Jump to content

User talk:Spotfixer: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Spotfixer (talk | contribs)
1,386 edits
Cool Hand Luke (talk | contribs)
14,522 edits
Restored talk page with substantive history--redirect to user page.
 
(32 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT [[User:Spotfixer]]
[[image:Truthiness_comic.jpg]]

== Extra vigilant fact tagging ==

Yes, these additions seem less than helpful but in actuality we do need to find sources to support what we state. It feels a bit crummy to have someone appoint themselves the fact police thus directing other volunteers what work they should focus on, yet articles generally improve when targeted in this way. I find it a bit distasteful and uncollaborative but there you go. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#CC0000">oi</font></u>]] 06:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:I'm all for providing adequate citations to articles, so that's not the issue at all. Unfortunately, there's a bit of history here, with [[User:Schrandit]] showing a pattern of throwing citation requests at articles on topics that don't fit his religious/political stance. Some of these citation requests are reasonable, and I've done my best to fulfill them. Others are absurd, such as demanding a citation ''for a citation''.
:In any case, your efforts to add citations have certainly been noticed and appreciated. The very best defense against bogus citation demands is to make sure that there is an excess of citations in place. Perhaps this is why some of the more controversial articles sometimes seem to be composed ''mostly'' of citations. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 06:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

== [[Sheela Lambert]] ==

Seems much better now, sorry the ride got bumpy there. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#CC0000">oi</font></u>]] 09:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, it does seem much better now, due to your efforts. Thanks for taking this petty dispute as an opportunity to improve an article instead of just treating this as a game.
:I keep hearing that we're here to work on an encyclopedia, and that it's not a battlefield. People like you add a core of truth to that otherwise dubious claim.
:In any case, I'd like to imagine that this article is in good enough shape now that it won't be a target for further cite-spam attacks. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

== Your reversion at [[Young Earth creationism]] ==

It seems inappropriate. It was not vandalistic. It had an edit summary. I understand that you did not like it...but a revert was not impressive. All the best.[[User:Sinneed|sinneed]] ([[User talk:Sinneed|talk]]) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
:I urge you to revert your reversion, and change whatever you feel is appropriate.[[User:Sinneed|sinneed]] ([[User talk:Sinneed|talk]]) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
::I've made the appropriate changes now. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 02:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Indeed.[[User:Sinneed|sinneed]] ([[User talk:Sinneed|talk]]) 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
::::" keeping the one that made sense", why no, actually. But you digress.[[User:Sinneed|sinneed]] ([[User talk:Sinneed|talk]]) 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

==I see that our edit war continues==
I saw that you reverted most of the edits I made yesterday. I, of course, re-inserted them. Have any ideas on how we could end this mess? Come to some sort of a resolution? - [[User:Schrandit|Schrandit]] ([[User talk:Schrandit|talk]]) 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:I suggest you accept the consensus and stop warring against it. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 14:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you for your recent edit of the FAIR article. This article has recently been under attack by a few individuals who seem bent on defending the actions of white supremicists by "sanitizing" anything they disagree with, using specious claims and wikilawyering. I hope you will continue to defend the truth, and resist bullies. [[User:Mervyn Emrys|Mervyn Emrys]] ([[User talk:Mervyn Emrys|talk]]) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Always glad to help keep articles honest. I ran into the FAIR article because Schrandit has a history of using citation requests as a way to censor articles he disagrees with. A quick look at his user page and contributions log should make it entirely clear what sort of bias he edits from, and therefore which articles he censors. In any case, now that I'm aware of the article, I will keep an eye on it. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 16:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
::There is no consensus on these articles, there is just me and you. If I requested third opinions on all of them would you abide by those? - [[User:Schrandit|Schrandit]] ([[User talk:Schrandit|talk]]) 20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

== Your recent edit to Illegal immigration to the United States ==

I don't know why you are refusing to participate in the article talk page, but if I can convince you to read that talk page, I think you'll understand why I made the edits I did. NPOV is required. Proper sourcing is too. I believe the article can have both. Poor sourcing can't really achieve npov. So far, I've been working on the sourcing. It's something I'm good at. But I want you to feel that I support the article being npov. I hope you will agree that the article must be BOTH properly sourced as well as npov. Let's work together on this article.-[[Special:Contributions/65.189.247.6|65.189.247.6]] ([[User talk:65.189.247.6|talk]]) 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

:I'm going to hold off on doing anything here until my block expires. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 05:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

