User talk:Haymaker/archive 6

Talk Page Archives:
Archive 1 (November 2006 – October 2008)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 269

Hi, I came across your articles UNSCR 268 en -269 today and noticed they are about one and the same resolution. It seems that latter is about the wrong resolution. I just wanted to inform you about this. Egs (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh how embarrassing. Thanks for the tip, I'll get on that. - Schrandit (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Save Our State revert

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edits linking to the Southern Poverty Law Center source on Save Our State with the comment "Sorry no blogs". The source in question is not a blog, but an article by an accredited organization that discusses the SOS blogs. I would have understood such a source to be in line with Wikipedia's citation policies. If there is a Wikipedia policy that prohibits such a thing, please provide a specific rationale linking to the policy page in question, so that I might further my understanding of Wikipedia policy. A prohibition against linking to blog content is not sufficient due to the fact that the source in question is not, in fact, a blog, but an article discussing a blog.

You also deleted a reference to a local news story without providing a reason why. This needs a rationale as well if you are going to do that.

I undid your changes, pending a more detailed rationale of why my edits were reverted. I look forward to a discussion of the issue with you. Thank you for your time. 76.203.149.212 (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The "No blogs" comment was in reference to the section sourced at ojaivalleynews.blogspot.com and I apologize for it. Wikipedia does not view blogs (in so much as blogs are personal, anonymous commentary and observation) as legitimate sources and I don't believe it was irrational for me to look at that URL and think "blog", now that I've given it a second look see that it is tied to a legitimate news organization. If that story was published on the newspaper's website (which it sounds like it was) it would probably be for the best for you to link to it there to avoid such confusion. Your material sourced at the SPLC was not deleted and it is somewhat disingenuous for you to claim that it was, furthermore a full-scale revision of my edits was, in my opinion, uncalled for. - Schrandit (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cesar Millan, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Thesoxlost (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of living people

Please note that contentious cateogories should only be added to the biographies of living people if the categorization is described and sourced in the article. See WP:BLP#Categories and Wikipedia:Categorization of people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite bombing

I have noticed an unfortunate pattern of gratuitous and excessive citation requests made by you to articles that involves reproductive and gay rights. These are often coupled with summary deletions of valuable material. Taken in the context of the religious declaration on your user page and the sort of articles you focus on, and despite an initial assumption of good faith, we are left with a clear impression that you are abusing the citation mechanism to damage and remove articles on topics that offend you, thus violating NPOV.

Maybe I'm wrong. In fact, I hope I am. But, just in case, I will keep an eye out for further edits from you that fit this observed pattern and react appropriately. Have a good day. Spotfixer (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just dandy and I'm glad to know I'll be having an angel over my shoulder but my Catholicism no more predisposes me to violating the NPOV rule on an article on homosexuality than does a gay man's sexuality predispose his to violating the NPOV rule on an article on Catholicism. Removing patent nonsense that has been tagged as unsourced for a year and half can hardly be summarized as the summary deletion of valuable material and for you to describe it as such is highly disengenuous. I'm sorry if I have offended you in some manner but this level of wholesale revision is highly uncalled for and highly unproductive. Next time, check the rule book before you accuse me of violating it. - Schrandit (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people are Catholic but edit neutrally; you just happen not to be one of them. When you violate NPOV, I will be one of the people who will undo the damage you cause. Spotfixer (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

