User:FisherQueen/Archive44

How do you say, "So long, suckers" in Mandarin?

I'm leaving today for a long vacation in China, where I expect to experience jet lag, culture shock, and sleep deprivation, and to generally be lost, disoriented, and bewildered. I also expect to find the food inedibly foreign and frightening. In short, I'm going to have a wonderful time, and I'm not planning to check in here very often. If you need administrative assistance, don't leave a message here, but go straight to

I speak Mandairn JFBurton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

When is consensus bullying?

I feel as though I am being bullied out of Wikipedia when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed the proposed ban discussion and the request for comment. There is not a group of malign editors who have formed a cohort against you. There is a group of good editors who have tried very hard to help you edit in a way that makes the encyclopedia better. You have given every indication that you simply don't understand what they are saying- it seems that the problem is not that you refuse to write in a way that's appropriate for an encyclopedia, but that you are not able to write in a way that's appropriate for an encyclopedia. I have no doubt that you mean well, and are trying to improve the encyclopedia. But your actual edits make the encyclopedia worse. Others have tried to teach and help you, but it has not worked. The guideline that people are mentioning in the discussion most often is the one that says

Competence Is Required. It makes me sad to see people banned for this reason, every time it happens, and I know that it makes the users who are proposing it sad, too. That's why they tried so hard to help and teach you. But when helping and teaching don't work, Wikipedia can't permit a user to keep editing who will continue making the encyclopedia worse. Especially if that person is making 20,000 or more edits that other users have to review and remove or correct or rewrite. I'm sorry that it's working out this way, but since you have not learned from the people who have already tried to help, I'm not sure what more I can do. Thank you for trying, and I hope that you'll have better success in your next hobby. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 11:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Seventeen tantras, Mindstream, Nyingma Gyubum, Jigme Lingpa... what is wrong with those articles? I feel like I am in some surreal parallel universe. Good editors? That is not my experience. And making an assertion that I lack competence is not true. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel like it would be useful to repeat here what others have already told you- your writing is completely unreadable to a user who isn't familiar with the subject. Wikipedia articles need to be things that can be read and understood. If a reasonably bright high school student can't understand what you've written, there's very little point in writing it. I'm a reasonably bright college graduate, looking at Seventeen tantras, and I have no idea what the seventeen tantras are, what they say, who wrote them, who they're important to, or what impact they've had on the tradition they come from. I don't understand a single paragraph of it, and the problem is not that I'm a weak reader. The article exists, but since it doesn't communicate any information to anyone, it isn't that helpful that it exists. If people have been trying to help you write clearly and simply for two years, and this is the result, then it doesn't seem that people's help is going to change the situation. If you could write simply and clearly, you would already have done so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Someone has been maliciously impersonating you off-wiki

Looks like someone has set up an account with the name FisherQueen on

[2]: Yes, scientists use "prove" only when talking about math or when unconcerned about precision. But "disprove" if used much more often, because you can disprove things by a single counterexample, even in the strict mathematical sense (baring philosophical sophistries about the nature of reality, of course). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean; feel free to change it back if you like 'disprove' better. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, your version is just as fine. I just took objection to the edit summary in this context. As you might guess, this is a portrait of me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

AfD etiquette

I didn't want to post this at ANI, but take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Oban derailment. My gut feeling is that it was nominated because the nominator didn't manage to create it himself. I was trying for an ITN which is why the article had to be created as soon as possible to get a credit if it had made ITN (it didn't, but will get a DTK instead). I'm afraid I did get riled and take the mickey out of MickMacNee (talk · contribs) a bit with the GA comment - although there's no reason why the article can't make GA in time (the Grayrigg derailment is an example). MickMacNee is an editor who holds strong views and isn't readily given to accepting that he is wrong, which makes discussion with him problematic. I did not engage him on his talk page as I was trying to keep the drama to a minimum. It should be noted that I also chided an editor who made a comment in the AfD against MMN which MMN removed as a personal attack. Mjroots (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I guess you're hoping that a more vague discussion at ANI will clarify how much input the nominating editor should put in at an AfD discussion, in a more general way, since you don't think direct discussion will be effective? Someone would still have to tell him the results of that discussion, though. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

But I ask you...