==[[Conscience clause (medical)]]==
Hello Spotfixer, I reviewed your [[WP:ANEW#User:Schrandit reported by Spotfixer (talk) (Result: 12 hours for User:Schrandit and User:Spotfixer)|3RR report]]. By looking that the edits, I see that you and Schrandit have essentially been reverting each others edits; while he broke [[WP:3RR|the three revert rule]] by the letter, I think that your reversions contributed to this edit war, and were not in the spirit of 3RR. I have blocked you for 12 hours pursuant to this. I have been in challenging editing situations as well with other editors, but reverting an editor over again is not an appropriate way to resolve disputes, even if you feel very strongly about the situation (BLP's excepted). I ask that you discuss your differences on the talk page after the block, and pursue [[WP:DR|other dispute resolution]] mechanisms if this is insufficient. As always, if you disagree with this block, you are welcome to use the <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> template for another administrator to review the situation. Thanks for understanding -- [[User:Samir|Samir]] 05:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

:Your block is in error, but other than going on record, I'm not going to bother disputing it. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

==Correction==
Spotfixer, I am writing in response to your remarks on my talk page.

You are more than welcome to review any edits I make to any page, and to make whatever edits you believe will enhance Wikipedia. (That is the goal, correct?) I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy that prohibits me or anyone else from focusing on articles on subjects deemed by some to be controversial. If you believe I am mistaken, please educate me. There is no need to make accusations of vandalism that have no basis; this violates Wikipedia policy on civility. Also, I believe that some of your reverts of my edits have been excessive (see Wikipedia policy on reverts), and I can see from your talk page that others have expressed concern (and even taken the step of temporarily blocking your contributions to a page) due to their view that you have engaged in "edit wars."

While I appreciate and share your concern about the quality of the encyclopedia, I must say that your note on my talk page conveyed a "thought police"-type tone that I find dissonant with the purposes of Wikipedia. Perhaps this was not your intention.

