I'm not quite sure what I've done wrong, however there's not a whole lot different between the page I put up and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dillinger_Four which was used as a template. Obviously I'd love to add something as relevant as say the invention of tesla's coil, however I only want the fair documentation as any one else who is listed as the encyclopedias of the world as we know it. If there's something specific we can add to please you while we're working up the next iteration, please let me know.--Pmwebster (talk·contribs)
hello FisherQueen,please give me last chance,iwill not repeat my mistake--Myth&Truth (talk·contribs)
I have also maken a unblock request on my original account mkbdtu (talk·contribs),please give me last chance,i will never repeat my mistakes and give useful contribution to wikipedia.I am requesting logout bcoz my talkpage access is revoked.--115.242.34.221 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You are avoiding your block while promising to stop avoiding your block? I do not believe you, because you're breaking your promise even while you make it. It's time to stop editing Wikipedia. You are still welcome to read the articles, but no more editing, because you are not able to follow the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Queen,i have frustrated now from wikipedia,once you said me that i should apply from my original account,i did so.wikipedia is for all,not for such crazy admins.i m waisting my time,i think its time to take some serious action against crazy admins of wikipedia,from last 2 months i am requesting for unblock but every body is waisting my time,you al r behaving me like a terrorist,its you all forcing me to make new account,if you give me one last chance,will it damage anything.please listen my last request if you have a heart and mind of humanbeing--mkbdtu (talk·contribs)
Yes, you are wasting your time. You have showed that you don't have the skills a person needs to write an encyclopedia, so any further time you spend here is wasted. You do not have to waste your time making new accounts that will be blocked; you can do the smart thing and stop. Your edits are not appropriate, your grammar and spelling are terrible, and you couldn't even leave me a message without messing up my talk page. You don't have the skills that an encyclopedia writer needs. Stop now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is born learned,everyone learns from his mistakes.You are also not a perfectionist,Every newcomer take some time to learn rules.But i Think you have lack of sense of humours.Thats why you are a Fisher queen,not a human Queen.Hail hitler...
Bye to wikipedia,i donot want to leave with fishes and their queen-mkbdtu (talk·contribs)--115.242.71.201 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello FisherQueen. I'm creating topic about computer game mod Ancient Empires Elysium. I'm an author of this mod. I don't understand why you deleted the thread{{Limes maximus|Ancient Empires Elysium}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Limes maximus (talk • contribs)
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. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you posted on Imention's talk page. They don't seem to have a problem editing on Snowded's user page as you can see here. Strange that their not the only user to make the same edit to his page, as you can see if you look at the last few edits there. Jack forbes (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess I should have checked first. They have both been blocked so you can completely ignore my post. :) Jack forbes (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was my 'assume-good-faith' note to let them know that I, at least, was monitoring their edits. Lots of blank edits looks like someone trying to get quickly auto-confirmed to me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
And here was me thinking I'd caught them out when all along you had your eye on them. Inspector Clouseau strikes again. :) Jack forbes (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I noticed your revert of the Surefire article and it appears you accidentally reverted my edit instead of the one from User:Florida_College_Office that I had already removed. Was this in error? Thanks.Legitimus (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Oops! It was Florida College Office that I intended to revert; I apologize for my mistake. Please feel free to restore your edit, and then punish me terribly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to ask you to specifically point out what was "NPOV" about the edits I made to the Stan Meyer article as accused me and have left a mark on my record.
Presumably you are intelligent enough to know that the accusation of "Perpetual Motion" is just about the great insult that anyone can throw around in science and engineering.
Why is removing factually inaccurate material about a living person (Laughton) "NPOV"?