My cause is to make this a more reliable encyclopedia and you've been doing a tremendous job damaging that today. When I fail to demonstrate a neutral point of view when dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources you let me know. Until then stop reverting my edits en mass or will be forced to seek moderation. - Schrandit (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you moderate yourself. Spotfixer (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How old are you? - Schrandit (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Schrandit, Spotfixer doesn't appear to be right about WP:NPOV. That applies to the content of the articles, not to the motivation behind individual edits. But you may be using questionable WP:etiquette. One of the main rules of wikipedia etiquette is to try to achieve a consensus, a synthesis of the many points of view of many editors. This is not achieved by tagging statements with fact, and then deleting them. I haven't followed your edit pattern closely, so I can't say that you have a consistent pattern, but I would urge you to attempt to provide references to the things you delete before you delete them. If you recognize that you have a bias, WP:etiquette asks you to actively keep it in check. That would mean that you make an extra effort to find support for positions you disagree with. --Thesoxlost (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, thank you for getting involved in this. I know these things are weird and thank you for offering a third opinion in a pleasant manner. Were I trying to add contentious material or challenge the legitimacy of sourced material I would, and have in the past, work for consensus. With the Fact tags and the like I'm taking taking out the garbage on wikipeida and I think I'm doing it in an equitable manner. I tag unsourced statements as unsourced to point out their questionable nature to readers and to offer another, better qualified editor, to source them and when I come across things that have been tagged for a reasonable amount of time I removed them in accordance with WP:Unsourced material. When I come across articles that I believe are of questionable notability I tag them for that to spark community discussion on the matter and on the rare occasions that I come across an article I believe warrants deletion I tag it as such and see how folks feel about this. (I think I've tagged 3 articles for deletion in the 3 years I've been on Wikipeia) The whole time, to the very best of my knowledge, I stay within the bounds of Wikipedia Policy. From time to time I go on binges of doing this and last night, among the other categories I was perusing, I was going through the abortion stubs which is what set spotfixer against me. I admit that like any man I have my politics and there is a lot on many of those pages that I disagree with but again, to the best of my knowledge, I have followed Wikipedia Policy at all time and have never removed any sourced material, in some cases I have sought out sources and I have made sure that a reasonable amount of time had passed since the tag was added and the claim removed. - Schrandit (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the 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 three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Spotfixer (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Ohio_Patriot_Act constitute a violation of WP:3RR. Moreover, they came after an explicit warning. If I were vindictive, it would be trivial for me to get you blocked. Instead, I'm asking you to undo your own changes. Once you've corrected your own violation of 3RR, there'll be no basis for blocking you. This is your big chance to do the right thing. Take it. Spotfixer (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Check the page again, it does not. You are a bit a vindictive jerk and would get me blocked if you could. I'm heading to the range, I should be back in 2ish hours, talk to you then. - Schrandit (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use your rollback privileged to edit war. Rollback is for obvious cases of vandalism. While of course, I would also encourage you more strongly not to edit war at all, undoing the edits of Spotfixer by means of rollback is an abuse of rollback. Consider this a friendly warning. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

1, 2, and 3 are all examples of you continuing an edit war by means of rollback abuse. In fact, on the 27th, you used rollback 5 times in under 2 minutes. Anyway, I figured you may have forgotten what rollback is for so hence my attempt at a friendly warning. As for the dispute resolution, I'd say your best bets would be starting a centralized discussion of sorts via a WP:RFC or trying, as you said, mediation.=Andrew c ^[talk] 04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I must have been tired or something. Those were "undo" edits, not rollbacks. My apologies. This and this are rollback reverts. Regardless, my point stands I guess, but please excuse my temporary incompetence ')-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, Schrandit. Your attitude is starting to get a little attention from the larger community. Try to keep cool, okay? – ClockworkSoul 03:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I understand. We all have to suffer through these at some point, so dispute resolution is pretty much a science at this point. Take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Hopefully it'll be able to point you in the right direction. Good luck! – ClockworkSoul 05:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 05:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just wanted to point out that other wikis are not considered "reliable" under WP:SELFPUB. Please, in the future, cite the UN itself, not our version on wikisource which anyone can edit. And if you have the time, please go back and add sources that meet our basic requirements. Another helpful tip, for articles on these resolutions, you need to make sure that notability is established by means of citations to multiple, independent reliable sources. Did the media cover these resolutions? Did other countries react? Did they cause a stir? Where the celebrated? etc. Not only would doing this make these articles meet our inclusion criteria, it would also help expand the encyclopedic content of these articles. Hope this helps. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, citing other wikis doesn't match up to our guidelines. It's much better to cite directly the sources that the wiki is citing instead. Having the template box that points to wikisource is fine, but that is different from actually sourcing the content of the article. One is for promoting a sister project, and the other is for making sure our article content is verifiable and reliable. Because anyone can edit wikisource, it doesn't meet out standards of reliability and therefore it cannot be used as a source. Hope this makes sense.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like gay and lesbians ...

