User talk:FixerFixerFixer

April 2014

Hello, I'm Denisarona. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Zak Smith without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Denisarona (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake -FixerFixerFixer

March 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 19:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Which one didn't have a valid reason?

-FixerFixerFixer

April 2019

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FixerFixerFixer, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Your recent editing history at Zak Smith shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Dane ^talk 15:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —DoRD (talk)​ 15:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FixerFixerFixer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I added completely noncontroversial edits from reliable sources, LA Times etc. Nowhere do rules indicate these require consensus. The first editor reverting claimed they were poorly sourced or self-published, they weren't, the second two simply said I needed consensus even though there was nothing controversial there and the edits were sourced. @MSGJ: if noncontroversial claims like "the subject makes abstract paintings" that've been in the page for a decade sourced from Artnet or the LA Times are "controversial" then I don't see how the "Personal Life" changes are still there. It seems like my edits were reverted basically to continue to highlight and de facto support the allegations of abuse and make them be the highlight of the page.FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit warring is prohibited even if you are right - and your unblock request is not the place to argue your side of the content dispute. If you want to make a new unblock request, please stick to explaining how you would address the disagreement without edit warring. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

FixerFixerFixer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry-I didn't know about the three revert limit and was responding to the first alerts I saw. I can happily address the fact these edits are noncontroversial and well-sourced on the Talk page now that I know there is one.FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Sorry-I didn't know about the three revert limit and was responding to the first alerts I saw. I can happily address the fact these edits are noncontroversial and well-sourced on the Talk page now that I know there is one.[[User:FixerFixerFixer|FixerFixerFixer]] ([[User talk:FixerFixerFixer#top|talk]]) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Sorry-I didn't know about the three revert limit and was responding to the first alerts I saw. I can happily address the fact these edits are noncontroversial and well-sourced on the Talk page now that I know there is one.[[User:FixerFixerFixer|FixerFixerFixer]] ([[User talk:FixerFixerFixer#top|talk]]) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Sorry-I didn't know about the three revert limit and was responding to the first alerts I saw. I can happily address the fact these edits are noncontroversial and well-sourced on the Talk page now that I know there is one.[[User:FixerFixerFixer|FixerFixerFixer]] ([[User talk:FixerFixerFixer#top|talk]]) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer

Separately and regarding the conversation on the BLPN noticeboard, editors attacking these edits that add basic biographical information on the subject supports the claim that the "personal life" edits are being used to de facto force contentious claims into the page @MSGJ:. If noncontroversial claims like "the subject makes abstract paintings" that've been in the page for a decade sourced from Artnet or the LA Times are "controversial" en I don't see how the "Personal Life" changes are still there. It seems like my edits were reverted basically to continue to highlight and de facto support the allegations of abuse and make them be the highlight of the page.