I thought I had already given you the link at WP:NPOV, and answered your question by pointing out that the net effect of all of your edits- not just that one sentence- was to introduce bias into the article. For example, adding the word 'disgruntled' to describe the people who sued him, which is not a statement of fact but a word that serves only the purpose of expressing the merits of the suit. The reference says that Mr. Laughton (or is it Dr. Laughton?) was prevented from serving as an expert witness, because Mr. Meyer made the device unavailable to him. I have no interest at all in Mr. Meyer, Dr. Laughton, or this device, but I do see hundreds of people every day who try to make articles reflect their personal version of the truth rather than the facts that are verifiable by reliable sources, and it is my habit to undo their edits. You, of course, were primarily blocked for edit-warring. It isn't unusual for blocked editors to focus on the least important factor in their block, while ignoring the most important factor. If you are right, I'm sure you can reach consensus with the other editors who are interested in this subject, all of whom want the article to be factually accurate, and all of whom are reasonable people. As for 'perpetual motion,' it's reasonable to include the term if that's what this device purports to offer; if it isn't, then it wouldn't be, and I don't presume to a full enough understanding of this subject to say which applies here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Excuse my frankness but I do not think you are being entirely honest in your response.
I notice your ban was one sided.
I made edits to develop and clean up the topic, removing false information about a living person. It was persistently reverted back to a previous "NPOV" version.
You did not ban the other user who was persistently reinstating false information and making dishonest statements in the summary, and (from memory) I think you even reinstated that false information yourself.
Take another example, "disgruntled" is specifically taken from the references. It is not my "POV".
I think you are stating the opposite of what happened and know it. The article at present is quite delliberately prejudicial. The individual is being ridiculed and discredited by the grinding of the "Perpetual Motion" axe. What I did was to tone its "NPOV" down to match other existing references. In fact, to make it more scientific.
Where you do not have expertise in a subject or area, you are at least capable of checking facts. I have provided you Professor Michael Laughton's contact details. Can you please check the facts directly with him because at present we have two contradictory pieces of evidence.
If I am proven to be correct, will you remove the NPOV "bad marks"?
I blocked you for edit-warring, which you were doing. I am not qualified to referee an editing dispute, nor am I interested in doing so. You are already in discussion with other editors, and you know that the published sources do contain the information in the article. You have already blanked the discussion about NPOV from your talk page. I do not understand what further action you are requesting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm FisherQueen, a Wikipedia administrator. I have the ability to block users, to delete articles, and to protect articles from editing. Other than that, my rights and abilities are exactly the same as every other editor at Wikipedia. You already know that my interest is in helping to enforce Wikipedia's rules, but not specifically in the subject of Stan Meyer and his device. You have left several messages on my talk page, but I do not understand what you want me to do. No one needs to be blocked right now, and no article needs to be deleted or protected, as far as I can tell. Is there something specific you want from me? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Just for fun, I searched for "disgruntled investor Stan Meyer," and found some articles claiming that Stan Meyer had invented an amazing fuel cell, and been unfairly stopped by disgruntled investors. Then I searched for "scammer Stan Meyer," and found some articles that said that Stan Meyer had used bogus science to defraud people. I don't think that google searches always turn up the most neutral searches first, though, especially when you choose search terms that make it clear what point of view you want to read about. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I want you to remove entirely the NPOV bad marks off my history.
Your logic is faulty here and you are merely continuing in an attempting to distract from the main issue ... your reinsertion of false information about a living person in a highly "NPOV" topic.