those articles are probably better off without your special brand of "help". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.35.53 (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says that I don't like gays and lesbians? - Schrandit (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You do. Look at your user page, where you wear your Catholicism on your sleeve. Your edits also give away your homophobia. Spotfixer (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism = homophobia, outstanding deduction sir! - Schrandit (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, not all Catholics are homophobic. Plenty think for themselves and reject many irrational and immoral edicts from the clergy. However, the sort of Catholic who wears their religion on their sleeve and focuses their edits on undermining abortion and LGBT articles is not showing any signs of free thinking. So, yes, doctrinaire Catholicism is homophobic. Spotfixer (talk) 07:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tourism in Vatican City

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tourism in Vatican City. Note that the 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 three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gentgeen (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Tourism in Vatican City

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tourism in Vatican City. Note that the 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 three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gentgeen (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've been watching the 3RR. That sample is really part of a larger conflict between myself and spotfixer. I feel that I've tried to follow the steps provided on the Dispute Resolution page but I'm not really capable of assessing those efforts from an objective standpoint. Our conflict is one of those annoying ones where the two editors war against each others work but never actually violate a Wikipedia guideline. If you have any suggestions I would be grateful. - Schrandit (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling your bluff.

You've been littering Wikipedia with demands for citations, ostensibly because you want these articles improved. I don't believe that so I'm calling your bluff. I think you're only interested in deleting text that goes against your religious bias. The big hint is what you target and how you target it. In specific, you're big on demanding citations, but I've never once seen you fulfill such a demand. Prove me wrong: show me that you can actually do some research and find a citation in response to your own demand. If you can't, then you have lost all claims to legitimacy, and I will no longer be able to even pretend to assume good faith with regard to your edits. Spotfixer (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For argument's sake lets ignore my over 3 years on Wikipedia and my 3,000 edits and say that all that I have ever done is tag unsourced material on pages pertaining to topics I disprove of and remove it if a source cannot be found. Have I done anything wrong? According to Wikipedia guidelines that is the appropriate way to deal with unsourced material. - Schrandit (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only are you a liar, you're an unconvincing one. You bump into sexual revolution and find a sentence where it talks about something you hate: the secularization of society. So what do you do? Do you ask yourself whether it's true and search for confirmation? No, you demand citations [1].

Of course, you're just hoping nobody makes the time to do a quick Google, so you can delete these words that offend you with their inconvenient truth. Then some random anonymous user walks in and finds a citation to back up that sentence. Rats, foiled again. Now you have to twirl your mustache and find some other article to vandalize.

This is all you do: you vandalize by pretending to want citations, then deleting. If you actually cared about citations, you'd go find them yourself. But you don't, and that's how we all know you're a liar. Don't you dare hide behind the pretense that you're just following the rules when your only motivation is to censor Wikipedia of anything your Pope disapproves of. Spotfixer (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh shucks, an anon posted an unsourced statement containing a vast generalization and I asked for a source? Really? Man I gotta stop doing that right away.

I'm trying not to be a jerk as I write this but you've got me pretty well convinced that you are a bigot, and not a terribly bright one. My edits are legit and I've never lied about anything. Trying to revert my edits en mass make you look childish and railing against my religion makes you look like an ass. - Schrandit (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And when you figure out that WP:CIVIL applies to you, I'll care what you think. In the meantime, my point remains: you demand citations but never try to provide them. Spotfixer (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Again sir, neither I nor any other editor is obligated to do so. Such a burden would be unbearable and this encyclopedia would collapse under the weight of unverifiable rumor and hearsay.

I noticed that you didn't address my argument. Also, I'm not actually a "sir", so please don't use that title with me. Spotfixer (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

It seems that, while I was recently inconvenienced, you took the liberty of reverting many of my changes. I examined those reversions and found that most were entirely unjustified.

In all too many cases, you continued with your questionable practice of seeking out articles on topics that are contrary to the policies of the RCC and marking them up with citations or simply erasing parts. Unfortunately, you have not taken even a little bit of effort to look up any of these citations, which makes it hard to take them seriously. If you really doubt something, Google it and see if your doubts are reasonable. Otherwise, it would appear that your primary goal is to erase valid material and inconvenience editors who do not share your religious and political stance, which strains WP:AGF.

