User talk:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed, Norman could be anything up to eight hundred yards long. When Norman was about, Dinsdale would go very quiet and start wobbling and his nose would swell up and his teeth would move about and he'd get very violent and claim that he'd laid Stanley Baldwin.

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:
 * some General guidance.
 * Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf melmac 08:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Both Wasted Time and myself have tried to reach some sort of consensus on the talk page, but you've been quite stubborn. You have also violated the three revert rule, and I've placed a note on the administrators' noticeboard about that. How about, in the future, instead of engaging in edit warring (which is pointless and achieves absolutely nothing), we try to achieve a compromise on the talk page? I think Wasted Time and I have been conceding and giving a lot to your side. So what do you say...truce? Stop making the same edits and we'll try to come to something completely neutral. On the talk page; no more edits to the main article. Discussion is better than edit warring, by far. &mdash;BorgHunter (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I have tried to be fair and accomodating and only immediately changing things that I could classify as factually incorrect (e.g. calling ITAV "Her book" (which is biased, leading and inaccurate) instead of "The book" (which is Neutral, factual and objective).  I'm sorry if I come across as stubborn, I don't tend to take a position on something unless I can substantially back it up.  I look forward to working together in future.--SpinyNorman 03:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As do I. I still contend that "her book" is proper English (she is the credited author regardless of who actually wrote the book), but that's a debate for the article's talk page! See you around. &mdash;BorgHunter (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ALF and SHAC
Spiny, please stop editing warring over these articles. It's not appropriate to arrive at an article and make extensive edits with no discussion on talk, and we're not allowed to delete properly referenced, relevant information. As for Graham Hall, this must be written in a neutral manner. Your edit can't imply that you believe or disbelieve him. He "said" he was branded is a neutral way to write this. Not "he was branded" or "he claimed he was branded," but simply "he said he was branded." The police took no action and found no evidence of a criminal attack, so we can't say further than this, and I understand Hall himself has a serious criminal record, so we have to be particularly careful about using him as a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I'm edit-warring (that certainly isn't my intent). And I'm not sure what you mean by "relevant information", I don't delete information I believe is relevant.  If you disagree with my assessment, then you are certainly free to discuss it.  However, saying that Hall "said he was branded" seems a bit silly (if you'll forgive me for saying so).  Pictures of the brand were published in the press.  --SpinyNorman 05:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you don't intend to edit war, but it's what you're doing. You're adding your own POV to articles and revert warring to keep it in. You can't say of Ingrid Newkirk in the first sentence that she is controversial. That's your view. It isn't the view of everyone, or even of nearly everyone, and it adds nothing factual to the sentence. You didn't just say of Hall that he was branded. You said he was kidnapped, yet you have no idea whether he was or not. If even the police don't know what happened to him, how can you know? SlimVirgin (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * PETA is a controversial organization, Ingrid Newkirk helped found PETA and continues to direct it. Ergo, she is controversial as well.  That's not POV that's straight reporting.  As to Hall, I understand your distinction and agree with it, and I believe we have arrived at an acceptable compromise.  Isn't that how this process is supposed to work?  --SpinyNorman 05:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, yes, but I think it can be done faster and with less pain. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How?--SpinyNorman 16:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * note: Still no answer...  --SpinyNorman 08:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian Chase
I wish you would participate in talk page discussion instead of just reverting. If there is a reason you feel Chase is better off being redundantly in two articles instead of just in one, would you mind explaining at Talk:John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy? A past Afd is not meant to "bind our hands" on what to do with the article after the Afd is over. Friday (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This issue has already been decided in the talk page. The consensus was to keep the article, not to merge it.  If you want to remove redundant information from the Siegenthaler article, I certainly wouldn't object.  --SpinyNorman 16:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it. I see ongoing discusson about the merge, and so far nobody has provided any content-related reason not to merge.  The only thing I keep hearing is about the Afd, which is irrelevant to whether or not we merge the article.  Friday (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One of the options on the AFD was for merge. There were 124 votes to merge and 146 to keep.  That sure looks like a keep the article and not merge it.  - Spiny

I have a question for you. If more people had voted to merge the article than keep it separate, would you then support a merge? -R. fiend 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

User Page
Just a friendly opinionated note. In my experience, though this is nowhere near absolute, people tend to give more respect in discussions and such to Users whose names aren't red (ie who have content on their User Page, however little). It's also just my opinion that it looks niftier. Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Canaen 03:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip...

e-mail me please
SpinyNorman, could you please e-mail me at ddwilson1 at gmail.com ? I would appreciate it. - DWilson.


