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.
Hello SpinyNorman, 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 Edit this page 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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
SpinyNorman, could you please e-mail me at ddwilson1 at gmail.com ? I would appreciate it. - DWilson.
Left some feedback for you there. Babajobu 03:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Dalton Prejean would no longer be eligible for the death penalty in the U.S. JCO312 12:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
That was a very uncivil comment you made. -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 23:58, 17 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)
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)
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the Wikipedia: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)
You have been blocked for 48 hours for violating the Wikipedia:3RR rule on Rod Coronado. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 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 Ready Aim Fire! 06:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm requesting arbitration on this article. Please make your statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Honda S2000. — AKADriver ☎ 14:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
please revert or risk blocking. Amoruso 10:00, 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)
Amoruso 10:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- FloNight 10:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, "Spiny": quit stalking me. (You know damn well what I mean.) + ILike2BeAnonymous 07:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. BTW, I think you're over 3RR. ← Humus sapiens ну? 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
You appear to be JonGwynne. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_SlimVirgin and elsewhere on that page William M. Connolley 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Apologies for not replying more quickly; I have been a little busy.
The following were all reverts:
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)
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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
He seemed like a sensible hedgehog! -- JonGwynne 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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.
Hello SpinyNorman, 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 Edit this page 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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
SpinyNorman, could you please e-mail me at ddwilson1 at gmail.com ? I would appreciate it. - DWilson.
Left some feedback for you there. Babajobu 03:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Dalton Prejean would no longer be eligible for the death penalty in the U.S. JCO312 12:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
That was a very uncivil comment you made. -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 23:58, 17 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)
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)
You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the Wikipedia: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)
You have been blocked for 48 hours for violating the Wikipedia:3RR rule on Rod Coronado. FeloniousMonk 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 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 Ready Aim Fire! 06:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm requesting arbitration on this article. Please make your statement at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Honda S2000. — AKADriver ☎ 14:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
please revert or risk blocking. Amoruso 10:00, 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)
Amoruso 10:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- FloNight 10:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, "Spiny": quit stalking me. (You know damn well what I mean.) + ILike2BeAnonymous 07:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. BTW, I think you're over 3RR. ← Humus sapiens ну? 05:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
You appear to be JonGwynne. Please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_SlimVirgin and elsewhere on that page William M. Connolley 21:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
Apologies for not replying more quickly; I have been a little busy.
The following were all reverts:
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)
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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Honda_S2000#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.
For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 14:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
He seemed like a sensible hedgehog! -- JonGwynne 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)