User talk:Mrfixter

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the rudeness, but...[edit]

I greatly appreciate your show of sanity and civility in the heated discussion of the arbcom election. However, if I may, are you a sockpuppet? I'm very sorry, but given that you've only made two edits in the main namespace since you arrived, and have been editing a lot on the arbcom elections talk page, I fear you may be a sockpuppet. If you're a valid user with valid reasons for editing "anonymously", perhaps it would be better to disclose this lest someone less civil blatantly accuse you there, discrediting you. Again, sorry, but I'm just quite curious. Johnleemk | Talk 05:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am a valid user, with valid reasons for doing what I am doing. I am NOT a sockpuppet. People can try and discredit me all they want, it makes no difference to me. I would always try and assume good faith. And I would hope that the merits of an editors argument should not change if they have done 2 or 2000 edits. No need to apologise, always happy to talk :). --Mrfixter 13:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the explanation. I'll take your word for it, though it is still quite anomalous to see a new user so active in the internal workings of Wikipedia. I appreciate your endorsement of me, too. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Charles Darwin and the Three-revert rule[edit]

I am not disprupting Wikipedia, I am participating. I would agree that you could demand I stop if I violated the 3RR, but I keep to three reverts within 24-hour periods. Vincent 04:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mrfixter,

Thanks for your summary of reverts on Talk:Charles_Darwin/Lincoln. I can understand your desire to push towards a resolution of this long running revert war. However, I do get the impression that Vincent is generally a level-headed, rational user who happens to have got himself locked into fighting to uphold a principle. As such we shouldn't rush to Arbitration - Curps' summary of why this might be effective but undesireable is a good one.

In any dispute, resolution rarely happens if the language starts to get more emotional. So I have refactored your phrase 'lone, obsessive lunatic', which whilst carefully phrased to avoid being a personal attack is never-the-less fairly obviously directed. -- Solipsist 07:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You "refactoring" of my post was slightly heavy-handed, and perhaps not in the spirit of Talk_page. If personal attacks worry you, "refactor" Adraeus' comment [1].

Your analysis of User:Vfp15 as level-headed and rational is not supported by any evidenece I have seen, although maybe I have become too close to this whole debacle. --Mrfixter 11:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are right - I probably did go too far on refactoring. My first couple of tries stopped the section from making sense. I was trying to preserve your intention, whilst dialing down the temperature of the debate, so that there is at least the possibility of a solution. I know it can be frustrating, and some of Adraeus' comments are a bit choice too. But Neigel is acting as a Member Advocate, and has in part been defending Vincent because he sees things becoming too much of an attack on the individual. I don't think it helps anyone if the argument just decends into mud slinging.

If I have gone too far on editing your comments (and I probably have gone too far without making it clear whose words were whose), then you can of course reinstate your comments.

But oh dear, look what a sock-puppet anon has just added. There's no hope... - Solipsist 11:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. Perhaps most shocking is the mis-spelling of consensus, although I am a pedant. But come on, s/he spells it correctly when they copied it from a dictionary! The whole section looks messy. Btw, have added some of my comments back in. --Mrfixter 11:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

I'm requesting for an arbitration against you (see WP:RfAr) for the Dawrin/Lincoln problem as Vincent's advocate. Actually, I don't know why I must send this message (ArbCom's requirements) --Neigel von Teighen 22:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening[edit]

You have been named as a disputant in the recently opened Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case brought before the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to add evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:33, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

ban vs. block[edit]

A ban isn't a block, and a block isn't a ban. His ban timer has been reset, but he hasn't been reblocked. If he tries to edit again before March 23, I suppose he'll need to be blocked again. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

If you are not a sockpuppet, than can you please explain why you always agree with (and vote on the same things as) Netoholic? Vacuum c 17:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll rest my case. There were just some similarities which smelled fishy, but I guess I just have a poor sense of smell. Vacuum c 19:08, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi Mrfixter, this is to say thank you for supporting me in my adminship nomination! If I can ever help you in any way, I hope you'll let me know. Best, SlimVirgin 03:22, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Spell-check[edit]

Nice of you to correct the spelling on my page. Please feel free to correct the spelling on any of my recent edits, since I am dyslexic and frequently make mistakes. Shalom.Halakhic-Jews-Only 23:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote on Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg[edit]