My response has been to insert citations in the places where it is conceivable that you acted in good faith. In places where you went entirely overboard with multiple unreasonable requests in a single article, I simply rolled back and asked you to explain your objections in Talk. Please do so: if you revert without explanation, it will be seen as a change against consensus. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Madam, I have had this conversation with you before. Everything that I have done had has been within Wikipedia's rules and guidelines and all my edits are legitimate no matter how you may choose to construe them. I yet hope that we come to some more productive end but if you just want to keep tracking down all of my edits and hitting the undo button I can just hit it again after you. - Schrandit (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've explained myself sufficiently. Spotfixer (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Etiquette Guidelines

Schrandit, lets start anew with this. Despite your assertions, it does not appear that you are following Wikipedia guidelines. WP:EQ states that editors are expected to act to improve articles, and not to push an agenda. By going systematically through articles that you find objectionable, and throwing up fact tags without making a good-faith effort to find the proper references, you are (1) not acting to improve the article; and (2) failing to keep your biases in check. These are two explicit guidelines in WP:EQ. This is a gray area, as you clearly believe that these objectionable articles contain information that needs to be removed, and that pushing your own personal views coincides with the improvement of articles.

Please understand that given the appearance that you are not acting in according with WP:EQ, other users may find your edits as inflammatory. Please give other editors the benefit of the doubt and do not engage them in edit wars. Further, please make sure to not appear to troll articles on homosexual topics throwing around fact tags without contributing otherwise. Lastly, please make a good-faith effort to not let your personal views guide your editing behavior. If you believe something strongly, thats all the more reason to make sure your edits on the topic are exhaustively researched, referenced and discussed. Lastly, please don't construe this as a personal attack; it is a good-faith effort to resolve an ongoing conflict and address potential violations of WP guidelines. Thanks! --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Systematic adding of fact tags can be a valid method of improving articles. Editors that draw attention to poorly sourced or questionable text and later delete that text if no citation is added are doing valuable work on Wikipedia. That those editors might not be adding citations themselves does not remove that value.

That said, if the goal of the fact tagging is to push a bias, then there may be a legitimate issue. However, I am not convinced that Schrandit is attempting to push a POV. Instead, it seems to me that Schrandit is attempting to neutralize a perceived POV imbalance such as the one which existed previously in the Hyde amendment article. Until it is conclusively demonstrated otherwise, it is best to assume good faith. -Neitherday (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Unbiased fact tagging is a legitimate way to improve articles, and even biased fact tagging can result in articles being improved. As you say, the problem is whether the editor demonstrates a clear pattern that indicates that improvement is not his goal. This can be subjective, since its a judgment call, but take Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism as a recent example. He is engaged in an edit war over a minor difference. His argument can only be that the source states the the priests condemn the churches position, and not that they disobey it. But a 30 second google search turns up numerous articles about this issue that do mention homosexual men being ordained as Roman Catholic priests. This begs the question as to why Schrandit did not do a google search to support the statement he was deleting; given his background, he should be making every effort to support statements he disagrees with, per keeping biases in check WP:EQ. My point was not to simply criticize; Schrandit has made statements that he believes all of his edits to be entirely legitimate. I wanted to point out the WP:EQ guidelines that he may be breaking so that he can consider them and avoid giving the wrong perception in the future. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Gentlemen, (perhaps Ladies), I maintain that what I did was in line with WP:Unsourced material. With regard to that, no editor is under obligation to find sources, it is nice to do that, but no one is obligated to do that. Clearly I am a rather conservative fellow and most of these disputed edits are on highly contentious issues in American society, but I believe I have not allowed a bias to override reasonably on these articles. Look at the article Sheela Lambert. I tagged unsourced material as unsourced and removed material that had been tagged as unsourced since July. Spotfixer undid my edits and I undid his and it was all very annoying and then User:Benjiboi came along and found some sources and I am happy. Look at Benjiboi's user page and look at mine, clearly we are not going to rent a time-share in Miami together any time soon but we can get along and I have made no effort to "undermine" his work because it is legitimate and sourced no matter what I think of the article being edited. The Hyde Amendment article is a great example - the way it was written was heavy with pro-abortion (or is you prefer, pro-choice) bias, once that was neutralized by another editor (noted as an opinion and not as fact) I was fine. Look at the talk page for Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, in the 5th entry in this discussion I advocated changing the language of the article because I feared that it had swung into a pro-life violation of NPOV. Per the recent dispute on the page Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, the claim in dispute is not that "priests condemn the churches position" or even that "that they disobey it", in a religion this large there will always be clergy that disagree and even some that break ranks. The claim was that "some bishops continue to knowingly ordain gay priests despite the Vatican's pronouncement". That is a highly damaging claim and it is one that was not backed up by the source and for that reason I removed it. Now I'm not claiming to be a Saint but I have been reasonable through out this and I have and will continue to abide by Wikipedia policy. - Schrandit (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that you are motivated to edit wikipedia to remove statements that are damaging to the church. That is a bias. If you allow that to motivate you, without any checks, you are violating WP:EQ. How do you check that bias?

