Note that I use endless IP's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.30.73 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess you'll just have to respect your block the old-fashioned way, then, through self-restraint. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Did I do something wrong? Tiderolls 03:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I did. I declined it as a simple and obvious legal threat. Then I saw your comment saying that there was a good case for unblocking, realized there must be more than I was seeing, and, since I wanted to go to sleep, not stay up and look into it more closely, I undid myself to let someone else think about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. To clarify; my post there was more of sympathy for someone that perceived they were in a catch-22, not a support of their position. They did not offer a retraction at that point and the Foundation had not replied to my e-mail so, in my opinion, unblocking was not indicated. I was open to other opinions, though. Just a bit of "new admin angst". See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi FisherQueen if you can spare a few minutes I'd appreciate your input on this[1].--Caililtalk 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I favor topic-banning everyone from the subject of the preferred terminology of the British Isles/England/Great Britain/Wales/Ireland/Eire/Northern Ireland/Londonderry/Derry/Etc]]. I propose that from now on, we just call the whole damned pair of islands "Those Fucking Islands Over There." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
LOL I understand and agree TBH. But seriously I'm stuck with a serious 'zombie issue' this thread keeps dying on ANi and the problem keeps coming back. The account isn't changing behaviour and ANi is, understandibly sick of hearing about teh British Isles.--Caililtalk 03:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Just call them a bunch of Poms. That's what we do. Sorted. Uncensored KiwiKiss 14:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
At ANI, BLPN, NPOVN, WT:SCN, and multiple other locations, this user is abusing forumshopping and attempting to game the system in retaliation for my reporting the user to ANI over the user's BLP violations and the user's disruption on the topic of WP:ARBSCI with those selfsame BLP violations. What can be done about this? Should the user be reported for forumshopping-disruption related to WP:ARBSCI? Multiple users have commented that the user's counter-claims have little merit.
Thoughts??? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I think there's already a thread about it at ANI. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The thread about ANI has turned into a forum for Delicious carbuncle (talk·contribs) to attack me, a tactic used by the user to deflect attention away from his earlier BLP violations. There is no thread about his forum-shopping across multiple pages, is there? -- Cirt (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
In that ANI thread I brought up my concerns about several articles, some of which had BLP issues. I left a note at the BLPN noticeboard directing people to the ANI thread so that those issues could be addressed, but I saw that they were not, so, as suggested to me in that ANI thread, I opened discussions at the BLP noticeboard. I have taken care to outline my concerns as neutrally as possible, without naming any editors at all. I do not understand why Cirt would object to people looking at possible BLP issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
DC, I'm not really interested in refereeing this particular game, but it's pretty clear to me that you're about six inches from an indefinite block for POV-pushing related to Scientology. If you aren't here at wikipedia mainly to advance Scientology, it would be a really swell idea to back way off of that subject and write about something else for a while. I'm not doing anything but saying that much tonight, because I don't generally block when I've had quite as much wine as this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I generally find you a pretty astute and reasonable person FisherQueen, but you are waaaaay off the mark here. In the years that I have been here, I don't think I have ever edited a Scientology-related article until my recent edits to Jamie Sorrentini (who may not even qualify as related, depending on who you ask). What POV am I supposed to be pushing here? Pro- or anti- Scientology? My interest is in upholding our neutrality and BLP guidelines which have been trampled by Cirt's anti-Scientology POV-pushing. I am really not interested in Scientology except as it relates to the situation at hand. Take another look at the ANI thread please. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
FisherQueen, in multiple cases, Delicious carbuncle (talk·contribs) failed to even attempt any prior discussion at the articles' talk pages about these issues. The user went straight to escalating the issue, in many different instances. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Update: : Please see diff, and diff. The disruption by Delicious carbuncle (talk·contribs) continues, despite warnings from multiple admins, the user reverts and disrupts ANI against multiple editors. Can action be taken with regards to this user? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