As you may or may not be aware, Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg is up for deletion. I'm never one to electioneer, and I deplore the necessity of contacting you, but Achilles has contacted all the "delete" voters from the previous autofellatio image debate; and since that has already been done, I didn't think fairness would be served if the "keep" voters were not also contacted. I have attempted to contact only those people who have not voted in the current debate, but the information was hard to sift through by hand and I may have made a mistake. If I have, I apologize. Cheers to you! Demi ^T/_C 19:25, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Censorship or selection[edit]

Hi: Thank you for your thought-provoking comments in the Titanic debate. I can see your point about those of us who recommend deletion being apologists for the prudes. I am not yet sure that I accept it (I am still processing) but it is significantly more constructive than some of the allegations that are flying about. I thought that I would discuss this on your talk page rather than in the midst of the ongoing debate because some tempers are already too frayed to maintain the calm that we need for reasoned debates and I don't want to feed the flames. Acknowledging that this might be an apology for prudery, my stance is that I want this to be an encyclopdia that will be consulted by as many people as possible. This does not mean that I seek the omission or elimination of all controversial material but it does mean that I adopt a principle of 'least surprise'. I see this as an extension of the respect that I hope others will afford me. Avoiding unecessary offence seems courteous to me; avoiding all offence seems irresponsible. So, for me, the issue is about where we draw the line: And I think that 'least surprise' is my best guide to that line. Two analogies: I own a games shop. It has an adults-only games section. If anyone complains about the nature of anything in that section, we explain what 'adults-only' means and suggest that they avoid those shelves. We do not put games involving drinking or sexual matters outside that section. Similarly, I once owned a models distributor that included a dozen pornographic metal figurines amongst its range of 20,000 items. We listed them in the catalogue but did not illustrate that section. In both cases, mixing the potentially offensive material in with the rest would lose us more customers that we would gain. You may call it censorship but it is not censorious. Is this attempt at clarification helpful? --Theo (Talk) 08:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Miss Manners here[edit]

Hi, edit summaries like rv alberuni POV garbage [2] aren't constructive, especially in the already volatile context of Middle East articles. -- Viajero 20:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

sockpuppet or not, he/she certainly is tenacious. -- Viajero 21:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mrfixter. I doubt that Satiany is Alberuni. However, there is at least one other editor currently editing who is (besides User:STP). Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you're looking for a more likely candidate, note the "contributions" of User:Powergrid. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Judeofascism[edit]

You might be interested in that VfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism[edit]

I'm having a debate with User:Stevertigo at anti-Semitism. Would you mind weighing in with your opinion? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet[edit]

An easy label to bandy about; hard to prove; harder to defend against. That said, I too smell a fish. — Xiong 熊 talk 23:48, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Your comment on NAS talk would be appreciated. -SV|t 00:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You sockpuppet bastard![edit]

ROFL. hey man, can you help me out with the missing Larry David pic? i don't have much experience tracking down wiki deletions. couldn't find it in the deletion log, but maybe i'm doing it wrong. and who better to ask than the sockpuppet Mrfixter who's really the founder of wikipedia? ; ) (of course i don't think you're a sockpuppet, but it seemed to be the trendy mud to sling in here; you obviously needed another section about it. bwahahaha!) SaltyPig 14:11, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

uh... looks like it might be server problems this morning, not a deletion. SaltyPig 14:21, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

Please check out Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadlocks[edit]

Thanks for the help in reverting Sam Spade's attempts to subvert a discussion on an issue. Please check out Talk:Dreadlocks and submit your opinion on this issue.--The Grza 09:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's a real honour, and I know that I don't deserve it — but I'd like to thank my parents, and my agent, and all the little people without whom I wouldn't be here today. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD you might be interested in[edit]

I just came across a VfD I thought you might be interested in: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Victor Beck. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this one as well: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ofer Barnoy. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing other users' pages[edit]

Please refrain from vandalizing my user page.Enviroknot 01:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep vandalizing my user page?Enviroknot 00:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He is not vandalizing. I have view the edits being made by several editors on your user page and they are there legally because of the arbCom hearing. This is only the result of your own sockpuppetry. Refrain from removing the sockpuppet notice. --Anonymous editor 00:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