Looking back over that Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, I think the statement is inappropriate because it is out of place. The purpose of that section is to present a defense of a position, and the statement was clearly added to argue against that purpose. But there are many unreferenced, dubious statements in that section, all of which are in defense of your position and were not tagged. For instance, it is claimed that a majority of priests "probably" support the church view on homosexuality. How could that possibly be supported? That is a statement that absolutely defies empirical support. Did an independent agency issue a poll? If you are going to state that your edits were simply applications of wikipedia guidelines, then you would have tagged these statements. Since you did not, how is an independent observer to believe that you are checking your biases? --Thesoxlost (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I my language was unclear, I did not mean harmful to the Church I meant harmful to the article in the spirit of the language of WP:Unsourced material. The Church has done many terrible things in the past and has many worldly faults but as the Book of John says; "The truth shall set you free". I wouldn't try to distort fact of fabricate history if for no other reason than to do so is folly. If the statement in contention were verifiable I think it would, in fact, merit inclusion into the article but I have not seen any source that can verifies it. Per the claim "that a majority of priests "probably" support the church view on homosexuality." yeah, that sounds highly unverifiable and you should tag it as such. - Schrandit (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hijacked Thread

The point that has eluded you is that, regardless of your opinion, your edits have been recognized as violations. If you continue this pattern of incivility, edit-warring and apparent POV-pushing, you will find that your edits will be routinely reverted. You need to show good faith by voluntarily searching for citations before flagging. Spotfixer (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Madam, what in all creation are you talking about? Where have my "edits have been recognized as violations."? You and you alone are the only one that reverts my edits and where does it say that and editor must "show good faith by voluntarily searching for citations before flagging."? - Schrandit (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

When confronted with an obvious falsehood, I find it more tactful to avoid pointless debate. Instead, I will simply mentionthat anyone who cares to check will find that you are not speaking truth here.

I recommend that you focus on improving Wikipedia, which in your case would start with providing citations rather than endlessly making demands for them. The more effort you spend on excusing your prior errors, the less credible your new edits will be. Spotfixer (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Such an accusation is highly slanderous and uncalled for. If what I have done is wrong why are you the only person concerned by it? If what I have done is so egregious why are you the only person reverting my edits? Why are you the only editor to contend that I have seriously violated Wikipedia's rules? When I ask you what my wrong is why, instead of pointing to it, do you merely call me a liar? Have you even entertained the possibility that you might be mistaken? - Schrandit (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you no longer have the credibility to pull that off with a straight face. Contrary to your claims, there are easily found examples of other editors reverting your edits in support of the version that I found to be more compliant to Wikipedia rules. Since this is a simple fact, stated civilly, I cannot be guilty of defamation. (Written defamation, by the way, is libel, not slander.)

Once again, I suggest that you defend your reputation by actually going out there and making productive edits, as I have, instead of arguing about how great your edits have been. You protest too much. Spotfixer (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've lost such credibility with you, the rest of Wikipedia seems to be on good terms with me and it is to them that I address myself. - Schrandit (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's be careful throwing words like libel, slander, etc. around as per WP:NLT. Discussions about the content of the article should take place on the article page, so that others may comment and WP:CONSENSUS may be reached. Let's not return to incivility...(talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I will refrain from such language. - Schrandit (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis

I suspect that you're going to want to read Talk:Preimplantation_genetic_diagnosis before making any changes to the article. Spotfixer (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you madam, I always do and would suggest that you too might want to pick up the habit as well. - Schrandit (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparent edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sheela Lambert. Note that the 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 three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Thanks, Chuckiesdad 06:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you might wish to look at WP:WQA right now. Spotfixer (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Anti-Mexican sentiment. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would add, for the record, that the incivility is compounded with edit-warring and POV-pushing. Spotfixer (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, you've got your own warnings, and are doing nothing to help your own "case" right now. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Giving warnings is easy. That's the problem.