 * What's up? --SpinyNorman 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahmad Thomson
Left some feedback for you there. Babajobu 03:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And more. I've got it on my watchlist now, as I assume you do, so I'll stop leaving you these alerts. Babajobu 04:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Norman, inserting your own personal criticisms of reporting quality is inappropriate enough, but disappearing very relevant editorials published in reputable sources from the "external links" section because "editorials are by their nature biased" (true, but totally irrelevant to their inclusion in external links) shows some real confusion about how Wikipedia works, and how articles are put together. I'm not going to go back-and-forth with you anymore, it's not really getting us anywhere. You should create a little Wikipedia reading list: start with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Take care. Babajobu 09:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

W18
Do you think you could post a link to the source, or if it's not available online, provide more information about how one might get a look at it? TomTheHand 13:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback
This is just to let you know that I'll be using rollback on any edits of yours that delete sourced information or re-introduce errors (as in Robin Webb). These issues were all explained to you several months ago by several editors, and there's no point in repeating them in edit summaries, because you don't seem to be interested in the facts. I'm obliged by the policy to explain why I'm using rollback if I use it for anything other than vandalism, so this is my explanation. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice try. Just because the facts don't fit into your preconceptions doesn't justify your reverting legitimate corrections of errors in articles.  If you can't justify your edits, I will continue to correct them.  --SpinyNorman 07:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24h
You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're invited to justify your block since you failed to do so before you imposed it. --SpinyNorman 18:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome back. Please see 3RR and other WP:RULES and policies. You were reported for repeatedly breaking 3RR: WP:ANI/3RR and WP:ANI/3RR and I, as an admin, made a decision to block you. Feel free to report it as abuse if you feel my action was not justified. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the problem was that you took Slim Virgin at her word. That's a mistake.  I had not actually violated the 3RR.  She has a tendency to try to censor those who disagree with her.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not report this first incident as abuse in anticipation of you being more careful in future.  --SpinyNorman 00:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Capital Punishment
I put some stuff on the talk pages for the "capital punishment in the US" and "capital punishment" articles since we're going back and forth on edits. I think that the change I made to the juvenile capital punihsment section should be agreeable, since the sentence now leads with the fact that the US doesn't execute juveniles anymore.

As far as the 5th/14th Amendment thing, I guess I'd be interested to hear more about your thoughts. I re-read the Supreme Court cases on the subject and I'm not sure whose right. Do you think that paragraph even needs to be there?