... how often is an essay posted on here any good? Nice comment. Cheers. — Timneu22 · talk 15:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen one or two, but in general, people who can write well enough to write a good essay, can also write well enough to recognize that Wikipedia is not a good place for an essay. I think it's interesting that the writer has now given us his real name- a conceptual artist who does not use English as a first language. I checked out his web site; I like some of his paintings. He just doesn't get what an encyclopedia is, unfortunately, and is behaving in a way that, perhaps, has been a successful strategy for him in the art world. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to make this a bumper sticker: people who can write well enough to write a good essay, can also write well enough to recognize that Wikipedia is not a good place for an essay. — Timneu22 · talk 15:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Too long. I hate it when I have to squint to read someone's bumper sticker and I end up creeping up right behind them at a light and they think I'm stalking them but really it's just the basic compulsion to read things. That's why it is no fair that some women wear shorts or sweat pants with stuff written on the butt. They trick you into looking at their butts and feeling like a dirty old man by writing on it. No fair.

talk

) 17:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The "old" issues I had with Dr.K. remain quite fresh in my mind considering that 'K' and others have continued commenting well into June.

1) A closer look at the issue will demonstrate that Dr.K. has managed to parlay the support of 3 or so other administrators for a fresh round of threats and attacks.

2) I do not take lightly an administrator's near-simultaneous first warning and last warning before ejection, all about 1 or 2 edits, particularly when they relate to inherently political viewpoints and apparently precipitated the personal antagonism of the administrator in question. In this case the subject matter was the candidacy of former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, a Republican who has never held public office currently running for governor of California against Jerry Brown, previous governor of California and current attorney general.

My understanding is that there is strong discouragement in Wikipedia policy of such drastic acceleration of administrative actions. Yet K ran through the full panoply of disciplinary phases based on 2 edits of a single topic with no sign of any defense of me, a lowly sporadic editor, from any more fair-minded administrators. Since K put out a clarion call to all 1700+ administrators to support his methods, the fact that no one has stepped forward to this date to suggest that K was overreacting (he having gone so far as to mock my claim that severe illness had left me unaware of his advancements against me - resultng in a virtual trial in absentia). Further, considering the vitriole of my multiple warnings and with my Google Timeline revealing that I had not even been online at all when "my" last breach took place, there was reason for me to suspect that such highly politicized administrators, being disappointed and frustrated by my apparent failure to invite myself to my own wiki-execution by carrying out further 'vandalism', instead carried it out in my name.

As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." The question here is not who WOULD by technologically capable of pulling off this nefarious variation upon sock-puppetry, but rather who, among this highly resourceful group of persons clever enough to become administrators WOULD NOT be clever enough to impersonate me on Wikipedia -- that is, if they chose. I hasten to add that only a very few administrators would choose to corrupt Wikipedia in this or any other manner. But there are freelancers in every large organization, and "very few" administrators would be sufficient to get the job done.

Again, call me paranoid. But don't tell me that such things couldn't happen, particularly considering the current atmosphere of bitterness and enmity which exists between the Republicans and the Democrats in California at every level. . . . QuintBy : Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quintby (talk • contribs)

I think that my suggestion was to let it go, because it's over. Are you requesting some specific action from me? You were not blocked for whatever content issue you are talking about, but for repeatedly removing content from another user's talk page- simple vandalism which I'm sure you won't do again. No further action seems to be needed. If some further action is needed, you'll need to be more specific about what you're asking me for. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, allow me to reassure you that it is not possible for anyone other than yourself to make edits from your account. No administrator has any access to your account.- unless you've left yourself logged in on a public computer, or given your password to someone, no one but you can edit using your account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