Have a nice evening.
[[Special:Contributions/74.70.44.210|74.70.44.210]] ([[User talk:74.70.44.210|talk]]) 04:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:Big words, but you're missing the point. Yes, people don't like it when I revert their partisan edits, but there's nothing they can do about it. In particular, anyone who adds partisan claims backed only by unreliable sources, such as blogs, should ''expect'' to be reverted. Speaking of which, are you a sock puppet of [[User:Skoojal]]? [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
::Hello Spot, in case this editor does not respond, I would love to involve myself in another sockpuppet case, but also be warned, that I will not do so immediately, as the last case I worked on was extremely taxing on me, and I need to take a break from disputes for a bit.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 05:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
::This is not a joke, this is a serious offer, if any area of wikipedia, I've contributed to sockpuppet investigations the most.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 07:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Spotfixer, I continue to take issue with your false accusations and derogatory tone. I did not "miss the point." I am not a sockpuppet of Skoojal or anyone else. (I have actually disagreed with Skoojal on certain edits in the past.) I have not made partisan edits backed by unreliable sources, and I defy you to find even one edit that I have ever made that was not based upon a reliable source. If you revert an edit of mine in good faith, that is your prerogative. If you begin to make wholesale reverts of all of my contributions based on your false belief that I am a vandal (and you seem to be moving in that direction), I will have to consider requesting mediation from a third party. I hope that will not be necessary, and that you will comply with the Wikipedia policies with which you (properly) expect others to comply. I would remind you -- again -- that your own behavior towards me violates Wikipedia policies on civility and on assuming good faith. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/208.105.149.80|208.105.149.80]] ([[User talk:208.105.149.80|talk]]) 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Having just spent the better part of an hour cleaning up your wholesale reverts to the same-sex marriage in New York article (many of which were unnecessary reverts of minor edits), I would request that you kindly make the minimum revert that you believe to be necessary, rather than reverting dozens of other edits that are not relevant to your concern. If you continue with the broad-brush reverts, I will seek third-party Wikipedia involvement. I also note that many of your other edits contained untrue assertions in the edit summary (such as accusations that the cited sources are insufficient when they are not), and several of your reverts have been corrected by other editors before I even noticed them. Your behavior is counterproductive, violates Wikipedia policy, and is starting to border on harassment. I would respectfully request that you refrain from crossing that line. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/208.105.149.80|208.105.149.80]] ([[User talk:208.105.149.80|talk]]) 16:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Once again, blogs are not a reliable sources, not even if they're blogs you like. That's because anyone could just put up a blog with whatever they want in the article.
::::When you want to change an article, it's up to you to justify those changes. When your desired change includes unreliable sources, the entire change becomes suspect. In such cases, it's often better to revert the whole thing and examine each part of the change individually before allowing it. After all, once we have evidence that you either don't know what a reliable source is or just don't care, we can't assume the rest will be any better.
::::Now, I'm going to look at your last round of edits, and I may well revert some or all of them, as I see fit. It's my job to keep people like you honest. I can do this while following all pertinent Wikipedia rules, including those regarding civility. Remember: just because something makes you angry doesn't mean anyone else was uncivil. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Spotfixer, even though you have completely dismissed and disregarded the concerns I expressed, I have already addressed the one valid concern you expressed; I believe I have removed and replaced every blog citation that you pointed out with a more appropriate source. I will be careful not to cite to them in the future. However, I completely disagree that my having made the error of citing to a few blogs renders every edit I make suspect and justifies you in reverting all my edits, whether or not there is any real reason for you to do so. I am not angry, but I continue to not appreciate your patronizing tone. Also, false accusations of vandalism, bias, and sock-puppetry are not civil; you have not assumed good faith at all in our interactions (quite the opposite). I think an apology is in order. I will be keeping an eye on your edits as well. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/208.105.149.80|208.105.149.80]] ([[User talk:208.105.149.80|talk]]) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::The air of righteous indignation doesn't suit you; it comes across as false. Yes, I ''asked'' if you were a sock-puppet of a specific user because that's what it said on your talk page. If this is incivility then all administrators must block themselves immediately. Likewise, I am well within my rights to question the validity of your edits, particularly as some lacked a reliable source. In short, you need to focus on content and avoid personal conflict. That's the last I'll speak of this. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Accusations of vandalism are not civil. You don't get it, and seem unwilling to get it. Also, there is nothing on my talk page that says or suggests anything about being a sock-puppet, so that is baloney. I would suggest that you take your own advice about avoiding personal conflict; you are the one that started -- and perpetuated -- this one. There will be no conflicts between us provided that you refrain from making off-the-wall accusations and sabotaging my edits for no reason. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/208.105.149.80|208.105.149.80]] ([[User talk:208.105.149.80|talk]]) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::::You can't deny things on wikipedia, you know, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.70.44.210&diff=prev&oldid=261577422 in this diff], a sock tag is clearly added to the page by a user who is not spotfixer, well, at least it is clearly added to the talk page of the IP you claim to be, as, although you sign every post as [[User:74.70.44.210|74.70.44.210]], you are obviously [[User:208.105.149.80|208.105.149.80]], as sinebot keeps signing all the comments of the actual person who added them. Now, given this info, I'm going to add the sock to this new talk page of yours.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::I see what happened. I had looked on the wrong talk page and that is why I did not see a sock and did not understand what was being referred to. My mistake. I do edit from two different computers that I regularly use, so you are correct that I am both [[User:74.70.44.210|74.70.44.210]] and [[User:208.105.149.80|208.105.149.80]]. I am not Skoojal, however. I will go ahead and create a new account in the hope that this will quell your suspicions. I will call myself "BoulderCreek," so you will know where to find me. [[Special:Contributions/208.105.149.80|208.105.149.80]] ([[User talk:208.105.149.80|talk]]) 23:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Creating a new account won't quell anything, as someone who socks usually finds a way to evade their accont creation block by using a slightly different IP than their other account. Nothing will quell my suspicions, especially after the sock tag placed on the other IP address was added by an admin here at wikipedia. And lastly, the only thing ever capable of quelling my suspicions is SPI that comes back negative. Promises or account creation will not do anything.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 23:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::I am now BoulderCreek12. And you are free to be as suspicious as you want to be. Hopefully my having an account will help to avoid similar future problems/confusion/suspicion from others. Have a nice evening. [[User:BoulderCreek12|BoulderCreek12]] ([[User talk:BoulderCreek12|talk]]) 23:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

== January 2009 ==
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]{{#if:Faith|&#32; according to the reverts you have made on [[:Faith]]}}. Note that the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. If you continue, '''you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. If necessary, pursue [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Onorem|Onorem]][[Special:Contributions/Onorem|♠]][[User talk:Onorem|Dil]] 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for your concern. Unlike [[User:Hardyplants]], I believe that you are acting in good faith. However, it turns out that I am conspicuously avoiding an edit war, while he is editing against consensus, throwing out false accusations and consistently assuming bad faith while be uncivil. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 00:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

== AN/I ==

As a courtesy, I need to let you know that I've brought your name up at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_sock_puppetry_at_SPLC.3B_actual_evidence_rather_than_supposition|AN/I]] as a possible sock puppet. [[User:Arimareiji|arimareiji]] ([[User talk:Arimareiji|talk]]) 19:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
:That's got to be one of the funniest accusations I've seen in some time. Thanks for lightening my day. I've replied on ANI to share my mirth. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 00:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

== RE:Abortion ==

Hey, thanks for the note. I will have to lock it if they keep warring; however, right now I'm hoping that I can settle this acting as a user and not having to heft around admin rights to make people be sensible. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:move;">'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D]] 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:I can't argue with that. I'll be on the article's talk page, doing my part. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 05:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(copied)

