User talk:Wixifixer

Robert Kagan as neoconservative

Hello Wixifixer, rather than being involved in an edit war, I would be glad to discuss the subject further on the subject's talk page. Owen (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you have reverted the article three times already, which under policy calls for a block. However, because you may not be aware of this policy, I will give you another chance to desist now. Please do not revert again. Owen (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Owen, I see that you have decided to settle this without talking, even though I have attempted to discuss with you. So you are basically bullying at this point. Sincerely, Wikifixer.

On the contrary, I have responded. That you continued to engage in a revert war at the same time you brought forward your case is disingenuous at best. And I did warn you about Wikipedia's policy regarding reversions. Owen (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you have conveniently made it impossible for me to respond to you. However, you have made your own prejudices in this matter perfectly clear, by emphasizing that "neo-conservative" views are "unpopular" or "aberrant." I wonder where you can back up THAT judgment. You appear to be on a crusade. Sincerely, Wikifixer.

On the contrary, I think anyone who takes a gander at your editing history will see that you are the one on "a crusade". For three and a half years your edits have been almost totally restricted to enforcing your point of view on that one Wikipedia page. Owen (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought you were interested in a compromise, I would attempt to work one out, as I have in the past. However, I think it will be necessary to appeal to some arbitrator on this matter.

Clearly I am interested in a compromise. For instance, I think it's a good idea to reference that Kagan doesn't accept the label for himself. However, I think it is necessary to point out that he is regularly considered a neoconservative, and to ensure that his contribution to PNAC is mentioned in the header of the article. We could ask for a third party to help resolve the dispute, but generally the policy is that considerable discussion should take place between the two parties in disagreement before asking for this assistance. Owen (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wixifixer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Owen has simply attempted to impose his personal viewpoint on this entry. he has not responded to my request to discuss. he has responded to my attempts to revert by blocking me. He describes himself this way: "My "WikiPhilosophy" tends to be more subversive than the norm here. For instance, I dispute the common assumption that "neutral point of view" means "least controversial point of view". I do not think he should impose his "subversive" view on this entry.

Decline reason:

A 24-hour block for edit warring is lenient. Edit warring is not allowed, even if you are sure you are right, even if you are right. Please use the time to read WP:NOTTHEM, WP:Edit warring and WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Some impulses need to be stifled: Look what happened to the liberation of the 1960s! ;)

Hi Wixifixer!

You really should relax and count to 200 before slamming other editors, even slamming their edits. The instinct to crush your opponents probably makes you a devastating debater and convincing writer, but it can be counter-productive here.

If you need help, please use the noticeboards I suggested. There are a lot of nice editors who will help you.

Take it a bit easier. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Are you implying that the Colbert Report is not a reliable source? ;p

Sorry, KW, I just noticed your message. I understand your point. I just get frustrated having to fight these battles over and over again. Every time I think things are settled, someone pops up and starts it all over. I missed your reference to the noticeboards. Where is it? all best, Wixifixer.

Sockpuppet investigation

You are being discussed at a sock puppet investigation. Consistent with the scholarship to which you have been subjected on Wikipedia, this SPI confuses you with another account!

I don't believe that we have anything but the usual relations.

is a 20:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Including_ethnic_or_religious_heritage, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Tol | Talk | Contribs (formerly Twassman) 20:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's "conflict of interest" guidelines

Hello, Wixifixer. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. JBW (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few edits

I edited a certain biography of a certain living person a few days ago, but failed to check the talk page. I just did so now, and saw your remarks of March 2021. I had been in the process of putting them in place without even being aware that you stopped by. I had an additional question, as explained on the talk page here. If you have a chance, please provide me with some guidance, as you are more of an expert in that area than I am.

Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]