China

So ... was it fabulous? Was it an adventure (bearing in mind the Mark Twain definition of an adventure, in which at some point you wish you were home in bed - 14-hour flights don't count)? Acroterion _(talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to hike five miles of the Great Wall. In fact, I DID hike five miles of the Great Wall, since once you're up there and the bus has moved on to meet you at the end of the hike, there isn't much choice but to keep walking up and down those steep, crumbling steps. Nearly crippled me. It was definitely a learning experience, the trip to China, and broadened my mind and my worldview, and I saw and smelled and tasted many things that were new to me. And I've resolved to never leave my apartment again, ever. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume that there were vendors at the end of the hike with cool, refreshing drinks and inflated prices? Inner Mongolia in June might have been a bit warm. Acroterion _(talk) 11:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The entrepreneurs (not just at the end, but on every watchtower) didn't bother me so much. The woman whose business plan was to be so annoying that I would pay her to go away, her, I could have done without. I let her follow me for a mile, telling me things I didn't need to know and trying to take my hand to 'help' me up steps, just politely telling her 'no thank you.' At the seventh watchtower, she produced postcards. "You buy, I go back," she said. "You no buy, I follow- whole way." "No, thank you," I said- and halfway to the next tower, when she was still there, I wheeled around suddenly, and the mountains of China rang with my shout of "FUCK OFF! GO AWAY!" She backed up about three steps, eyes wide. "You crazy!" she said. "YES! CRAZY! FUCK OFF! GO AWAY!" Then she started trying to argue. "You no good! No good!" "YES! NO GOOD! FUCK OFF! GO AWAY!" And... she went away. And I continued my walk in relative peace. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your approach might not exactly emulate the Confucian ideal, but was effective (and I bet she wrings a fair business out of people who are too damn polite to up the ante). Acroterion _(talk) 14:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Great Wall of China, you have been trolled. If you weren't already an admin that story would make me want to nominate you.

talk

) 17:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a musing story fisher.

talk

) 03:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

You were right - I should not edit when distracted. My apologies. GregJackP (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

No big. I could see where the confusion lay; you wouldn't have seen it without a close-ish look at the article history.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Practice what you preach please

You said on your block denial at User talk:Cimicifugia the following, "Wikipedia is a collaborative project; it works through people working together. Insulting other users makes it impossible to work together to improve the articles. Editing disputes can be stressful and difficult..." . This edit of yours clearly shows you did not do your homework. Had you done your homework you would have known to give Bali ultimate the exact same thing, or a block or maybe a warning. In the future, please do your homework first and please practice what you preach? Thanks. Caden ^cool 02:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't block User:Cimicifugia. If I had, to be honest, I might indeed have blocked them both. I just reviewed the unblock request. "You did not do your homework?" "Practice what you preach?" Are you sure you want me to block everyone who has behaved rudely in this dispute? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese

Hi! I corrected my translation. Please take a look at the thread. The more accurate translation of the verb 報 is "let (someone) know". Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I like that even better. I didn't want to be... you know, the kind of person who buys Chinese writing just because it's pretty without caring what it says. Even though I guess I did exactly that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SamEV and CashRules

Hi, could you take a look as SamEV's latest comments at Talk:Dominican Republic#Sex tourism? Concerning the "sex tourism" issue, several editors have hammered out a workable compromise, and I have implemented the solution. SamEV remains opposed to the compromise on the sole grounds that the original material was contributed by CashRules, whos status as a sock of UnclePaco has yet to be proven. I'm not in anyway an activist, especially on this issue, but Sam is beginning to become a disruption there. I've tried to hold a neutral postion in the dispute, and, as both CashRules and Sam think I support the other person, I must either be dead on, or way way off! I would welcome your opinion as an editor, and/or your oversight as an admin. - BilCat (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. There's enough bad faith in that discussion to fill a small boat. Maybe I'll just wait until they start edit-warring again and then block everyone, if they can't sort it out like reasonable people, until the sockpuppet investigation concludes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the dilema that when I showed good faith to one user, the other took it as bad faith torward them! I said things Sam took to be in bad faith, but I really didn't mean them that way. It just ended up making things worse. Anyway, thanks for contriguting. Perhaps we need to seek out an admin or two who regularly deal with sock issues to clarify some things here. - BilCat (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's now happening at