Cheers. JCO312 02:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is important to distinguish between countries like Iran who put juveniles to death and countries like the US who put adults to death in certain special cases for something they did before they were 18. Here's an example:  Dalton Prejean.  Yes, he was put to death for a murder he committed before his 18th birthday.  The murder was committed five months prior to his 18th birthday and it wasn't the first murder he'd committed.  The guy was a multiple murderer who shot a cop for doing his job.  The fact that he did it a few months prior to his 18th birthday is supposed to make the difference between life in prison and death?  I don't agree.  --SpinyNorman 04:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dalton Prejean would no longer be eligible for the death penalty in the U.S. JCO312 12:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h
You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Great... another bogus block.  You reallly need to be more responsible about checking allegations against me.  Do this again and I'll report you for abuse.   --SpinyNorman 21:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Killian Documents
Please stop deleting valid and sourced information from the Killian documents article, and please refrain from further POV edits ("likely" -> "possilbe", etc). Bjsiders 14:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand what POV means, you shouldn't be editing articles here. --SpinyNorman 18:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I do understand it, that's why I reverted your POV and vandalism edits. You're removing valid, sourced information and changing accurate words to be less accurate. See talk page for Killian documents for discussion on this, I will not keep visiting your talk page to discuss edits about one article. Bjsiders 15:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Your inability to grasp the inherently editorial and POV nature of using "likely" in place of "possible" is proof that you don't understand it. --SpinyNorman 00:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Dirkhising
Hi SpinyNorman, I'm trying to bring in more editors to this article so that it may be improved and POV be edited out of the article. Any suggestions? Please take a look at it. --Strothra 18:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Operation Enduring Freedom
Your recent edit to Operation Enduring Freedom was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:AntiVandalBot
That was a very uncivil comment you made. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fix your bot! --SpinyNorman 00:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * AntiVandalBot is neither my bot, nor does it deserve the treatment you gave it. Calling a bot an "asshole" simply because it is trying to revert vandalism is extremely rude. You know bots aren't perfect, and there was even an apology in the message it gave you. I hope this incident isn't representative of your other activities on Wikipedia. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies from bots are as useless as they are condescending and offensive. There is a reason why using bots to make such activist modifications is considered inappropriate.  Also, I resent your implication that my change was vandalistic in nature.  If you'd bothered to actually look at the change I made, you might have seen the truth for yourself.  But I don't suppose you bothered.  And yes, the bot does deserve the treatment I gave it.  That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.  --SpinyNorman 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Tawker 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing! I am glad someone else sees how the neutrality of this encyclopedia is threatened by propaganda terms. Añoranza 00:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Blind Freddie could see this. Odd how so many people here don't.  --SpinyNorman 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you noted the extremely high number of users that belong to the military here? They have lots of time to kill, and if you participate in wars of aggresion of course you at least prefer nice names for them. Up to now I have found Operation Just Cause, Operation Phantom Fury, Operation Peace for Galilea, Operation Iraqi Freedom, all of which are redirects used by many editors. I hope Operation Enduring Freedom can be replaced in most cases, too. Añoranza 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that there is an ongoing discussion about operation names in articles here, at Naming Conventions, Talk:Operation Power Pack, Talk:Operation Joint Endeavor, Talk:Operation Golden Pheasant, and Talk:Operation Restore Hope. Añoranza 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Block for 3RR violation
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR rule on Consensus science. Please read carefully the definition on the 3RR page and note that simply calling another editors edit vandalism does not mean that they are. There seems to be two content disputes on that article that you have been involved in and have reverted other editors changes five times in the last few hours. I see no attempts to discuss any edits on the talk pages. When you return, please discuss your differences on the talk page rather than simply reverting additions with a vandalism claim. Vsmith 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'd actually bothered to read the edits in question, you'd have seen the reason for them and you would't have have to resort to this peevish complaint. How about next time you actually try to understand the issue instead of jumping in the middle of something that doesn't concern you?  --SpinyNorman 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, no need to be rude. If you have a good reason for what you did you can write it using . If not, welcome back tomorrow. Añoranza 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 48 hours for violating the 3RR rule on Rod Coronado. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Earth First!
Please see the talk page. I strongly suggest you revert your edits. I'm not going to, but if you don't I will be seeking administrator intervention. Thanks. The Ungovernable   Force  07:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, an admin who I left a message for before you got involved reverted it already. If you have any problems with this, please discuss them on the talk page. The Ungovernable   Force  07:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR
I just want to make sure you realize that your first edit to CCF was a revert to a previous version of yours, and that any undoing of another editor's work counts as a revert, whether it involves the same material or not, whether it is a revert in whole or in part. Please review WP:3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your characterization of a revert. It wasn't a revert to a previous version of mine, but an original modification.  However, you insist on returning deceptive material to the article so should I consider that vandalism?  --SpinyNorman 21:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in An Inconvenient Truth. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Db099221 05:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