if I might interject for one second, he has been warned personally on his talk page and several times by other editors that his actions are inappropriate and disruptive. I feel that a good faith effort has been made to correct the problem by addressing DC directly. The only thing that has accomplished is DC's refusal to go to Scientology pages, a tactic to avoid WP:ARBSCI sanctions possibly.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect Cirt, this clearly has nothing to do with Carbuncle and Sceintology, but Carbuncle and you. He's not trying to advance some POV vis-a-vis Scientology he's started a campaign against you. That might have it's own cause for blocks, or perhaps interaction bans (as opposed to topic bans) but lets face the facts here. The more I see people chime in about how Carbuncle needs to stop editing Scientology related pages (something he hasn't done at all, minus the one piece of bait he laid out for Cirt) the more I'm convinced that no one bothers to read past the first two sentences of anything anyone around here writes anymore. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
His disruption on the topic, including WP:POINT violation and WP:BLP violation, falls under the remit of two prior arbitration cases on the topic, and therefore can be dealt with in that capacity. -- Cirt (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
No offense but that sounds like Wikilawyering to me, and is it even actionable given his state of notification about the prior arbitration case when he edited Jamie Sorrentini? If there is disruption or misbehavior by Carbuncle, my point is simply that this disruption is not topic focussed (e.g. Scientology) but editor focussed (e.g. Cirt). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
What you quote shows that "your agenda" (according to Carbuncle) is his focus. What he claims your agenda is itself centered on does not become his focus also. Anyway in the sentence you quote "Cirt's anti-scientology agenda" is the object noun and not "Scientology".Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
He has caused disruption with and relating to the topic. The two arbitration cases specifically have remedies and ways of dealing with his behavior. -- Cirt (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea why this conversation is happening at my talk page. -17:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, good point, sorry it became threaded like that. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
If you'd bothered to read the comment on JoseFritz's page you would know that was not HIM making that comment from another IP address, it was me: veghead (I was blocked as a sockpuppet of Jose which I am not). As I said, I don't give a flying toss about getting unblocked but he does. So yet again - an admin who blocks first without understanding what is going on. Now you've got to block THIS IP address, which I've had to use to respond. Go on, call me a sockpuppet again. You have another chance to read my comment (the one you reverted) by clicking 'History' at the top of his Talk page. 83.142.228.112 (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC) (Veghead - before being set upon by clueless admins)
By making the same accusations, using the same writing style, you definitely present the appearance of being the same person- I believed you were different people before your comments, but based on your writing, I think I was wrong- you appear to be the same person after all. And since JoseFritz/you didn't read my comment, and has spent all day doing everything but the only useful thing, there's nothing more to be said. On the off chance you are not one but two people who refuse to do anything useful, but spring to attack everyone who comes near you in even the simplest, most easily resolved disputes, then the block is even more necessary. Don't bother to reply; further messages from you will be removed. I tried engaging you in polite conversation, and got nothing but insults for my trouble, so I'm not interested in helping you any longer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
So many months have passed since this debate that it's possible you have become wiser, but I doubt it. It's possible you have become disgusted with your Stalinesque behaviour from times past, but I doubt it. As long as you know you are still regarded as one of the worst exponents of the vacuous power-mongers currently strangling Wikipedia on its slow path to death and irrelevancy, then there is hope.
Despite hating everything about you, I forgive you. Even your shocking use of the phrase "but spring to attack everyone who comes near you", rich in irony (and hypocrisy) though it is, doesn't hurt any more because you have successfully invoked a limitless level of cynicism in both of us, and countless others I would guess.
With a strange combination of pity and hatred, I wish you would just fuck off so the original ground-force of Wikipedia could continue its job.
Please send my regards to sweet hersfold and her cute lack of sophistication: despite her crass actions, she'll always be welcome to visit me in Philadelphia.
I`d just do it. (reblock with talk page disabled) --Addihockey10e-mail 01:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I have so much good faith, it squishes between my toes when I walk. Let him have plenty of rope... unless somebody else does it before I get around to it. He can't do much more harm in his little box there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel relieved to see that you concur with me on our COI friend with the WP:OWN problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the fact that he defends himself by saying that he's representing the subject indicates that his understanding of Wikipedia is... not strong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow can you feel the love in the room? It makes sense you two'd get on; you're both a couple of authoritarian, paranoid, morons that have become as corrupt as every bureaucratic politician in the world. In fact, you two would get on with Hersfold! She's as corrupt and jaded as both of you combined! Veghead 01:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.223.1.129 (talk)
Do we know each other from SDMB way back in the day? If you don't know what those letters mean then we don't... Roger T. 86.154.194.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC).