Schrandit has been warned repeatedly but hasn't even slowed down. Clearly, these warnings are ineffective. As for me, the warnings tossed onto my talk page recently were at best useless, at worst inflammatory. Spotfixer (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

illegal immigration in the united states

see my note to you in that article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.247.6 (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be fair now, this is sources

More recently, the charity evaluation organization Charity Navigator gave SPLC an overall rating of three out of four stars in fiscal year 2007. According to Charity Navigator: program expenses are 68.2%, administrative expenses are 14.2%, and fundraising is 17.4%. The Center states that "During its last fiscal year, the Center spent approximately 65% of its total expenses on program services. The Center also placed a portion of its income into a special, board-designated endowment fund to support the Center's future work." At the end of the fiscal year, the endowment stood at $201.7 million." SPLC sets aside money for its endowment "to carry on the struggle for tolerance and justice — for as long as it is needed."It should be noted that all SPLC activities, including litigation, are supported by fundraising efforts, and SPLC does not accept any fees or share of legal judgments awarded to clients it represents in court.

Don't know why either of these, your recent revert, or the one above, need to be in an article on Morris Dees, because they are really about SPLC, not him. That article, however, is about Dees. I was simply trying to make it shorter and more focused. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Morris Dees does not own or run SPLC. He founded it with someone else in 1971 and is now its chief trial counsel. It is run by a Board of Directors like most nonprofits. I don't understand why there is any reason for ANY financial data about SPLC on the Morris Dees article, especially because most of it appears in the SPLC article. It is not relevant to who Morris Dees is or why he is significant. His innovative civil trial strategy, its use and successed historically (because he thought it up), an award named after him (and why it was given to a few specific people, and his personal life are relevant to a biography about a living person.

In the past day or two a concerted attempt was made by persons who are clearly biased against Dees to (1) add materials to make him look bad, and (2) remove materials that help explain his life and actions. I have resisted both efforts, because they are unfair and biased. Anything I added was an attempt to balance something added by somebody else. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: The section on immigration controversy substantially predates by coming to Wikipedia--by years. Not my idea, but needed a LOT of attention. Appeared to have been put there by a SUSPS supporter still grinding an old axe. I wouldn't mind if the entire section on "informal caucases" went away, as I don't think it adds anything of value. Might be integrated into article where relevant. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

village pump

why did you undo my post?-65.189.247.6 (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apology for falsely accussing you. The reason I couldn't see my post was because I didn't give it a proper heading - as you said.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You have violated WP:3RR on Conscience Clause (Medical). If your next edit is not a self-revert, I will report you for this. This is your only notification: you have a long history of incivility and edit-warring, so you know exactly what you're doing wrong. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? So that I can re-revert it in 22 hours? What would be the point? - Schrandit (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer, your last 4 reverts to the article come just barely squeak by the 24 hour limit. From WP:GAME "The purpose of 3RR is to quench 'revert wars'. An editor who reverts three times in a 24 hour period and once immediately it is the next day, or repeatedly reverts twice only in a day, may well still be sanctioned, since the principle of 3RR, and the issue it is protecting Wikipedia against, has been breached."

You both are edit warring and you both could end up blocked. -Neitherday (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we've established that I don't much care if I'm banned. Spotfixer (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Hello Schrandit, please refer to this 3RR report. I agree that you have breached the three revert rule on Conscience Clause (medical). I have blocked you for 12 hours pursuant to this. I understand that editing on the article became quite heated with User:Spotfixer but reverting each other is not an appropriate way to resolve disputes. I ask that you discuss your differences on the talk page after the block, and pursue other dispute resolution mechanisms if this is insufficient. As always, if you disagree with this block, you are welcome to use the {{unblock}} template. Thanks for understanding -- Samir 05:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, if you check the talk page and my edit summaries you'll see that I had opened up a discussion on the the talk page for that article and on Spotfixer's talk page several days ago and asked her to talk things out with me there but she declined. Previous to this particular spat I have attempted to pursue other dispute resolution mechanisms with her but to no avail. That being said, I did breach 3RR and will decline to ask for an unblock, - Schrandit (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Spotfixer violated the 3rr again

Almost as soon as his last block for doing so was over. Would you mind reporting it for me? It's in Anti-Mexican sentiment. It's too difficult to report from an iPhone-65.189.247.6 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The measure of a man.