:::Which page do I report editing against consensus on? [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer|talk]]) 05:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
::::My talk page, preferably. Causes the least clutter. You could also nudge my pal [[User:Juliancolton]] if I'm not active. Cheers, [[User:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:move;">'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D]] 05:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Give me some diffs? Sorry for the trouble; I'd hunt 'em down but I have some work to do on the side which needs to be in tomorrow. [[User:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:move;">'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D]] 06:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

No, it's my own fault for not tracking down the links. And, in fact, doing so has helped me get a better understanding of what's going on here. What happens is that Schrandit follows a consistent pattern of just barely staying within the letter of (most of) the rules while working as hard as he can to push his conservative, religious POV everywhere. He's essentially gaming the rules, not only [[WP:3RR]] but also [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:RS]].

I like to sometimes clean up articles or add new things I found, but Schrandit is much more focused. Almost all of his edits are POV-pushing, with a few vandalism reversions tossed in for flavor, but no actual effort to improve articles. For example, he likes to add citation-required and dead-link tags, or [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_Canada&diff=267092176&oldid=267087084 simply remove sentences] because he says they lack citation. This would not be a bad thing at all, if only he were honest and impartial about it. Instead, he selectively attacks only those things which he dislikes, and this has been noticed by a few people, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Religion_and_abortion&diff=next&oldid=266976184 most recently] Andrew_c. He is quick to remove citations or demand them, but never takes a moment to search for a reliable source, except in support of his POV.

His edit comments are often [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=267087084 condescending], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_Canada&curid=351395&diff=266898976&oldid=266894095 unclear] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pro-Life_Alliance_of_Gays_and_Lesbians&diff=next&oldid=266929826 just plain dishonest]. He likes to [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis&diff=266918898&oldid=266918179 keep inserting] sections that were removed for their bias and irrelevance, ignoring consensus. Basically, his strategy is to [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Choice_Act&diff=prev&oldid=266924360 keep] on [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_Choice_Act&diff=267088013&oldid=267028003 keeping] on and hope some of his tricks don't get caught. On [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Strengths_and_weaknesses_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=266922371 busy articles], this doesn't work well, but it can be effective when used on those which lack enough editors to notice and oppose, where it often just leads to edit wars.

All of these links are from the last day, and they're typical of the bombing runs he's known for. He is an inveterate POV pusher who works hard to damage articles that say things which offend his delicate sensibilities. So far, he has been directly involved in two of my three blocks (and indirectly involved in the other). I've been dealing with him as best as I can, but my patience is short. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 01:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should mention he's holding a grudge for me. While I was writing this up, he [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring&curid=3741656&diff=267094817&oldid=267069778 went after me] again. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 01:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:If you're going to drag my name through the mud I've got a right to defend it. Everything I have done here, save one mistake, has been within the rules of this encyclopedia. The same cannot be said of your self. I often do tag unsourced statements as unsourced and dead links as dead, just like wikipedia guidelines permit. When we initially clashed I made strenuous efforts in accordance with the DR guidelines but you shrugged those off. It is possible that I am a monstrous person but you seem to be the only one bothered by it, I'm on good terms with the rest of the project. - [[User:Schrandit|Schrandit]] ([[User talk:Schrandit|talk]]) 01:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::I think it's very clear what's going on here. Also, the word you were trying to spell is "rebuttal". Now you know. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 01:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:::There's a lot of animosity between you two. I think the main issue is that, as far as I can see, the human element to this conflict is being completely eschewed. You'd both get a lot further if you stopped doing things because policy dictates so (for example, don't be civil because there's a giant page telling you to do so, but be civil out of common sense). Speaking of which, do try to be less bitey? The veiled insults aren't going to do much but complicate things... [[User:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:move;">'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D]] 07:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm doing my best to be tactful about a matter that I could speak much more clearly and directly about. The short, tactful version is that I can see right through him. 07:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

==Rick Warren==
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for {{#if:48 hours|a period of '''48 hours'''|a short time}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for violating the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]{{#if:[[Rick Warren]]|&#32;at [[:[[Rick Warren]]]]}}. Please be more careful to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] or seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] rather than engaging in an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest the block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below. {{#if:true|[[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 06:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-3block -->

