Yes, these additions seem less than helpful but in actuality we do need to find sources to support what we state. It feels a bit crummy to have someone appoint themselves the fact police thus directing other volunteers what work they should focus on, yet articles generally improve when targeted in this way. I find it a bit distasteful and uncollaborative but there you go. -- Banjeboi 06:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for providing adequate citations to articles, so that's not the issue at all. Unfortunately, there's a bit of history here, with User:Schrandit showing a pattern of throwing citation requests at articles on topics that don't fit his religious/political stance. Some of these citation requests are reasonable, and I've done my best to fulfill them. Others are absurd, such as demanding a citation for a citation.

In any case, your efforts to add citations have certainly been noticed and appreciated. The very best defense against bogus citation demands is to make sure that there is an excess of citations in place. Perhaps this is why some of the more controversial articles sometimes seem to be composed mostly of citations. Spotfixer (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems much better now, sorry the ride got bumpy there. -- Banjeboi 09:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does seem much better now, due to your efforts. Thanks for taking this petty dispute as an opportunity to improve an article instead of just treating this as a game.

I keep hearing that we're here to work on an encyclopedia, and that it's not a battlefield. People like you add a core of truth to that otherwise dubious claim.

In any case, I'd like to imagine that this article is in good enough shape now that it won't be a target for further cite-spam attacks. Spotfixer (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems inappropriate. It was not vandalistic. It had an edit summary. I understand that you did not like it...but a revert was not impressive. All the best.sinneed (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to revert your reversion, and change whatever you feel is appropriate.sinneed (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the appropriate changes now. Spotfixer (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.sinneed (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

" keeping the one that made sense", why no, actually. But you digress.sinneed (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you reverted most of the edits I made yesterday. I, of course, re-inserted them. Have any ideas on how we could end this mess? Come to some sort of a resolution? - Schrandit (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you accept the consensus and stop warring against it. Spotfixer (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edit of the FAIR article. This article has recently been under attack by a few individuals who seem bent on defending the actions of white supremicists by "sanitizing" anything they disagree with, using specious claims and wikilawyering. I hope you will continue to defend the truth, and resist bullies. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to help keep articles honest. I ran into the FAIR article because Schrandit has a history of using citation requests as a way to censor articles he disagrees with. A quick look at his user page and contributions log should make it entirely clear what sort of bias he edits from, and therefore which articles he censors. In any case, now that I'm aware of the article, I will keep an eye on it. Spotfixer (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on these articles, there is just me and you. If I requested third opinions on all of them would you abide by those? - Schrandit (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are refusing to participate in the article talk page, but if I can convince you to read that talk page, I think you'll understand why I made the edits I did. NPOV is required. Proper sourcing is too. I believe the article can have both. Poor sourcing can't really achieve npov. So far, I've been working on the sourcing. It's something I'm good at. But I want you to feel that I support the article being npov. I hope you will agree that the article must be BOTH properly sourced as well as npov. Let's work together on this article.-65.189.247.6 (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to hold off on doing anything here until my block expires. Spotfixer (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spotfixer, I reviewed your 3RR report. By looking that the edits, I see that you and Schrandit have essentially been reverting each others edits; while he broke the three revert rule by the letter, I think that your reversions contributed to this edit war, and were not in the spirit of 3RR. I have blocked you for 12 hours pursuant to this. I have been in challenging editing situations as well with other editors, but reverting an editor over again is not an appropriate way to resolve disputes, even if you feel very strongly about the situation (BLP's excepted). I ask that you discuss your differences on the talk page after the block, and pursue other dispute resolution mechanisms if this is insufficient. As always, if you disagree with this block, you are welcome to use the {{unblock}} template for another administrator to review the situation. Thanks for understanding -- Samir 05:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is in error, but other than going on record, I'm not going to bother disputing it. Spotfixer (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spotfixer, I am writing in response to your remarks on my talk page.

