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
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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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:. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

FixerFixerFixer (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FixerFixerFixer (talk • contribs)
 * Now that you are aware of the three revert rule and talk page discussion, what will you do if discussion fails to resolve an issue? 331dot (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@331dot If discussion fails then I'll have to research what the next appropriate step in conflict resolution on Wikipedia is because not being able to say mundane information on an article's subject is a bad situations for a lot of reasons. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer
 * do you have any comment? 331dot (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest topic banning FixerFixerFixer from the Zak Smith article and allowing their unblock request. Nick (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that too; FixerFixerFixer, what say you? 331dot (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I say that makes no sense . My "transgression" is not knowing about the 3 edit rule while trying to prevent people from apparently vandalizing the page by erasing things like the LA Times saying basic biographical information like "Zak Smith has published several books". Like I can easily follow the rule now that I know about it but someone in this discussion should please look at the edits that were reverted--especially compared to the pre-February version fo this page. No-one has made a case these edits say anything remotely questionable. The subject has done several books. The colors in the paintings are bright. The fact someone reverted these is just strange. The more controversial edits previously aren't just disputed by me, they're disputed by an admin as BLP violations. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer
 * "My "transgression" is not knowing about the 3 edit rule..." - Your notification of the 3-edit rule, given before you violated said rule again. I would support unblock but only with a topic ban on Zak Smith.--  Dane talk  16:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ive been getting a lot of alerts and messages. I'm sorry I didn't retain every single one. I was trying to respond to vandalism as it happened. FixerFixerFixer (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)FixerFixerFixer
 * You are entitled to your views; however, I think it unlikely you will find someone willing to unblock you without that condition; you are free to wait out your block. 331dot (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 331dot, I got roped into a trip to the supermarket, so I'm just now seeing your question. I wouldn't object to an unblock if FFF would confine their edits to the article talk page, but given their responses above, I'm not convinced that that would be feasible. —DoRD (talk)​ 17:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alert
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

 * Comment Unrelated to the Block: This is too much for me to get into at the moment (I'll return here if no one else has addressed it in the next few days) and the editor above needs to familiarize themselves with WP:COI whether or not this is a case of sockpuppetry. All that said, I have expressed — across a variety of forums — my discomfort at sourcing BLPs to roleplay gaming hobby magazines and so-called "geek culture" blogs, including many of the ones used in this article. I have no frame of reference for the allegations we're including in this biography but it does trouble me to see accusations of criminal rape sourced exclusively to the thefandomentals.com, popcultureuncovered.com, Polygon Magazine, and so forth. I'll watchlist the article but I don't want to jump into the middle of this immediately because there are probably other editors with a more educated or nuanced perspective on the article in question so I'd prefer to defer to them on first pass. Chetsford (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In followup to my above comment, I've decided to open a discussion on the article's Talk page and will examine the question I outlined above there. I don't plan to either accept or decline the above request and will defer to another admin to close it. Chetsford (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
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. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Im writing the appeal to my block from my IP address because my password won't reset. This is FixerFixerFixer appealing my block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.4.145 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC) As you may've noticed, I have bigger problems. If wikipedia editors want to escalate to hunting me down and tasing me it would kind of be a mercy at this point -fixerfixerfixer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.4.145 (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC) That edit was just putting back something that had been there for years and someone erased. If those are "unreliable sources" then why are you blaming me? That's how the page was before the vandals hit it. What's wrong with that edit? -fixerfixerfixer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.4.145 (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I got that. And I cleaned up after you--after all these years you should know about privacy. Since you don't seem to care, I am not going to bother. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any evidence of Wikipedia editors hunting you down, and I don't know which "bigger problems" have anything to do with this little Wikipedia article. What I do know is that this kind of edit (which is, essentially, a kind of spamming with some unreliable sources) isn't likely to make any problem smaller. I also note that you completely misrepresented User:Vanjagenije's decline of your previous request, so I'm not going to hold out much hope that this one will be more successful. Goodbye. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)