User talk:John Kenneth Fisher/Archive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
initial creation
[edit] VFD debates
I have now closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Captain Placeholder. You are right that this VFD debate went on for quite some time. Closing debates is, like all other Wikipedia activity, voluntary work. Usually "easy to call" debates, such as 10 delete votes and no keep votes are closed quickly after the end of the 5-day voting period. Many administrators are cautious about closing more difficult debates, often preferring to sit it out and hope that a few late votes will clarify the issue. In this case making a clear call (choosing between keep and merge) was difficult and therefore it took some time to reach a final decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] John Kenneth Fisher
I noticed your contributions to the Gotham City article. Is this the John Kenneth Fisher? ~Chris Small ~CS 23:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- -D Indeed it is! And is this really the Chris Small? Ah, the old days of Usenet, how have you been??? --John Kenneth Fisher 19:14, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
-
- That's me. I've been doing well -- Good to see you're still around. Drop me an email sometime at [c small 451 at gmail dot com] to catch up!
[edit] Mark Felt Redux
In June you voted on the featured article candidacy of W. Mark Felt, which failed. It has now been resubmitted. In the event you would like to vote on the new candidacy, it is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 18:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Cage
"The Cage" is a canon episode. -- StAkAr Karnak 20:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. --John Kenneth Fisher 21:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please help - inclusionism is "absurb" now
Sorry to bother you, but as an things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion here. Kappa 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Warning (or, lack of reading comprehension and assumption of bad faith do not a good point make)
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User onemanonewoman. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Mira 20:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Try READING the page I linked to before jumping to conclusions, even if I was, perhaps foolishly, trying to be playful in my edit summary, "The word discrimination comes from the Latin "discriminare", which means to "distinguish between". To discriminate socially is to make a distinction between people on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit. Examples of social discrimination include racial, religious, sexual, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic, height-related, and age-related discrimination. Whether a given example of discrimination is positive or negative is a subjective judgement (i.e., in the eye of the beholder)." -Pro-family groups use the term, and say they are proud to discriminate, they feel it is immoral and against their beliefs not to. And, the original linked to page really does not address the question. So I tried to help, and you don't read the linked to page. So I take a min to look for something more neutral ( "inequality" I felt doesn't have the automatic negative connotation you found with "discrimination", and does apply to the issue far more than the "heterosexuality" article does,) , and again, you assume bad faith, call it "nonsense," and try to "warn" me about vandalism. You want it left this way, pointing to a page giving no further info for a person looking? Fine. But
before you try to threaten another user, you might want to read WP:AGF, WP:DR, and, I dunno, THE PAGE I LINKED TO TO SEE IF IT ACTUALLY SAYS WHAT YOU ASSUME IT DOES. --John Kenneth Fisher 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] National penis day
((written to user Nick_Scratch: ))Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to National penis day. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. NawlinWiki 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Why did you delete The National Penis Day article? It is an actual New Zealand holiday! Do some research before you go around deleting articles and accusing people of vandalism. seriously. (this unsigned comment was posted by User: Nick_Scratch )
-
-
- If you have reliable sources showing the existence of this holiday (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), have at it. Otherwise, please don't waste everyone's time. NawlinWiki 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Please do not accuse new people who are trying to help of adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to National penis day. It is considered a violation of WP:AGF. If you would like to verify suspect articles, use the Google to confirm if your suspicion is correct, and then if it turns out you were wrong, improve the article. Thank you. --John Kenneth Fisher 21:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- WP:AGF does not mean Wikipedia:Check your brain at the door. If someone creates an article with a title as stupid as National penis day, I'd say it's up to them to provide at least one source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. NawlinWiki 21:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Honestly? I don't disagree - he should have. But "nonsense" is a pretty loaded term to use and stick someone with when a two second Google search will show that, good article or no, it was clearly NOT a nonsensical one by any definition. You owe Nick_Scratch an apology. --John Kenneth Fisher 21:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hate to say, but I looked National Penis Day up on Google and it's definitely real. WmCliff 19:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes it is. And as far as I know, Nick_Scratch is still waiting for his well-deserved apology. --John Kenneth Fisher 14:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Did Nick_Scratch ever get his apology? Seems its the adult thing to do to admit when one is wrong when they jump to conclusions and declare someone guilty of "vandalism," "adding nonsense," "wasting everyone's time," instead of, you know, 4 seconds of due diligence. The right thing to do is to apologize to Nick_Sctatch on the same user page you insulted him on. It isn't always this easy to do the right thing, so why not try it? You might even like it. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reign of Terror Time Travelers
While I do think that the consensus to delete that list will stand, I do think there is merit in the idea of providing information about Time Travelers that is more substantive than just the category here. But as I said in the discussion, I think it would be better to start with a more generic list such as "List of Time Travelers by type of time travel" or "List of time travelers by era visited" instead of this specific list. I would certainly support such an article, and I think many other people would be interested. Mister.Manticore 19:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, you might also want to look at time travel in fiction. Mister.Manticore 19:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fascinating
You always have the most fascinating talk page, John. ~CS 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I do try :-) --John Kenneth Fisher 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
I'm not quite sure what you are asking. Could you please clarify? --210physicq (c) 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- John, the fair use restrictions, Wikipedia:Fair use, extend only to illustrations of the subject of articles. So Cyberman pics can be used on Cyberman but not someone's userpage. To be honest, it's not a huge deal to use a fair use image in the middle of a discussion, for like an hour, for fun, but just expect that it will be taken down pretty soon. — coelacan talk — 03:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Makes sense actually, just wasn't sure how it played out. :-) --John Kenneth Fisher 06:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