== From WP:ANI ==

I guess you would also think then that 48 hour blocks all round is a bit harsh also. It's only the though that some may have acted under the belief that this is a [[WP:BLP]] issue that I haven't yet. And that possible saving grace does not apply to those reverting to add the section. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 06:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:Actually, it does. You'll note that my last edit on [[Rick Warren]] explained why I had good reason to believe that I was not violating [[WP:3RR]].
:What I [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Rick_Warren&diff=267132538&oldid=267130750 said] was: "Violations of 3RR are vandalism, hence reverted automatically. Also, this edit does not violate 3RR, regardless, because TeleD edited in between."
:In short, I do not believe that I did violate 3RR, so the block seems pointless. I'm also going to point out that, for the second time in a row, I've asked someone to revert their blatant 3RR violation, reported them when they refused to, and gotten banned for the trouble. Do we have a new, secret policy called "punish anyone who reports 3RR"? If you're not going to let us report violations, what recourse do we have but reverting? Think about it. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 06:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
::I think that violations of 3RR are just that, and not vandalism. If you genuinely believe that you did not commit [[WP:3RR]], then use the {{tl|unblock}} tag. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 06:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:::The last time I read [[WP:3RR]], it was not a violation to revert back to a version after someone else did. That's not what I'm reading right now. If so, then I may have unintentionally violated the current version of the rule. For what it' worth, as my edit comment made clear, I was under the impression that TeleD's edit in between meant that I was not in danger of violating the rule. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 06:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So I decided to read up on the rules to make sure I understood them. Here's what I found at the top of [[WP:VANDALISM]] when I checked just now:

<blockquote>
'''Vandalism''' is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a ''deliberate'' attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia; vandalism cannot and ''will not'' be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, the insertion of nonsense into articles or otherwise replacing legitimate content with vandalism.

Any [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|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 considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.
</blockquote>

Quite frankly, it's not at all clear to me that you are correct when you say that his edits weren't vandalism. As I saw it, he was deliberately compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by removing a well-cited and appropriate sentence. He knew it was true and verified; he just didn't like it so he censored it. If reinserting something despite multiple warnings is vandalism, as the example states, then so is deleting something despite multiple warnings. I have also seen cases where a 4th reversion was reverted by an admin on the basis of the fact that it violated [[WP:3RR]], not because of its content.

I acted under the belief that my edits complied with the rules, just as you say he did, yet he is not blocked and I am. I find this to be less than just and request that you either block him or unblock me. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:No, no, that would be completely useless. How would blocking him do anything for your predicament? Aside from giving you the feeling of success, that is. We're trying to be constructive, not supportive of every second editor's vengefulness.

:Anyway, I agree with you; you were only acting based on your interpretation of a policy. However, unfortunately, yours is a minority view, while his is commonly accepted. So, you both acted under the same motivation, except he acted through a means which is allowed by the community. Also, 'well-cited and appropriate' can be argued here, as two sources were related to Savage and one was only a minor mention (which, by BLP policy standards, is equivalent to building a house on matchsticks).

:However, that's just an outside opinion; I'll let Kevin comment further if he'd like. [[User:Master of Puppets|<span style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:move;">'''M'''aster '''o'''f '''P'''uppets]] [[User talk:Master of Puppets|<sub style="color:#7d7d7d;cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D]] 07:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::If you want to see "completely useless", look at what good blocking me is doing. The pages in question are protected, and I had already stopped editing them by the time I reported the edit war. What I got for my trouble is a block, which is a pretty clear signal that I can't count on fairness from admins.
::As for what blocking him might do, I would think it would motivate him not to INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE 3RR. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 08:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

=== Unblocked ===
I have unblocked you, to allow you to take part in discussions re [[Rick Warren]] etc. I will caution you to restrict yourself to less than 3 reverts per day, unless it is '''obvious''' vandalism such as page blanking or penis jokes etc. Even if others are edit warring, there is no need for you to do so. Report it at the appropriate place, then step away. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 21:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks, you did the right thing. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 00:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

== From WP:AN/3RR ==

:The term is brand new and not notable. If, every time Rush Limbaugh created a new term to mock his enemies, conservatives rushed to Wikipedia to add the new derisive term and tag anyone remotely connected to it, it would be no more justifiable than this insertion. Why not wait for consensus?--[[User:Lyonscc|Lyonscc]] ([[User talk:Lyonscc|talk]]) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::This has been refuted solidly. Unfortunately, this block makes it difficult for me to participate and clear my name. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 06:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also ask Manutdglory outright to declare whether he has a conflict of interest over [[Saddleback Church]], since there is some talk that he attends it. Being a member of an organization, like the RCC or SBC, isn't necessarily a COI, although it could be. But going to that specific church is very obviously a COI. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== [[Rick Warren]] and Saddlebacking ==

Will you please please drop that issue? There are more important stuff than a sex columnist's attempts at humour. I just finished this. See: [[User talk:Phoenix of9/warren]] [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, but I honestly believe that this issue is worth pursuing, among others. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 03:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

::Its taking too much time tho. And its not even funny. While Santorum is funny and disgusting. [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 03:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm patient, and I find the notion of technical virginity absurd. More to the point, this is genuinely relevant. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 03:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

