User talk:BalancedAndFair

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not attack other contributors, as you did with this edit to Southern Poverty Law Center. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 16:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the bias tag on the page should probably remain as long as their is active ongoing discussion regarding it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 16:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, my comments about that editor were justified. Please review his editing history, as well as his website, which demonstrates a startling obsession with children and pornography. The editor in question insists on restoring the "bias" tag in spite of the fact that there's no consensus for it, and he's been blocked for this several times. His unhealthy obsession should not trump Wikipedia standards. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see more on this here. Thanks. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, insulting other editors is not acceptable, despite whatever actions they may have taken. Please don't do it again and discuss whatever issue you have civilly. The template itself doesn't need consensus to be included as long as the person who added it starts a discussion, it's used to invite editors to join such discussion, see {{NPOV}}. Thank you. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration though. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 17:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I agree with your removal or I would have readded it. Sorry for multiple messages. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 17:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The user in question insists on slapping that tag on all articles he disagrees with, even after discussions have been exhausted. No Wiki policy permits him to keep inserting the "bias" template out of spite. His editing history evinces a consensus-disregarding obsession, and little else. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Fischer

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bryan Fischer. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Westbender (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting another user's campaign of placing "bias" tags on articles he disagrees with is not edit warring. How long before he's banned, would you guess? --BalancedAndFair (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly reverting is edit warring, whether you feel you are justified or not. Westbender (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. But thanks to a little Googling, I now see that <redacted> aka LGAE -- oh, and I didn't just "out" you <redacted> (and neither did Will Beback): you have links to your identity and bogus sites on your page -- is connected to SPLC-designated hate groups and has tried (and failed) to earn a living selling "Christian" censorship filters to libraries. He's apparently using Wikipedia as a soapbox to push his advocacy so he can scrape a few pennies together. Disgusting. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there is a conflict of interest, then report it, only if appropriate, at Wikipedia:COIN. Westbender (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge COI, and I'll have more relatively soon. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The COI itself is not the problem, it's the POV pushing, edit warring, personal attacks, etc. I'm preparing an ANI case to get community input, and will present it next week for community input. Even if the editor may be flawed, please don't taunt him or engage in the same problematic behaviors that he is. Will Beback talk 21:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I look forward to your ANI, and will contribute. Happy Holidays. --BalancedAndFair (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks and edit warring. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]