No "scammer" quote comes from what one would call a "good source". --Big wheels keeps on turning (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand that you want me to remove entirely the word 'NPOV' from your history. I'm not aware of any technical way to remove a block reason from the block log; if the Wiki software can do that, I don't know how. Also: Yes, that is my point: 'scammer' and 'disgruntled' are terms you'd only search for if you're looking for biased sources, not if you're looking for neutral ones. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 04:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
"an editor on wikipedia who isn't very nice and reverts all edits that are made as a joke." Well, that's entirely accurate, but since I don't meet the notability criteria, I agree with the deletion of the article. After all, just about anyone who's made it through the week on Wikipedia without being blocked would fit that definition. A category, alas, that I suspect isn't going to include User:Thoughtfuleditor. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
You didn't really mean to overwrite my unblock denial (based upon the behavior of his alternate account) there, did you? --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That's the weirdest edit-conflict I've ever seen; I had no idea your denial was even there until you left this note. Sorry; I've restored yours. Obviously if he's also socking, no unblock consideration is necessary. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed such conflicts before. Just a bug, mostly doesn't matter -- every once in a while a silent conflict like that happens. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
"It's time to stop editing Wikipedia. You are still welcome to read the articles, but no more editing, because you are not able to follow the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC) "—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.247.186 (talk • contribs)
Yes, that was my advice. Blanking my talk page again while trying to leave me a message indicates you still aren't able to edit Wikipedia well, and should simply enjoy reading it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
In fact I am gay, as my userpage says, but inserting that into the middle of a conversation I was having with someone else is hardly helpful, so I've restored what I said in that conversation. Also, you misspelled "you," and I'm not sure that "prick" is a factually correct descriptor of me- can one be a prick without having a prick? The note I left on your talk page explains why I deleted the article you wrote about yourself, and you should probably also know that people who make personal attacks and rude remarks are not welcome at Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the ad vandalism on the For sale by owner article, which I have adopted. It is much appreciated. Stoick (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Advertisers are a way more serious problem than simple vandals for Wikipedia, in my opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This is what I wrote in Tom Harris' talk page, but he is inactive for a month now, so this is why I turn to you, since you have knowledge of user Draganparis' conduct in the past. Please advise, what I should do next.
Our friend Draganparis is constantly and shamelessly slandering me and other editors [1][2] not to mention admins among which you) [3]. He has already been banned once for disruptive editing, he was not additionally banned for confirmed socking and just weeks after he was again banned for confirmed socking (2 accounts). He filed a sockpuppetry case against 4 users he considers his archenemies and the verdict was that 3 of them (among which me) operate from the same region in Greece (actually something like half of Greece). Since then he is always writing, "warning" and whining that we are socks, posting his customized "technical notes" and warning other editors and admins not to remove them [4][5]. I have warned him that he has to stop doing that [6], especially since the verdict was that no single IP was the same as was the case with him (thrice!!!!), but of course that does not stop him from going on in his usual loving style [7]... He keeps trolling about the cabal of nationalists that war against him etc... Even when I refrained from occupying myself with him trying to at last make some constructive edits instead of (s)word fighting with him, he kept slandering my name and using my absence as proof that we were "socks"... These and many more such edits are Draganparis' sole contribution to Wikipedia since day 1... He, of course has also been targeted and dealt with in an uncivil manner by different users (sometimes including me), most just pleading with him to leave us in peace, but he never backs down and just inflames things. My question to you is how can I report him for propagation of false accusations and personal attacks? Is it enough to do it here to you or should I make some kind of more formal complaint? No matter how one tries it is impossible to ignore this endlessly whining and howling chap... GK (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Just read this, too.... [8].... GK (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This person is intolerable... please, do something... Thx in advance GK (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You can request attention to his edits at the administrators' noticeboard, where there are several people who are a lot more familiar with the ongoing disputes at Macedonia- related articles than I am. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not contesting some "Macedonia" relating edit... I am talking about conduct and slander. GK (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It looks like so far you've decided not to report it... that's cool; if it continues, feel free to report it at the administrators' incident board, which is the right place for those kinds of problems. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thx.... but today he again made this comment, so I think there is no other way really... [9]. I will do as advised. Thx again GK (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Ke6gwf and User talk:Big wheels keeps on turning