== Don't edit other editor's comments ==

Do not edit other editor's talk page comments, as you did here [[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARick_Warren&diff=267678950&oldid=267678571]]. I reverted your change. If you wish to note that Lyonscc restated his opposition later you can do so ''without'' editing his comments. [[User:Gerardw|Gerardw]] ([[User talk:Gerardw|talk]]) 20:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

:I believe that visibly slashing out a double-vote, with explanation, is entirely reasonable. If you disagree, feel free to report me. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

==Morale boost==
[[File:Smile-tpvgames.gif|left]] Hey [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]], I'm just sending you a friendly note as a moral boost as I know how frustrating debate here can be. I appreciate your comments at [[Talk:Freedom of Choice Act]]. They are keen and persuasive. Best wishes, --[[User:Boston|Boston]] ([[User talk:Boston|talk]]) 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks. I apologize if my comments have distracted us from what really ought to be our goal. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 22:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

== February 2009 ==
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments|delete or edit]] legitimate talk page comments{{#if:Talk:Rick Warren|, as you did at [[:Talk:Rick Warren]]}}. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-tpv2 --> --[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 01:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:As I'm sure you know, this is not any sort of vandalism. I edited in good faith to remove what was an admitted double-vote. I also took care not to remove the text but instead to strike it through and leave an explanation. You can disagree with what I did, but you cannot reasonably call it vandalism. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 01:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::I neither agree or disagree with your view - BUT refactoring another's edits unless it is with their permission, or if the edit is clearly another form of vandalism, is indeed vandalism, and indeed a form of [[wp:disrupt|disruptive editing]] especially when you have gone to the other editors talk page to request a strike through of that material and they have responded in a positive fashion to your request. I also note elsewhere that you have clearly indicated that you are not in the mood to conciliate with any editor and towards that point you should perhaps walk away for an hour or three - take a [[wp:tea|cup of tea or similar beverage]] and then come back a little less agitated. My best wishes to you but please do not give me recourse to suspend your editing activities.--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I'd like to distinguish clearly between two things:
:::1) Whether you oppose my slashing out of his extra vote.
:::2) Whether it was vandalism.
:::It is clear that you oppose it and I don't feel strongly enough to fight that issue further. Perhaps the attention this has gotten will suffice to prevent a second vote being counted. Having said at, at no point was there an intent to vandalize, so I cannot be a vandal. I edited in good faith to ensure that the consensus process was not unduly influenced by the extra vote.
:::As for my unwillingness to be conciliatory towards unreasonable demands, this is not going to change anytime soon. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 01:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