Talk:White Latin American#Petition for Name Change. I'm going to stay out of that one, else I might be labeled as stalking too! Btw, I discovered it because I left a comment on CR's page last week, and it's still watch-listed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk

) 22:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I saw that you're a learned and open-minded person, so you understand what are minorities, a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the logic, "She's a lesbian, so she must be interested in Catalan?" I'm afraid I don't know enough about this organization to give it any particular support, nor would my uninformed support be at all meaningful. I've left a message on your talk page about Wikipedia's rules on

canvassing, which I'm sure you didn't intend to break. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 10:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Good afternoon, thanks for the advice! Actually this already happened in the Dutch Wikipedia (and partly in the Ukrainian one) where I was assaulted rather aggressively after two messages. The fact is that it might depend on your conception of the Wikipedia, if you think you really are for the spreading of knowledge then you should consider all the Wikipedias as a whole and not as autarchic societies or worlds, so in my opinion what happens in one part of it (just as it happens in the real world when there is a war, or disease or whatever may have repercussions on your place even if it's real far away...). So if you think that some small (or minorized) languages Wikipedias shouldn't exist or ask for help or try to deserve a Chapter because they work real hard but have no state, well I respect your position (I know not everyone will agree or should agree otherwise we wouldn't live in democracies)... Considering it a spamming move in my opinion would be a step against "freedom of speech". If I should consider a message offensive or obnoxious I would simply erase it, that happens frequently but personnally I don't do it because I care about the others and their views (I gave support recently to the creation of a Mayan Wikipedia!) I think that except a few we all work here without material benefits and for the sake of knowledge. Sincerely yours, I wish you a delicious Sunday and thanks again for your interest and kind advice! (I hope you won't consider this answer a spam!) Capsot (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand this message; I certainly have no objection to your trying to start a Chapter, whatever that is, but you don't have 'freedom of speech' in a legal sense on Wikipedia, and if you've already been asked not to canvass on two other wikipedias, then you should be aware that the same rules apply here at the English Wikipedia. I hope, even if you don't agree with the rule against canvassing, that you will follow it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was typing my message while you sent yours and missed even some points of the previous, well I had seen that you knew some Esperanto which is aimed to be a universal language and break the barriers of communication rather than your sexual orientations, which I totally respect! I don't know much about canvassing though I think it applies to discussions about an article (and there's none here neither discussion nor article) acting in such a way to create a lobby to support your view (in this part maybe it could apply even though the support is not in the Wikipedia itself). The "conflicts" in the other Wikipedias weren't about Canvassing but one of them considered I sent spam to many users which actually could have been the result of clear partisan positions against us after erasing twice a template of mine without any message explaining why the templates were erased but finally the person realized she had overreacted creating a real fuss in the Wikipedia and we managed to communicate peacefully afterwards because the real problem was you can't create templates resulting of previous conflicts. In the Ukrainian Wikipedia the person didn't share my way of seeking support though he manifested his interest in seeking solutions in the next messages and I need to talk to him again to be sure I won't create any more problems there seeking support. Thanks again for your interest and my most sincere apologies since I've bothered you and made lose your time when you could create wonderful contributions. Capsot (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the rules about canvassing aren't limited to discussions about an article, and do apply to you, too. Bear in mind that this is also a very ineffective way to get your Chapter going, since you need the participation of people who will be members of the chapter- and that means targeting your appeals to those people. I don't live in any of the places this Chapter would be operating in, and neither, I think, do most of the people you've left messages for. You're going to spend a lot of time on this without really getting your proposed chapter any farther toward reality, if I understand the concept of a Chapter correctly- you need real members for your chapter, not just templates on the English wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Toyota Camry Hybrid

Hello. You were extremely helpful in the Zubaty affair, and I thought your expertise would be helpful in the current discussion at

I... am not sure. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your secret plan

I see your secret plan to block CashRules. You described it as a secret plan. In general, we should not have a predetermined plan to block someone. However, one may think that a block is coming based on our beliefs of people's editing behavior and how they continue to edit that way. Overall, I agree with your idea of blocking based on people's edits rather than try to scream "sock" whenever one is frustrated.