Remember when you intentionally violated 3RR and I gave you a chance to revert yourself, but you refused? I think it says so much about you that you're eager to get me blocked and not the least bit interested in taking the moral high road. Remember, I don't care if I get blocked, but WWJD? In any case, I'm not edit warring, but you might be able to find a dishonest or incompetent admin willing to help you. Spotfixer (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You can choose to interpret things any way that you want to. - Schrandit (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No need. It speaks for itself, and much more loudly than your words about it. Is there a civil way for me to express pity? Let me know. Spotfixer (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Chief, come on, step up your game. If you're going to be up insulting me on a wikipedia talk page with your delusions at 1 in the morning you've got to at least make it funny. - Schrandit (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the things you quickly learn on the Internet is that, just because it's one in the morning where you are, that doesn't mean it's the same time for everyone else on the globe. Some people extend this simple lesson in time zones to recognize that perhaps their parochial view of things is incomplete and even inaccurate. Others insist that the world is flat. Which will you be? Spotfixer (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

False reports.

You've launched two false WP:3RR reports against me in less than a day. You also seem to be reverting my edits in articles you've never shown interest in before. The pattern of stalking and wikilawyering is becoming very plain. I suggest that you simply leave me alone entirely, and perhaps confine yourself to editing articles that are less controversial. I've noticed that your friend, User:Hardyplants, has been doing some good work on mulch and soil. Perhaps you could help him. Spotfixer (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll mull it over. Nice to know you I have such a kind person with my best interests at heart. - Schrandit (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Need I remind you that I gave you the chance to revert yourself instead of just reporting you? I am, in fact, being much nicer to you than your behavior deserves. My working theory is that you are still basically a child, so perhaps not enirely set in your ways. Unfortunately, you do not seem to have any sort of self-awareness. You do nasty, nasty things and pretend that you are righteous. You view yourself as a holy warrior, while acting pretty much like a thug. These are my honest and plain words. Instead of accepting them, I fully expect you to pretend to take offense and immediately report me for incivility. That's how you "win", right? Spotfixer (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what is in your heart but I do know a fair bit about wikipedia. You had an something you wanted accomplished and you could either take a shot at getting me to do it for you or let this go before the noticeboard and know that it might not ever be done. You were trying to manipulate me into doing you dirty work, I declined and took the slap on the wrist that I deserved for my failure to remember policy. And if you stick around long enough you'll realize that 3RR violations are auto-reported by bots and eventually analyzed by admins, all you did was speed the process up by a few hours, maybe a day. With regret, I don't think I'll ever have your respect and with that in mind I am content to let you conjure up any working theories about me that you choose. This is wikipedia, there are no winners, there are no losers, only the truth. - Schrandit (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"This is wikipedia, there are no winners, there are no losers, only the truth."

You are incorrect. From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

:P

-Neitherday (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

You were edit-warring, as you so often do. That time, you played the game badly, clearly violating 3RR. If I were vindictive, I could simply have reported you, but I didn't. I wasn't trying to trick you into breaking the rules so I could get you blocked; that's the low road. Instead, I was assuming in good faith that the violation was unintentional, so I gave you a chance to revert it yourself.

If you had done so, there would have been no basis for a block and nothing to report. All you had to do was voluntarily stop edit warring and you would have kept your spotless record. Instead, you dug in your heels and refused, earning you a much-deserved block. Of course, the luck of the draw, as it so often does, dealt us a bad admin, so he blocked you for too short a period to teach you anything, and punished me for reporting you. You called it a slap on the wrist, and for once, you were right. All it did was motivate you to edit war more. Your behavior showed that you didn't "forget" about the policy, you willfully broke it despite being reminded not to and even after being asked to undo your violation.

I really don't know what to say about the uncivil remarks, or your paranoia about manipulation, but I will comment on your dangerous claim of owning the truth. The very worst editors are the ones who come here to game the system so that their personal beliefs -- which they are irrationally sure are true -- get reflected in articles. Of course, Wikipedia demands verifiability, precisely because truth is disputed and only zealots believe they have the truth in their pocket.

