Activity/Album/CsPhotoView.asp?GrpId=664&ObjSeq=5&SeqNo=6615&PageNo=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaincyann (talk • contribs) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how this works, but I hope you could help out! Thank you!

Most of those sources are blogs; what's needed is to demonstrate this person's notability by finding reliable sources, like newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, or articles in significant online news sources her. Very few YouTube performers meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, although a few do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaincyann (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

possible unblock of User:Themnager10[edit]

I dunno. The latest remarks are difficult to believe, i.e. that someone working on a PHD is also working as a drugstore manager and has time left over to make angry edits to Wikipedia, but I was thinking of unblocking anyway. I've just written an essay about this sort of situation which is at WP:ROPE. I think it applies here, if we give her a chance and she can't leave it alone, then we're done once and for all. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, it is deeply unlikely that a PhD candidate would be likely to have such poor grammar, or such poor research skills. If he's willing to avoid the subject of his former employer, I don't mind giving it a try... we can always re-block, after all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
And away we go... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:FisherQueen/Archive39&oldid=1077392217"