One reason is because criminals are sometimes proven to be innocent despite a trial. In Wikipedia, accused socks are usually blocked for life but not afforded even a trial. If a formal trial can result in mistakes, you can be sure the mistake rate for SPIs are higher. On the other hand, if someone insists on Dominican sex tourism, you can see their edits plain and simple.

In short, I agree with you for the most part. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The 'secret plan' is my standard one in situations where someone may or may not be a disruptive blocked user with a new username- if he's going to behave better, then let him continue to participate usefully, if he creates the same disruptions, block him for it. Slower than blocking on sight, but I hate being wrong about these things. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. If you ever are being picked on, write to me. I will evaluate the situation and if you are sensible, like you are now, I will come to your aid. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I've removed Dominican Republic from my watchlist. It's a big country; I'm sure some other admins are watching it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU

I appreciate your warm welcome. I am still trying to find my way around--like how to contact you--I guess I figured it out. But not how to do the heading! For the present I will be focused on revising the Pascal Pyramid article--then maybe the Triangle. I will probably be contacting you on some technical editing issues--how to do things within the confines of the wiki page structure. Thanks again Colin.campbell.27 (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I don't know the actual subject you're working in, but I do know how to do some of the technical stuff, and how to find a WikiProject full of knowledgeable editors in all sorts of subjects. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Translation Barnstar
		For your excellent work translating into English from junior high, you fully deserve this barnstar. BencherliteTalk 17:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the UK equivalent,

No, that's a new one for me. I don't get cable television, so the only British TV I see is when my friend records Doctor Who for me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Entertaining if you ever get the chance. You have mail, BTW.

Bencherlite^Talk

17:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That's weird. Not only did I not log out, but I didn't have to log back in, either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem; also fixed the barnstar template itself for good measure!

Bencherlite^Talk

18:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bicycling up a hill

Just curious, are you already a Cincinnati resident, and if not, are you familiar with Cincinnati? I wasn't clear from your statement. Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with Cincinnati, yes. Wonderful city. Charmingly hilly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I spent the nine years living in Clifton, and usually worked downtown. When I think now of all the times I biked up Vine Street or Clifton Avenue after working all day it makes my legs hurt.

talk

) 17:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'll give up my eco-friendly bike-commuter fantasy and just keep driving, like a real American. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've actually had a look at that conversation, I might be able to give you some specific advice on the easiest routes, in my time I biked all over Clifton, Mt. Adams, Downtown, Mt. Auburn and Spring Grove. Spring Grove Cemetery is great for some quiet bike time with minimal traffic and light grades. Anyhoo, lemme know if you you would like more specific information on getting around there.

talk

) 18:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that I live on the top of one of Cincinnati's charming hilltop neighborhoods... I love Spring Grove, and walk there all the time. Putting aside, for the moment, the question of whether I could bike UP Mount Hilly without killing myself... how does one go about biking DOWN Mount Hilly without killing oneself? And what are my odds of getting wiped out by a car if I make it downtown? (In case it isn't obvious, I don't actually own a bicycle. I'm deciding whether or not buying one would be a reasonable purchase, and not just an expensive unused toy sitting around my apartment) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, I guess I got around that by being twenty years old, not wearing a helmet, and believing myself to be indestructible. If I could make the light at the bottom of Vine I could sail most of the way through Over-the-Rhine without pedaling much. Something tells me the early-twenties-stoned-guy-on-his-way-to-low-paying-cooking-job-at-fancy-cafe-near-the-courthouse technique isn't what you are looking for. I have a co-worker who is very fond of her new motor scooter and it 80-90 miles per gallon efficiency. Maybe that would be a better idea. Anything but the Metro. If only they had finished the fabled Cincinnati subway. I did some "urban spelunking" in the tunnels off I-75 a few times, but that's another story of my indestructible youthfulness...