The bottom line is that you are here to "win" by getting your bias into articles, and that's why you take the low road every time. The truth is that, by gaming to "win", you lose the moral battle, just as, by being unjustifiably certain, you fail to believe the truth. That's not worthy of my respect, or anyone else's. Spotfixer (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, do you really think I was sitting at my computer and thought to myself "hmmmm....I've already reverted this page 3 times in a 24 hour period.....why not just revert it one more time so I can violate policy? Yeah, that's a great idea!"? Folks rarely look back at the page history to see how many times they have edited a page in the last 24 hours, this is one of the times I forgot to look. It was an honest mistake but a violation of the rules nonetheless, I justly received a light punishment for it and now I am more observant.

My behavior at the time could be classified as edit-warring but it does take two to tango. Surely you would not deny that you were the other active participant in our conflict.

I'm not saying you were trying to trick me into reverting a 5th time so I would get blocked, in part because that's not how that works, but that you had a version of the page that you wanted posted and you were trying to get me to concede and post it for you. Many possible violations of the 3RR rule are posted here and looked over by admins. This was the case with my violation, I was going to ANI sooner or later, your report merely hastened the process and reverting my revert would not have absolved me.

Per uncivil remarks, I called you a jerk after this particularly jerk-like edit. That is towing the line of incivility.

I don't claim to own the truth, I claim that the truth with prevail. I have my politics, as undoubtedly you do too, we all come here with our points of view and by following Wikipedia's guidelines we approach the version closest to the verifiable truth. Look at the pages we have fought over - I make modifications or request citations and you just revert my edits, we do that dance for a while until either another editor vindicates my version or find citations to back up the claims in question. Take the Sheela Lambert page, User:Benjiboi and I clearly don't see eye to eye on anything political but I respect his work on Wikipedia because he presents verifiable, neutrally worded content. I still think Sheela is a crazy lady but I'm not just going to willynilly pick at her page for no good reason. I work just fine with good liberal editors, good liberal editors work just fine with me. I often find your edits unacceptable because of the poor quality of work, and because they're often just unproductive reversion of my work, not because of your worldview.

I'm sorry I don't have your respect but at this point I'm not convinced its worth the price. - Schrandit (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

help, please

I need some guidance. An editor insists on using weasel words, removes the tag I put on those weasel words, when the issue is discussed, he baits me into a personal conflict, and refuses to work towards a resolution. I need to identify a conflict resolution process that can help this problem. See the Village Well page on policy.-32.147.200.122 (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've left a response on your talk page here. - Schrandit (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at the Village Pump was that something of the form “Other senators including and said that..” (listing and sourcing at least two different senators so as to justify the use of the plural). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#proper_use_of_a_.5Bwho.3F.5D_tag This was supported by Chris Cunningham, Blue-Haired Lawyer, and myself. Wikidemon, however, simply replied, “I’m done here. You’re just being confrontational”. Since then, I’ve not edited the article because I don’t want to get into an edit war.-12.50.79.2 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama

I have an outline of a lengthy and legitimate article at User:THF/Obama with not a single "nutball conspiracy theory" in it. I'll draft it off-wiki this weekend. I encourage editors to participate in this project by sending me sources (or perhaps fully drafted paragraphs) rather than battling at DRV or on the Talk:Obama page about intermediate stages. If we present a fully-sourced, well-written neutral article, there shouldn't be a problem -- and if there is, it will be pretty damning of Wikipedia. THF (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama

I don't really have the time to deal with User:THF/Obama -- do you want me to move it to your userspace? THF (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Article probation for Obama articles

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Political positions of Barack Obama, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 05:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Marriage Equality / Civil Rights

I agree...at this time, the Iowa talk page doesn't need to be cluttered with that. I really am curious to learn what the secular arguments against marriage equality are, and I appreciate your offering to fill me in. Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Why are you reverting changes without justification? You can get blocked for this sort of thing. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello old friend, every edit that I have made has been justified and I suspect you cannot say the same. I am prepared to defend my work, are you? - Schrandit (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting

Reverting without a comment should only be done in clear cases of vandalism. These are not vandalism, but apparently well-intentioned edits.[2][3] If you choose to revert the edits, please leave a proper edit summary explaining the reason. Misuse of editing tools may lead to their removal.   Will Beback  talk  17:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)