User:Ke6gwf made an edit ([10]) to Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell which is almost identical to the previous edit war changes from User talk:Big wheels keeps on turning. User:Ke6gwf is an infrequently used account - and it doesn't seem to have been used for similar things to Big wheels - but the similarity and timing behind that edit to the Stanley Meyer's article is too much to be a coincidence. SteveBaker (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Interesting... and different enough that I'm not confident that they're actually the same person. I wonder if Big Wheels emailed some of his friends? For now, we should just keep an eye on it... if this is the same user, he'll do it again... and again... and again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah - the other edits from User:Ke6gwf don't seem like Big Wheels' - but that last edit seems remarkably similar to me. As you say, we should wait and watch. I just wanted to give you a head's up. SteveBaker (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I just was doing one of my periodic Google searches on my callsign and came across this discussion of me! I just want to state for your benefit that I have no knowledge or connection with Big Wheels, and based on his rambling above, would like to keep it that way... I made some edits to remove the bias (and maybe more than that, I don't remember what they were now, that isn't an attempt to minimize what I did!)that was in the article at a time when I was studying Meyers work in connection with a friend that was hands-on with Meyers actual devices and notes as they were preparing his estate for sale. His dune buggy still exists and still runs without gasoline by the way. Anyway, I was not aware at the time that there had been an edit war or that there were eagle-eyed skeptics watching it! If my edits were the same as others it is probably because we shared sources and reached the same conclusions. I will point out the fallacy with the Perpetual Motion accusation. PM is by definition a closed system with no external energy input. Nothing Myer was doing was a closed system. As Quantum Science is now figuring out, there are massive amounts of "Dark Energy" in the universe, and the process Meyer was using is no more PM than pumping water through a solar collector turning it to steam to run a generator to power the pump is PM. Since the skeptics will prefer to believe the sources calling Meyer a fraud, I doubt they will allow a balanced view to be presented, and the bias will remain. A made up mind is a closed mind, so I don't think I will waste time trying to remove the bias unless some new sources come out that are harder to ignore.
Thank you for not doing anything I would regret due to my inadvertent timing! Ben~ --Ke6gwf (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
This is sort of funny- do you realize that I am an administrator, and that my notes to you on your talk page about adding uncited information are indeed leading to my blocking you from editing temporarily? If this information is accurate, it's fine to include it, but please make sure to include a reliable source when you do. And also- and in this I am very serious- don't label people as 'vandals' unless they are. You'll notice that, although you are in the wrong for adding uncited information, I have not called you a 'vandal,' because you aren't. Wikipedia's rules about civility are taken very seriously; you are expected to interact politely with every editor, even those with whom you disagree. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess I forgot to mention... creating a new account won't make doing this okay; the rules are the same for all accounts, and you only need one account to follow the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
For once, a vandal gets it spot on. I shouldn't have deleted it. Apologies. Maybe I'll tell you about Dorothy sometime. Rodhullandemu 00:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Some of my talk page archives are very entertaining. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Spotted your sad tale elsewhere and thought you could do with a little cheering up :- ) Best.
RashersTierney (talk) has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It seems like this user wants to have an indefinite block, judging by their most recent activity on their talk page. Eagles24/7(C) 00:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I blocked the talkpage, then Rodhull indeffed them. Come clean, FQ. You're not a real person at all - you're really DickHeadBot, designed to attract dickheads who are really crying out to be blocked into one handy place. TonywaltonTalk 00:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I believe redemption should be a hard road, even for editors blocked for WP:COMPETENCE, let alone sockpuppetry. The post-block abuse, when you had bothered to give a clear and patient explanation of your decline, was intolerable. However, he still has email to request an unblock. I'm perfectly prepared to reduce the block to a suitable duration, say 5 years, until some maturity might have kicked in. Rodhullandemu 00:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed his offer... but I don't fuck children. Even Wikipedia administrators have some ethics. It isn't like we're priests. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly so. At least admins here have a roughly consistent value-system. I hate to lose editors who exhibit a modicum of capacity, and it has to be said that it is a steep learning curve, if you are prepared to commit to editing here. That said, willingness to admit mistakes and seek advice are worth more than truculent resistance. I'll say just this: your patience with such editors does you much credit, far beyond that of which I am capable. Rodhullandemu 02:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring a semblance of order. ;-) But I think you missed one comment that needs to be moved to the talk page. It's the KEEP by User:Brb72 (third from top). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing! I've moved it to the playground with the others. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