ALF
I can't say I disagree with you that they're terrorists. But SlimVirgin is right. Try to find a compromise somewhere, and things will be much smoother. If you think it can't be done, you're wrong: look at my dispute on that page about a week or so ago, regarding the categorization...I got what I wanted, we had a good discussion about it, and everyone is happy. That's the sort of thing that makes wikipedia stronger. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  06:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * SV is incapable of objectivity on this issue. She's clearly in league with the terrorists - at least as an idealogical sympathizer - and makes every attempt she can to whitewash their criminal activities.  --SpinyNorman 06:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding that Spiny has banned me from his talk page, I have to observe that an accusation from him that I'm "incapable of objectivity" and "in league with terrorists" is a bit like receiving a gold-rimmed "upholder of NPOV" certificate signed by Jimbo himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (yawn) More hysterical nonsense from the queen of same.  --SpinyNorman 07:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * SpinyNorman, I haven't been following the page as of now, been busy outside my computer, but SlimVirgin clearly wouldn't be considered "idealogically" with the ALF considering she's the one who recategorized them as a Designated Terrorist Organization. Could you try to take a step back and look at the situation more objectively? &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  07:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering she's repeatedly reverted attempts to designate eco-terrorists as eco-terrorists, I'm not sure what you mean... --SpinyNorman 07:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm referring specifically to on the talk page where she agreed that it is a "designated terrorist organization". I'm not sure what YOU mean. Perhaps you could spell out exactly what your beef is, and exactly where and why there is a dispute (and by where I mean provide diffs, and by why I mean why do you consider there to be a dispute over that.) &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  07:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you really want to get into an edit war with everybody, SpinyNorman? Because that's what's gonna happen. All your stuff will be reverted, and you end up with none of your POV in the article.
 * If you have a valid point to make, research the issue, find some reputable sources, and then add it. There is room for different viewpoints in the articles. But they have to be rational arguments, supported by good sources. Just cutting out people's contribution without discussion because you disagree with them will only give everybody a headache, but not further your point. You end up fighting windmills, SpinyNorman. Not because everybody is against you, but because most people try to work towards a neutral Wikipedia, not a biased one. (Even if that means allowing viewpoints that are the opposite of your own, and that you consider total nonsense...) --Frescard 15:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't add POV to articles - I remove it. That's why so many people are pissed at me.  Having been a professional journalist (and not the only one in my family), I know a thing or two about reporting facts neutrally and if I seem prickly to some, it is just that when someone is wrong, I'll point it out without a great deal of consideration for their idealogy.  I care nothing for a person's idealogy when editing an article - if there is bias or editorial comment where it doesn't belong, I will remove it.  --SpinyNorman 09:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Even professional journalists can be biased, and lose objectivity when it comes to seeing their own biases. That's one of the foundations of modern journalism -- peer review. Any experienced journalist should know that &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  09:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course they can be but no one has yet pointed out any actual examples of my alleged bias here. Sure, there are people who disagree with me, and when they can support their point factually, you'll find that I agree with them.  But I have had long practice identifying bias in myself and others.  One thing I do notice is that some editors here don't like having their own bias pointed out to them.  The bias here at wikipedia is rampant and many articles simply can't be taken seriously.  That's why I'm here...  to improve things. --SpinyNorman 09:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Honda S2000 Arbitration
I'm requesting arbitration on this article. Please make your statement at Requests for arbitration. &mdash; AKADriver &#x260E;  14:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning
Just want make sure you are aware that you are at your 3 revert maximum on Matthew Shepard. -- Samuel Wantman 08:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

you have vandalized the lehi page by removing tags
please revert or risk blocking. Amoruso 10:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Returning a page to its last NPOV state isn't vandalism, it is a good-faith edit. --SpinyNorman 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * the tags were explained in detail. you can't just delete them. Amoruso 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can revert the page back to the last NPOV state - which is what I did. That's a good-faith edit by any definition.  And trumping up 3RR charges isn't going to endear you to anyone.  --SpinyNorman 10:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * you're disregarding wikipedia policy. Amoruso 10:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should learn something about wiki policy before you go accusing other people of violating it. If you want to get technical, I didn't remove the tags, the previous editor did - all I did was revert your unsupported changes back to his version.  Maybe you need to read the disclaimer about how if "you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."  --SpinyNorman 10:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This guy Amoruso is a real piece of work. I've never seen a scrub job quite like they're trying to pull over there. Derex 09:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Incitement and personal attacks are not allowd on wikipedia. Amoruso 09:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is probably something about false accusations as well, do you think? --SpinyNorman 09:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes there is but he actually admitted personal attacking and I was right about you too :) . Amoruso 09:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How is that? I ask because I haven't seen you be right about anything yet...  --SpinyNorman 09:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * you're sure about that ? Amoruso 10:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice you're still trying to libel Folke Bernadotte. Maybe I am taking it personally because I have friends and relatives who are alive because of him, but the ravings of a couple of known liars and a discredited historian simply don't conform to wikipedia policy and you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading this filth.  The fact remains that Bernadotte was a good man who was murdered by terrorists and all the spin-doctoring in the world won't change that.  --SpinyNorman 09:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

you have now violated 3RR on Bernadotte article
Amoruso 10:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't. --SpinyNorman 10:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * yes you have. WP:AN/3RR. Amoruso 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're wrong. There are only three reverts.  And if you wouldn't persist in trying to insert slanderous nonsense into these articles, there wouldn't even be that many.   --SpinyNorman 10:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I listed the 4 for you on the page. This is your third violation after 24H and 48H blocks. Amoruso 10:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're wrong, there are only three actual reverts. Nice attempt to try to twist a good-faith edit into a block.  What's the matter, don't like it when people contradict your prejudice?  --SpinyNorman 10:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

come take a look
hey spinynorman --

i've recently made a policy proposal change for 3RR. i noticed you were blocked a short time ago. i'm not sure my suggested changes would have helped in your case, but the idea is spell things out more clearly so people aren't blocked unexpectedly or unfairly and don't end up bitter about wikipedia.

