User talk:Where be me spice

September 2019
Your recent editing history at Sam Harris 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Account question.
Is your account related to Intellectualdarktrance? This small but of content is all you have been involved with. If yes, please say so. One can be closed and then you can continue editing with the other. Currently it appears that you are involved with both accounts and if that is shown to be the case via an investigation then you will likely be blocked. Springee (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where be me spice, can you please answer this question? If you don't, you risk being blocked; pretending to be two different people isn't permitted, per WP:SOCK. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention of "pretending to be two people." I created a wikipedia account because I didn't have one, but I mistyped and lost my password and couldn't sign in again. That's why I have a second one, and I can't login to the old one. --Where be me spice (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, you need to acknowledge that account on your user page, in accordance with the instructions here. You should also acknowledge this on the user page of that account, which under the circumstances you can edit with your current account. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I told you I am no longer able to access that account, but have acknowledged in good faith here that it is mine. Anyway, I cannot acknowledge the account on my user page when I have just been blocked by you from making any edits. So in effect you have let me be censored on a technicality, by someone who wants to prevent edits from an article because "I don't like it." --Where be me spice (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you please let us know who you think is the one who said you should be blocked because "I don't like it"? I am actually OK with your reply and support unblocking you based on your reason with the addendum that we block your original account with a note pointing at this one.  Your first series of Sam Harris edits were edit warring but I also think that we can cut new editors some slack.  That said, I would only support this if you say who you think "didn't like it".  Please note I didn't file the sock puppet investigation and have taken no action other than asking the question above. Springee (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any "valuable edits". If your plan is to continue as before, I see no point in unblocking you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but try to show some common sense? I have not had an account long enough to make any edits, and I have debated people regarding my few edits when asked to do so in good faith. I would rather you do not act prejudiced or go on witch hunts, this may be why the news says Wikipedia isn't attracting new editors. --Where be me spice (talk) 01:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your comments are not helping you. I'm off to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Although I am new to editing Wikipedia, you have taught me there's a group of moderators who are not good faith actors and you've hijacked the appeals process and prevented any meaningful appeals. I would like to appeal to a higher authority than you? --Where be me spice (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, stop making those foolish comments before I change my mind. You will last a lot longer if you apologize for these personal attacks and angry comments. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 2
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Sam Harris. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The next admin who sees your talk page edit (October 1) at Talk:Sam Harris may be tempted to block your account for personal attacks. There may still be time for you to strike out or undo your comments. It is possible that you hold minority views (or, what count as minority views on Wikipedia) but we still want everyone to be treated fairly. That includes *you*. You are expected to treat others fairly. When you lump all your opponents as 'fanboys' or an 'oligarchy' and accuse them of misbehavior on the talk page, you are risking a block for WP:ASPERSIONS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, I might have been tempted to drop that block immediately, yes. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)