It's entirely possible; I haven't swung by that way in a long time, but I used to be a regular there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The 'T' was Thornhill... KellyM still a big shot too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.194.76 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I,ve made some additions to it you might want to have a look, as far as the remark you made when you edited the article "I can't imagine what 'original' means in this context- Jesus was not Greek Orthodox." the word original in that context meant the language in which the New Teastament was written which was the Koine Greek which was the predominant language of the Eastern Mediterranean even before the Roman conquest as well as during it. I have added another source that hopefully addresses your concern. If you feel the need to clarify you are welcome to do it, however there is no actual reason to remove it completely. As it is the basic axis connecting the churches described in the article. The churches have developed some differences in liturgy and tradition, but they all still use the Koine Greek language not the modern Greek language and not the translations that other churches use(i.e. Bulgarian church uses Bulgarian language, Serbian church uses Serbian etc.) during their liturgies.--87.202.94.155 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
FisherQueen shortly after I added the above comment in your talk page an ip from Wisconsin(US) vandalized the Greek Orthodox Church article. Since you are a Wikipedia admin and since you're the last admin to make any addition to it. I would like to ask you if you please could add the aforementioned article in your watchlist so that you can revert such acts in the future. Thank you very much.--87.202.67.125 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
That guy's been keeping that up for over a year. Every IP edit on Thomas (talk·contribs)'s page from December 20, 2009 onwards is him trying to "take over" the page. If you ever see an IP change it's name to Thomas and link to the page, block it on sight. I was hoping he'd given up. HalfShadow 21:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey FisherQueen. Seems like this user had some history that I may be unaware of. I tried to post some guidance on that editor's talk page, as it really just does seem like an inexperienced editor stumbling through the work of the thousands who have come before. I'm not the most experienced with creating articles (probably 99.9...9...9% of my articles have the (HG) tag after them). Still, if the user wants to make a good faith effort to return, I'd be happy to point this editor in the right direction. God knows I've received my fair share of counseling as I've started to add speedies and prods to pages. Thanks for looking after WP:AIV. For those of us on Huggle, it's greatly appreciated. Have a great day!--GnoworTC 23:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel sad for her; I can see what she was trying to do. On the other hand, she is a person who deals with correction by lashing out instead of by pausing to learn, and that's going to cause her trouble, on Wikipedia and also in life. I hoped to avoid blocking her, but since she just would not stop, I did the next best thing and made the block short. I hope she can calm down a bit and let herself learn. Thanks for helping. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I feel like working with Wikipedia gives you some rather interesting insights into people. I think you've got it straight on the nose. I have to admit that copy-paste of a ban notice was highly confusing. Thanks for your time. Have a great one!--GnoworTC 00:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
How dare you call me a racist[5]. In your world is academic fraud a worse crime that "racism"? Do you consider pointing out observable racial differences obtained using the scientific method "racism"? Is doing the same thing for geographically associated populations of animals "racism"? Presumably in your world the statement "Arctic bears are bigger than equatorial bears" is "racist"? Is objecting to scholars who fudge their data to fraudulently prove races are equal "racism"? Perhaps you should watch more daytime TV to learn how to think. If you consider it acceptable to lie to not be "racist", then there is a serious problem with your morality. I demand checkusers. Frostbite Alan. 219.135.215.37 (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. It isn't a bit relevant to your block, which is for the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Please don't avoid your block by logging out; it doesn't lend strength to your claim that you are a person who would not avoid a block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I called User:Mikemikev racist. If you're pretending that you aren't him, then you should remember to pretend not to take offense when people call him a racist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello FisherQueen,
I got your note about the page my daughter began about me. She asked me to chime in
and correct/add the missing facts/numbers/details. I did that to make the information
correct and up-to-date.
She will be adding the missing references and hopefully the page will then get your approval...
She shall then add several original photographs to finish the basic presentation.
Under the conflict of interest guidelines, we all agree to avoid writing about ourselves or our relatives, but don't worry- if you are truly notable, your readers will inevitably write about you. If you'd like to stick around and help improve our photography articles, we'd be glad to have your help! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello again,
I followed your suggestions and left in teh article only facts and stories I could support with reliable references. I also added many pictures of Darom - that he agreed to share in the public domain. Can you please take a look and tell me what do you think?