here are the proposals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Proposed_policy_changes

comments are welcome.

Justforasecond 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I took a look and commented as well. Thanks for letting me know about this.  --SpinyNorman 16:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Folke Bernadotte
Was reviewing WP:ANI/3RR. I'm sorry, but I agree that you've not complied with 3RR on this article. Please see my comments on WP:ANI/3RR. I've blocked you for 24 hours. I'm also protecting Folke Bernadotte for 24 hours to let cooler heads deal with editing, and ask that discussion take place before reversion in the future. Thank you -- Samir धर्म 11:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a second 3RR report on Colin Blakemore that I reviewed. In this case, I ask that you discuss any further comments on Talk:Colin Blakemore before making them.  Thanks -- Samir  धर्म 11:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've commented on this at WP:ANI/3RR.  At the least, the reporting individual should also be blocked.  Justforasecond 18:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. She has a LONG history of bogus 3RR complaints against me.  Basically, she seems to consider as a revert any edit of mine that conflicts with her POV-pushing.  --SpinyNorman 05:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read the Bernadotte page and I agree with you. I will back you up on edits and hope you will do the same. Together we can remove bad information from it. --MesaBoogie 07:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --SpinyNorman 08:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 10:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Buzz off
Hey, "Spiny": quit stalking me. (You know damn well what I mean.) +ILike2BeAnonymous 07:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, don't you have a high opinion of yourself? --SpinyNorman 07:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you picking a fight or just engaging in a religious war?
Please stop. BTW, I think you're over 3RR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither one actually. Just trying to bring a little rationality and balance to a page that needs a great deal of both.  And I don't think I am over 3RR.  I think I am at exactly 3.


 * Even though you made your choice to violate WP:3RR, I'll give one last chance to revert your changes (which BTW are outrageously POV, but that's another story). ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * After having checked, I can only find two reverts to that article that I have made in the last 24 hours. Would you care to point out the four you claim I've made?  if I have exceeded 3 reverts then I apologize in advance and once you've shown them to me, I will be happy to undo the last one.  I ask your forgiveness for not taking your word.  Also, I disagree with your characterization of my edits as "POV".  Actually, they are perfectly neutral.  Though you are free to explain why you believe otherwise.  --SpinyNorman 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop playing a clown. This is my last message to you today. Your 4RVs:    . ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not "playing a clown" (though you are being unnecessarily abusive). To address my alleged reverts.  The first one is not a revert at all, but a completely new edit.  #2 is legitimately a revert.  #3 is also a revert.  #4 is also a revert.  So I guess we were both wrong.  I counted two reverts and you counted four - when there were actually three.  --SpinyNorman 06:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