== Civility ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Freedom_of_Choice_Act&curid=19854505&diff=267922471&oldid=267904847 This] comment crosses the line of civility. You need to tone it down. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]]) 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:[[WP:DUCK|I disagree]]. Schrandit has been making the same patently absurd and flatly unbelievable claim ''repeatedly'' on that talk page, and others have called him on it, but he insists on repeating it. His behavior is unacceptable, and it was time to say it as directly as possible so that he understands that when he repeats that bald-faced lie, his credibility is dug even deeper under the ground. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 23:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::Looking at that talk page, 6 out of 8 editors polled seem to agree with my logic. - [[User:Schrandit|Schrandit]] ([[User talk:Schrandit|talk]]) 23:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] {{#if:|You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''{{{time}}}'''|You have been temporarily '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing}} in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] for {{#if:continuing attacks on other editors; adjusting other peoples user pages (once since deleted) etc - edits that are not appropriate and you show no intention to tone down your behaviour despite many requests to do so - indeed you indicate continuously that you are totally unrepentant of this behaviour|'''continuing attacks on other editors; adjusting other peoples user pages (once since deleted) etc - edits that are not appropriate and you show no intention to tone down your behaviour despite many requests to do so - indeed you indicate continuously that you are totally unrepentant of this behaviour'''|repeated [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|abuse of editing privileges]]}}. You are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make ''useful'' contributions]] after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|contest this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}} below. {{#if:true|--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 23:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block2 -->
:I see no reason not to express disagreement with Kevin's advice. Is it now against the rules to even ''question'' an admin? As for the rest, what are you talking about, in specific? [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 23:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::I doubt that VirtualSteve blocked you for disagreeing with me, but for expanding your comment to Schrandit. [[User:Kevin|Kevin]] ([[User talk:Kevin|talk]])
:::I don't care to speculate further about his reasons. It's not my job to read his mind: he has to state the basis of his block explicitly. As it stands, it claims vandalism, which is demonstrably untrue. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 23:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here's an example of how others called Schrandit on his lie:
<blockquote>
Schrandit, I think we both know why the sign was made and where the picture was taken, so it is best we be honest. You may remove the pic if you want, but I am confident another editor will restore it given the conversation that has transpired here. --Boston (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
</blockquote>
[[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 23:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:::[ECx2] You have not been blocked for disagreeing with Kevin. You have been blocked for continuously breaching civility guidelines to other editors. Your latest two - the one that Kevin refers to above, in which you reiterate your uncivil claim against Schrandit by referring to the Duck test; and where you think somehow that it is your right to adjust another persons user page as you did in this (since deleted contribution) ''09:24, February 2, 2009 (diff) (deletion log) (Restore) . . User:Chrishpaytas (Red is such an ugly color.)'' after you have received previous discussions, warnings, & blocks for similar behaviour give us all good reason to question whether you are here in the main to contribute or rather to upset other editors. Any administrator reading through your history will see that you have detailed that you are unrepentant and somewhat unwilling to treat all others as colleagues rather than adversaries. Pretending that you do not know about your own edits by asking ''what are you talking about, in specific'' does not remove the fact that you have been warned many times for uncivil actions and that you are fully aware that continuation of such edits will lead to your account being blocked. '''PS''' the block notice also provides this information - it does not state vandalism.--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 23:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this short:
# To the best of my knowledge, no rule is violated by giving someone a user page that says "Hi, my name is Chishpaytas" so that their name wouldn't be red-linked. There was no hint of hostile intent here, and if the text was somehow offensive, it could have been blanked without bringing back the ugly red-link. If I had inadvertently violated a rule, a warning would have more than sufficed, had you [[WP:AGF]]ed or asked me outright instead of immediately blocking me.
# Whether I was indeed uncivil or just calling a duck a duck is precisely what was in dispute. I've presented evidence that my comment came after others have too gently described Schrandit's claim as dishonest, which supports my contention that less direct statements had already been tried, to no avail. I would also remind you that [[WP:DUCK]] states that "being civil should not be confused with being friendly or courteous, let alone charitable". My comment might not have been friendly, but it was not uncivil, and that was my point.
# There was no way for me to defend what I said to Schrandit without expanding my comment, as Kevin called it. It seems clear that you are blocking me specifically for my defense of the original comment, not for the original comment. This raises deep questions about whether editors are expected to silently accept honest mistakes by admins, at risk of a block if they speak up for themselves. Is this what you really intend?
[[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you haven't responded, I'm going to request an unblock, on the basis that the block was due to your error. You were wrong to accuse me of vandalism when I slashed out the double vote, wrong to block me for vandalism when all I did was un-redlink, and wrong to block me for civilly disputing a warning. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 01:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

*Please read my previous response to you and your block notice again Spotfixer - you have not been blocked for vandalism - you have been blocked for ''continuing attacks on other editors; adjusting other peoples user pages (once since deleted) etc - edits that are not appropriate and you show no intention to tone down your behaviour despite many requests to do so - indeed you indicate continuously that you are totally unrepentant of this behaviour''. Can I also suggest that you place your unblock request directly under this thread of information - that is the appropriate spot for such requests.--[[User:VirtualSteve|<strong>VS</strong>]] <sup>[[User_talk:VirtualSteve|talk]]</sup> 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|1=Block is based on admin failure to AGF. See below.|decline=Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must <u>convince administrators</u> either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information. — [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 02:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)}}

:That's interesting. As far as I can tell, there were precisely two points brought up and I addressed both. Furthermore, in neither case would a block be necessary to stop me from doing anything. While I was still discussing the Schrandit issue with Kevin, I had no intention of ignoring the warning. As for creating a user page for someone, I still don't know what's wrong with that, but it's not as if I would have done it again after an admin reversed it. In short, this block serves no purpose.
:I believe I addressed some of this above, in my response to VirtualSteve. Unfortunately, he has not responded, so it's unclear how I would convince him of anything. What do you suggest? Do I need to put down another unblock request? [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 02:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a few hours have passed and I haven't seen any sort of response. I guess my only option now is to drop another unblock request and hope someone reads it.

{{unblock reviewed|1=For the reasons explained here, this block serves no purpose.|decline=The purpose of the block is to prevent you from further attacking other editors. Until you give a response which indicate why that concern is not longer applicable, you will probably remain blocked. Continuing to just ignore the problems you have caused is only going to result in your page being protected. You have already made two unblock requests in what, 24 hours for a 72 hour block? I have half a mind to protect this page for the duration of the block to stop this. — [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 07:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)}}

With all due respect, that's a rather unhelpful response. If you read what's in this section, you'll see that I explained that, not only is it no longer applicable, it was ''never applicable''. As for the frequency of unblock requests, I've attempted to get the attention of the blocking admin by writing here, but he has not responded to the issues I raised. I would think that requesting an unblock any ''less'' frequently would be pointless, given the duration. For that matter, I can't seem to find the [[WP:ANI]] entry where my block is registered; I thought these were strictly required. This is part of what had led to some confusion about the stated purpose of the block.