You are more than welcome to review any edits I make to any page, and to make whatever edits you believe will enhance Wikipedia. (That is the goal, correct?) I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy that prohibits me or anyone else from focusing on articles on subjects deemed by some to be controversial. If you believe I am mistaken, please educate me. There is no need to make accusations of vandalism that have no basis; this violates Wikipedia policy on civility. Also, I believe that some of your reverts of my edits have been excessive (see Wikipedia policy on reverts), and I can see from your talk page that others have expressed concern (and even taken the step of temporarily blocking your contributions to a page) due to their view that you have engaged in "edit wars."

While I appreciate and share your concern about the quality of the encyclopedia, I must say that your note on my talk page conveyed a "thought police"-type tone that I find dissonant with the purposes of Wikipedia. Perhaps this was not your intention.

Have a nice evening. 74.70.44.210 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big words, but you're missing the point. Yes, people don't like it when I revert their partisan edits, but there's nothing they can do about it. In particular, anyone who adds partisan claims backed only by unreliable sources, such as blogs, should expect to be reverted. Speaking of which, are you a sock puppet of User:Skoojal? Spotfixer (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Spot, in case this editor does not respond, I would love to involve myself in another sockpuppet case, but also be warned, that I will not do so immediately, as the last case I worked on was extremely taxing on me, and I need to take a break from disputes for a bit.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a joke, this is a serious offer, if any area of wikipedia, I've contributed to sockpuppet investigations the most.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spotfixer, I continue to take issue with your false accusations and derogatory tone. I did not "miss the point." I am not a sockpuppet of Skoojal or anyone else. (I have actually disagreed with Skoojal on certain edits in the past.) I have not made partisan edits backed by unreliable sources, and I defy you to find even one edit that I have ever made that was not based upon a reliable source. If you revert an edit of mine in good faith, that is your prerogative. If you begin to make wholesale reverts of all of my contributions based on your false belief that I am a vandal (and you seem to be moving in that direction), I will have to consider requesting mediation from a third party. I hope that will not be necessary, and that you will comply with the Wikipedia policies with which you (properly) expect others to comply. I would remind you -- again -- that your own behavior towards me violates Wikipedia policies on civility and on assuming good faith. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.149.80 (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having just spent the better part of an hour cleaning up your wholesale reverts to the same-sex marriage in New York article (many of which were unnecessary reverts of minor edits), I would request that you kindly make the minimum revert that you believe to be necessary, rather than reverting dozens of other edits that are not relevant to your concern. If you continue with the broad-brush reverts, I will seek third-party Wikipedia involvement. I also note that many of your other edits contained untrue assertions in the edit summary (such as accusations that the cited sources are insufficient when they are not), and several of your reverts have been corrected by other editors before I even noticed them. Your behavior is counterproductive, violates Wikipedia policy, and is starting to border on harassment. I would respectfully request that you refrain from crossing that line. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.149.80 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, blogs are not a reliable sources, not even if they're blogs you like. That's because anyone could just put up a blog with whatever they want in the article.

When you want to change an article, it's up to you to justify those changes. When your desired change includes unreliable sources, the entire change becomes suspect. In such cases, it's often better to revert the whole thing and examine each part of the change individually before allowing it. After all, once we have evidence that you either don't know what a reliable source is or just don't care, we can't assume the rest will be any better.