talk

) 19:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I took the subway tour this spring- it was pretty dazzling, let me tell you. It looks like... a subway. Reminded me of the subway stations in Chicago. Feels like a train might arrive any minute... in great condition even after all these years. What a monument to bad planning. I don't really mind the Metro, but I get bored standing around waiting for the bus to arrive. I hadn't really thought about a scooter- I liked the electric bicycle idea for the possibility of turning off the 'electric' part when I didn't need it, thus getting exercise and not using fuel. I need to go to a bike shop and see if they'll let me test-drive one. Ideally, down a steep hill, into a highway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I heard they were actually doing tours now. Crazy. We were so sure we were going to get arrested as we emerged, the tunnel we came in through is quite obvious from the highway. It also has water works stuff in it now so it was probably a Federal offense even being there. We actually found an old bomb shelter about three quarters of a mile in. It still had bunks although no mattresses, and barrels of iodine pills and bandages. If we did this today we would probably get "disappeared" by Homeland Security.

talk

) 20:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to the bicycling...If you buy a bicycle with a good granny gear, you really will be able to bike up the hills without much effort; you'll go quite slowly, but it won't be much harder than biking in flat terrain. I'd advise you to go with a simple and inexpensive bicycle; you'll probably find plenty of uses for it. I attended college in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, which is in a very hilly area; during my final year I often had reason to bicycle to various places, and because of the granny gear, it wasn't too hard to get around. Don't forget the manoeuvrability factor: as long as you have a good bike lock, you can tie up the bike in places that you could never park your car, and parking meters will go from being annoyances to being convenient places to attach your bike lock. Nyttend (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello again, I was wondering what to make of → this ← because AFAIK the whois template should stay on... thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just restore the template. If you like, leave a note saying, "I'm afraid we'd prefer to keep that template, but if you'd like your own talk page, just register an account!" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've done that before but the guy keeps removing it, usually after a while. FYI, this see-saw reverting by her/him has been going on for quite some time now and quite frankly, he/she doesn't seem to want to stop. Now what are the odds of her/him stopping? Sheesh~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left his a friendly note, then I'll protect the page if he does it again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• I stand corrected... you do have a way of stopping her/him~! *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oops! He/she did it again. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you crazy?

The edit I made to the Editing Whitewash (censorship) article is perfectly legitimate. 71.100.2.16 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, you need an actual

talk

) 20:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Had I originated the term that would be one thing but I did not do that. Because "Healthwashing" is used in an abundance of places by many different authors it qualifies under the context of Related terms. With it presented here readers can Google and judge for themselves as to whether is (and for that matter the term whitewash" itself) are applicable and useful terms for their own application instead of having you dictate or limit their thoughts for them. In the context of "related terms" the term "Healthwashing" easily falls under the protection of

neologism would deny other readers of this important application of the term whitewash to health you may wish consider that Wikipedia policies are not hard and fast rules to be used in a manner that would turn the Wikipedia into a dead piece of wood, suitable for reference only and not learning. 71.100.2.16 (talk

) 01:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Which of the sources you found would you say is the best example of a

reliable, independent source thoroughly explaining the importance of this term? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 02:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I did as you suggested and searched for the term, using Google News so as to limit my search to more legitimate searches- it's so much easier than digging through blogs, which aren't

reliable sources anyway. Using Google News, I got three hits, but none of them actually mentioned the term at all- they were false hits for the words 'health,' 'washing,' and 'washington,' used next to each other but not as one word. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 02:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We have fifteen faculty and three undergraduates in our seminar and nineteen computers on this node. Because Google adapts over time each computer to the user we have found that they do not return the identical listing. In any event, the absence of flexibility in this case on behalf of the reader is suicide. 71.100.3.164 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm really shocked that you would change ips to avoid your block! Please don't do that, because it would suck for your school if we had to block the whole range just over this one little 24-hour block. I'm sure you will have time to find the best sources, and Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We have no further need of discussion since we succeeded in our goal of removing pink and red washing by manipulating you. 71.100.1.24 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010