To make this entirely clear, I have no intention of once again giving Chishpaytas a brief user page, although nobody has yet explained what harm or rule violation might be involved. As for what Kevin believes to be an incivility towards Schrandit, that's something I was in the process of discussing with Kevin before this block. If the block had not occurred, I would have been able to finish that discussion.

What I would like, aside from the unblock, is a response from VirtualSteve. If you feel that this is an unreasonable request and block my ability to edit my own talk page, so be it. It is a risk I am willing to take. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=As explained above, this block serves no purpose. Its stated purpose is to prevent me from attacking editors, and yet I have no interest in attacking anyone. The block shouldn't have happened; this is your chance to at least mitigate the harm and unfairness.|decline=You're asking an administrator to go against three other ones. I don't think so. If you make another unblock request you will be reblocked without the ability to edit this page. — '''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]]''' ([[User talk:Rschen7754|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|C]]) 01:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)}}

I'm asking that an administrator enforce the spirit and letter of the rules by removing a block that serves no purpose. This is not an unreasonable request, especially since this block has not been made public on [[WP:ANI]], so VirtualSteve's mistake has not been reviewed by the admin community. As for threatening to block me even from my own talk page, that seems utterly pointless. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 01:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=[[WP:POINT]]|decline=I think not, and I'm just carrying out what I said now. — '''[[User:Rschen7754|Rschen7754]]''' ([[User talk:Rschen7754|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Rschen7754|C]]) 02:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)}}

== To do ==

1 Remove "Shray Khandelwal Im coming to get u" from [[Tank Abbott]].
::Though I think we justly consider each other to be wikipedia arch-nemeses, good call on that one, I've fixed it but the credit is yours for noticing it. - [[User:Schrandit|Schrandit]] ([[User talk:Schrandit|talk]]) 06:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::No, I don't have any nemeses, and this one was a no-brainer. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 07:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
2 <s>Respond on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddlebacking‎]], if the vote isn't closed.</s> Closed while blocked.

3 Revert vandalism to [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Faith&curid=11064&diff=268148216&oldid=268085940 faith]

:Hey spot. I appreciate your enthusiasm for Wikipedia and your efforts to improve it. Without commenting directly on your block, I hope you don't get too caught up in the frustrations of fighting it. The deck is rather stacked against appeals (as the policy makes clear), so I encourage you to find other things to do during your break so you can make the best of it and come back refreshed. It's not the end of the world and it would be a shame to lose you or to have you be turned off or embittered by the experience. Take care. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 05:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

:Thank you, SpotFixer, for being patient, and i hope you will be reinvigorated with your helpfulness and goodwill efforts when you return. I appreciate the support and good faith and way you were considerate to me, and i think it will be good to have you back. Hang in there, some of us will even learn how to be helpful friends toward you when we see you again. [[User:Teledildonix314|'''Teledildonix314''']][[User Talk:Teledildonix314 | <sup style="color:#0A5">Talk</sup>]] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Teledildonix314 | <sub style="color:#3B7">4-1-1</sub>]] 05:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you, both, for your support. It's become clear that Wikipedia's rules favor the dishonest, so rather than play by the rules, I'm going to play ''with'' them. I'm going to see to what extent the rules can be fixed. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 05:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

== Definition of "Faith" ==

Thank you for your good work on wikipedia. Unfortunately, I don't find the word "professedly" (definition : by profession or declaration : avowedly 2 : with pretense : allegedly) to be nearly as fitting as "characteristically" which is defined as "having a character that differentiates it from other". That's exactly what we shooting for - the difference from the word belief. i.e. Faith has different character. [[User:Weekendsolar|Weekendsolar]] ([[User talk:Weekendsolar|talk]]) 04:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:I'm fine with "characteristically", but I do think there's some merit to "professedly". One of the unique characteristics of faith is that it's typically proclaimed, not merely held. In fact, it's hard to determine whether someone genuinely has faith or they're just saying they do.
:Consider that I feel no need to proclaim that the sky is blue, because no faith is involved in that belief. In contrast, religious beliefs—which do require faith—seem to involve public profession as a key attribute. Some might say that the one who claims faith is overcompensating for the lack of evidence by making more explicit and earnest proclamations. [[User:Spotfixer|Spotfixer]] ([[User talk:Spotfixer#top|talk]]) 05:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:04, 31 December 2010

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spotfixer&oldid=405194857"