Happy new year!Ntronb (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Howdy, I recently came across an article I tagged for speedy deletion until I realized it was a user page (I linked to it from an outside source and didn't read the entire header). I have since found another that is exactly like it. I am unfamiliar with the regulations regarding userpages, and would like your advice.
User:Jann ScottUser:George Washington Hunt
Thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
There is a certain amount of fuzziness, but in general, while people are allowed to use their user pages to tell about themselves as part of making the encyclopedia better, they are not allowed to use the encyclopedia for self-promotion. In those two cases, they could reasonably be deleted through the WP:PROD process, since neither creator seems to be making the encyclopedia better, and both seem to be trying to promote themselves. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up. I will start the process. Coffeepusher (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you see some redeeming value in this, by all means. Seems like a simple place to apply WP:RBI and WP:DNFTT to me. Unlike every comment to that section, I might add. :)Prodegotalk 01:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Ignore me. For some reason, I thought you were the troll, removing a thread that didn't go your way. Clearly, I should not read ANI while drinking chocolate martinis. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Nope, not today anyway. Heheh. Prodegotalk 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to vote in this CfD discussion. However some of the categories being discussed involve nationals/regimes from nations which I am topic banned from discussing. In your opinion would it be acceptable for me to make the following contribution: "Delete (certain categories) per nom and previous discussions. Please note that when I refer only to those categories which I am permitted to comment on under the terms of my topic ban, I express no opinion with regard to any of the others. For example, Nelson Mandela is listed in , despite being a convicted leader of a bombing campaign. If he counts as a victim of repression, other people who set off bombs because of their political views count too and there's no way that Timothy McVeigh is a victim of repression!" Thank you in advance for your guidance. Varsovian (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, if some of the categories being discussed are involved in your topic ban, you ought to simply let it go, and trust that a sound consensus based on Wikipedia policy will still be reached without you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It's more the concept in general rather than any specific categories which are being discussed. Varsovian (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear FisherQueen, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan[talk] ≈ 14:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
And I did not blank the thread. I moved the confusing question to the talk page, since there was nothing but talkabout the question's poor phrasing, and replaced it with a clear question. Go ahead and read the archived thread if you think there is a single response to the question itself (and not talk about the poor phrasing of the question) 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Please, don't blank a section of the reference desk just because you don't like the answers you're getting. Your own refusal to actually ask your question is very relevant to the answers you are getting, which are important - your question is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human sexuality.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you think my question means, but what it actually means is "what percent of couples regularly (I mean not just occasionally) practice anal sex", in different countries. I'm sorry if that's not what you think the question means, but that's what the question means. Do you regularly practice anal sex? If so, then in America it puts you in the 10% of minority that do. I want to know what percent minority or majority it would put you in, in different cultures. But whatever, I asked another, different question that was more clear, and now you are free to watch people continue to misunderstand my question and talk about irrelevant aspects of it, as you did. 88.182.221.18 (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your follow-up comments indicated that you still think that anal sex is (a) the primary sex act by most gay male couples, and (b) somehow more 'gay' than other sex acts. But I don't think I can help you with that. As for your other question- I don't know the answer. I can't even check your 10% statistic, since you never cited it. And your bizarre comments and behavior have made me feel disinclined to work very hard to look for an answer, but I'm sure someone else will be more curious than I am. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Tipton Plays HI-Fi.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tipton Plays HI-Fi.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the discussion was closed so I cannot edit any longer. Anyway it seems that you are the only admin which at least tries to understand the problem I have. My reply was:
Thanks again FisherQueen now that you pointed back at the real world. So do you consider, that a five day exhibition at the European Parliament celebrating the centenary of the first jet aircraft is real world? Is this from the real world? Are all the events celebrating the centenary of the first jet aircraft from the real world? Are the museums in Romania, France, England, Germany, USA endorsing Coanda-1910 as the first jet airplane, from the real world? Or is this forum that we debate for almost a half a day real? What I want is to bring the mainstream back into that particular article before the whole xenophobic attack started. I know there are editors from Coanda-1910 there sharing at least partially my statements, but they just refuse the join the discussion on the introduction and the reliability of the sources used and basically the edit war is between me on one side and two more editors.--Lsorin (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood me entirely, but since I've already done my best, I guess I just don't have the ability to communicate with you. I am sorry you're having so much trouble understanding other users, but I don't think I can do anything more to help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
