Misplaced Pages

User talk:SpinyNorman

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AKADriver (talk | contribs) at 14:40, 30 August 2006 (Honda S2000 Arbitration). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:40, 30 August 2006 by AKADriver (talk | contribs) (Honda S2000 Arbitration)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 Misplaced Pages!

Hello SpinyNorman, welcome to Misplaced Pages!

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

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Misplaced Pages 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:

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Misplaced Pages 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 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. —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. —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 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 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 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#Merging_Brian_Chase_with_this_article? 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 Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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#User:SpinyNorman (result: 24h) and WP:ANI/3RR#User:SpinyNorman 2 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 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 Misplaced Pages. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 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 Misplaced Pages'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

Añoranza 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 {{unblock|explanation of why the block should be lifted}}. If not, welcome back tomorrow. Añoranza 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 48 hours for violating the Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ⇒ SWATJester 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 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? ⇒ SWATJester 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.) ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 07:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Honda S2000 Arbitration

I'm requesting arbitration on this article. Please make your statement at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Honda S2000. — AKADriver ☎ 14:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)