 * As this is far from your first block, I'm going to extend it to a week. The three revert rule is an important part of Wikipedia culture, and you need to learn to follow it. --Robdurbar 08:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, if you'd bothered to read the actual edits, you'd have seen that there WEREN'T more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. This is just another example of another editor being pissy about me removing his POV from an article.  I expect you to recind the block immediately.  And you owe me an apology.  --SpinyNorman 07:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Still waiting... thanks for nothing!   --SpinyNorman 04:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Socks
You appear to be JonGwynne. Please refer to Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000/Evidence and elsewhere on that page William M. Connolley 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a question for you: Why should I give a shit what you think, especially when you're not able to distinguish between an edit and a revert?  --SpinyNorman 04:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, don't make unprovoked personal attacks. --Db099221 21:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration
Please note that while I believe the criticism section of Honda S2000 is just fine, there are significant matters involving behavior while editing other articles which I am looking at, so the evidence you present in your defense should take those considerations into account. On the sockpuppet allegation, I checked it myself and there is pretty good evidence that you edited as MesaBoogie. I find the accusation that you are JonGwynne rather difficult to demonstrate (and don't really care anyway as it is your current behavior that matters, not some old stale stuff). However, I note instances of incivility, "Why should I give a shit what you think" and the remark on the /Evidence page to "shut your cakehole". Bottom line, if you want to edit you need to make some changes fast. Please communicate to us if you are willing to do so. For the Arbitration Committee Fred Bauder 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To what "evidence" do you refer? As near as I can tell, the only thing I see is that someone is bent because this MesaBoogie character took my side on the Folke Bernadotte page as regards removing some sleazy character assassination aimed at Bernadotte.  Also, what's wrong with asking someone why I should "give a shit" what they think?  Is it because I used the "S-word"?  I wasn't aware that wikipedia had a "Standards and Practices" department.  Should I have said I "don't care" what he thinks?  If someone is rude and annoying, as WMC certainly was, then I'm liable to tell them to go annoy someone else.  Sorry, but I don't suffer fools gladly.  And I don't generally refer to peoples' "cakehole".  It is an amusing term but a fair bit beneath the rhetorical level at which I normally operate.  As to responding to the allegations in the arbitration case, I prefer to focus on those relevant to the actual matter at hand.  Even if I had the time and inclination to operate a sockpuppet (or apparently two, as has beeen alleged), this isn't particularly relevant to the S2000 article, is it?  The usual suspects are welcome to engage in their traditional raving and drooling (I'm particularly amused by SV's characterization of me as "anti-environmental" or that I am "anti-science"), but that doesn't mean their fantasies warrant a response.  Addhoc pretty thoroughly demolished the complaints against me.  Though he ought to be careful, lest he be branded a sockpuppet too.  As for your request that I respond, I'd be happy to except Robdurbar, who doesn't seem to grasp the concept of taking a good-faith edit as such (to say nothing of minding his own business) took it upon himself to block me for a week.  The block was entirely bogus and you're welcome to reverse it - if you have the power.    --SpinyNorman 09:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Spiny,
 * I don't know what your here for but I imagine its similar to what I was here for -- getting the truth, or a side of it, out there. Your s2000 work is a wikipedia gem, IMO.  I've gone through the case against you, and most of it is flimsy.   There are few diffs and what is there often points to nothing of substance.   I've come out of wiki retirement to comment on your situation.   However, you should be a little more civil with Fred.   He's pretty agreeable and is open to apologies and so on.   You also might want to comment on your case.   I noticed Jayjg is there, who has been edit warring on "jews for jesus".   I'd ask for his recusal as you've been there too.   There was also a case some time ago about Jay being biased when it came to Jewish-related articles.  Slim Virgin told me herself she was "Spiny Warring", so you might point this out and request she be treated as you are.   I'm sorry to say that I looked through the Block Rationale below and I think it might be an appropriate 3RR block, but I know how often illegitimate blocks can come up too.   Anyway, I'll be going back into "retirement" but good luck out there.     Justforasecond 05:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Block Rationale
Apologies for not replying more quickly; I have been a little busy.

The following were all reverts:
 * 00:20 15/09/06; revert of edits made by Jayjig on September i3th
 * 01:06 15/09/06
 * 04:40 15/09/06
 * 05:32 15/09/06

You have been blocked under the rule before and so it is really to be expected that you should understand it by now; thus you should know that a revert is "undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. "Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention' --Robdurbar 11:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

SpinyNorman is required to edit using only one account. SpinyNorman may be banned from any article he disrupts. SpinyNorman is placed on personal attack parole. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time if he makes personal attacks. SpinyNorman is placed on revert parole. He is limited to 1 revert per week on any article, excluding obvious vandalism. Should SpinyNorman continue to disrupt Wikipedia he may be banned for an appropriate period, up to a year. All bans to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Where has Spiny gone?
He seemed like a sensible hedgehog! --JonGwynne 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jon, you shouldn't talk to your sockpuppets in this way, it gives a false impression. Also, please recall the Arbcom ruling; if you're going to edit from your JonGwynne account, then you must not edit from any other accounts, including your SpinyNorman account. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to move Kyiv
Hello,

I have set up a request to move the page Kiev to Kyiv.

I have outlined four key reasons for doing so in the discussion section of the page.

Looking through the archives, I saw that you had contributed to this page earlier. I would like to hear what you have to say on this topic.

Thank you

Horlo 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Horlo

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)