Now, I'm going to look at your last round of edits, and I may well revert some or all of them, as I see fit. It's my job to keep people like you honest. I can do this while following all pertinent Wikipedia rules, including those regarding civility. Remember: just because something makes you angry doesn't mean anyone else was uncivil. Spotfixer (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spotfixer, even though you have completely dismissed and disregarded the concerns I expressed, I have already addressed the one valid concern you expressed; I believe I have removed and replaced every blog citation that you pointed out with a more appropriate source. I will be careful not to cite to them in the future. However, I completely disagree that my having made the error of citing to a few blogs renders every edit I make suspect and justifies you in reverting all my edits, whether or not there is any real reason for you to do so. I am not angry, but I continue to not appreciate your patronizing tone. Also, false accusations of vandalism, bias, and sock-puppetry are not civil; you have not assumed good faith at all in our interactions (quite the opposite). I think an apology is in order. I will be keeping an eye on your edits as well. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.149.80 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The air of righteous indignation doesn't suit you; it comes across as false. Yes, I asked if you were a sock-puppet of a specific user because that's what it said on your talk page. If this is incivility then all administrators must block themselves immediately. Likewise, I am well within my rights to question the validity of your edits, particularly as some lacked a reliable source. In short, you need to focus on content and avoid personal conflict. That's the last I'll speak of this. Spotfixer (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of vandalism are not civil. You don't get it, and seem unwilling to get it. Also, there is nothing on my talk page that says or suggests anything about being a sock-puppet, so that is baloney. I would suggest that you take your own advice about avoiding personal conflict; you are the one that started -- and perpetuated -- this one. There will be no conflicts between us provided that you refrain from making off-the-wall accusations and sabotaging my edits for no reason. Thank you. 74.70.44.210 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.149.80 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't deny things on wikipedia, you know, in this diff, a sock tag is clearly added to the page by a user who is not spotfixer, well, at least it is clearly added to the talk page of the IP you claim to be, as, although you sign every post as 74.70.44.210, you are obviously 208.105.149.80, as sinebot keeps signing all the comments of the actual person who added them. Now, given this info, I'm going to add the sock to this new talk page of yours.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what happened. I had looked on the wrong talk page and that is why I did not see a sock and did not understand what was being referred to. My mistake. I do edit from two different computers that I regularly use, so you are correct that I am both 74.70.44.210 and 208.105.149.80. I am not Skoojal, however. I will go ahead and create a new account in the hope that this will quell your suspicions. I will call myself "BoulderCreek," so you will know where to find me. 208.105.149.80 (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new account won't quell anything, as someone who socks usually finds a way to evade their accont creation block by using a slightly different IP than their other account. Nothing will quell my suspicions, especially after the sock tag placed on the other IP address was added by an admin here at wikipedia. And lastly, the only thing ever capable of quelling my suspicions is SPI that comes back negative. Promises or account creation will not do anything.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now BoulderCreek12. And you are free to be as suspicious as you want to be. Hopefully my having an account will help to avoid similar future problems/confusion/suspicion from others. Have a nice evening. BoulderCreek12 (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"if there is SUFFICIENT evidence then it can't be faith" You appear to have a weird idea what faith is. If I have faith that some one is going to do something, is that based on evidence or no evidence. If some one is deemed faithful, is that because they have shown evidence of or demonstrated their worthy of that faith, or is it because they have shown no evidence for that label? Hardyplants (talk)

To be faithful is to hold a belief despite the lack of evidence (or even in spite of evidence to the contrary). You can show evidence that you hold a belief on the basis of faith, but if there were evidence for the truth of the belief, then that faith would not be needed. I could believe the sky is blue on faith alone, but I actually believe it because I can see the sky and it's obviously blue. To believe in Jesus, however, requires faith. Spotfixer (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Faith. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hardyplants (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give me the nonsense vandalism notice. I explained my objection both here and the article's talk page, and then I gave an edit summary. There is no vandalism here, but you're abusing templates. Spotfixer (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Faith, you will be blocked from editing. removing referenced text, just because you do not like it - is vandalism, it contest it take it to the talk page with sources and explain why the sources given are wrong. Hardyplants (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, this is a blatantly false allegation, made in bad faith. Removing text because, for the reasons stated in the article, it harms the article is entirely acceptable. Attempting to insert text after the discussion in the article's Talk page failed to support your version is an example of ignoring consensus, which is not acceptable. Please, please, please report me for "vandalism". I would love to see you find an admin who's incompetent enough to back to you up instead of blocking you for your actions. Go for it. 13:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Faith. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hardyplants (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]