George Galloway[edit]

Hi, sorry a bit slow getting back with comment, but have to share a telephone line here. Wanted to point out that first, the times comment was not originally mine at all, and second that it is hardly original research. It is established fact and established political commentators would be able to tell you what stance each UK newspaper takes politically on a subject. If a source has a bias, then we are expected to take it into consideration, surely? Report it, even, so the reader can judge.Sandpiper 4 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

Posted already on other page, Wiki policy says 'The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".' The notion that a newspaper has a bias, and indeed what that bias is, is frequently published and discussed. Whether newspapers themselves constitute 'reputable publications'in which to publish, i don't know. It is hardly a new interpretation. The entire economics of running a newspaper is based upon writing articles with a particular slant which will appeal to their readers. No newspaper can afford to change its established slant.

re:poisoning the well. Are you suggesting that this was precisely the intentions of the times?Sandpiper 4 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)

I rather thought the sunday times was poisoning the well by casting doubt in Galloway's probity in the minds of the electors. I am advising readers of normal bias on the part of newspapers so they can make a judgement for themselves. This is what I would myself do. Indeed I have been in exactly this position of reading a foreign newspaper and wondering what its bias is, and how this should colour the credibility I place on its statements. Don't you? As to references, I shall have a look though it is now 1AM and I have to get up today. Try [3]from a quick request on google.

No, the issue here is to what extent the sunday times may be regarded as a reputable source. Unless you are claiming that everything in newspapers (or even just this one) is always impeccably correct, then your own statement can not be correct. There is no such thing as an absolutely reliable source. It is always a question of what we choose to believe. The Times is, in general, a reputable source. As is Wiki. Wiki is constructive anarchy, wheras the times has a purpose of making money. Both exhibit bias. I am confident that the Times would have checked its story, and considered it to be legally watertight. It was 'neutrally' reporting information recieved. But there is always a degree of choice over timing, details left out, tone of approval or disapproval. This is where any paper is able to exercise it own agenda in altering outcomes.

I am also not making comments about the times view of Galloway. The times does not care about Galloway. He is, frankly, unimportant in himself. The Times is interested in upsetting the Government, which is the labour party. Galloway is to them only a labour party MP about whom they can publish discrediting information.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 00:25 (UTC)

Perhaps we are making progress. First again, this is not MY research, nor I would still contend is it ORIGINAL research. Wiki has rather an odd notion of original research to my mind, but nonethless this is merely reporting what could only be described as 'common knowledge'. Original research is of its very nature something new, as indeed is stated in the wiki definition. This is not new, it is merely disputed. I repeat my last answer, that the times does not care about Galloway personally. I would go further, that it would not recognise Galloways respect party as being anything other than a temporary protest group. As such, I agree, it probably does not have a specific opposition to the politics of his party, or him. And the sentence you are worried about indeed says that the times does, which actually I agree it does not. Better to do these things in daylight rather than the early hours of the morning.

However..., all my objections to the deletion still stand, addressed to what I understood the sentence to mean, rather than what it literally says. Now you have pointed out the distinction between specifically Galloway's politics, and the normal left/labour right/conservative demarcation, I see what you worrying about, or possibly I do. Is this an issue which can be resolved by more careful wording?

Would you accept a statement about the times on the lines of, 'a paper which is strongly opposed to labour politics', or 'a right wing newspaper'? I am not sure that I would wish to insert precisely either of these, but for the purposes of assessing common ground.

It is true that Galloway was expelled from the labour party and has formed his own. This might have to be addressed carefully, but the British public as a whole would recognise Galloway as a labour MP. I don't know where you are from, but if not the UK then you would probably not be aware of another case from the last election. The central Labour party refused to endorse the candidate chosen by a local party and insisted on having another stand as labour candidate. The local party refused to have anything to do with this, their own candidate stood in the election as well as the official candidate, and the local man won. This in a constituency where 'Labour' was unbeatable. Essentially, the local people still voted for the man they recognised as their Labour candidate, irrespective of the party name. Sorry if you know all that already.

Anyway, the situation is much the same with Galloway. While he has an overlay of controversiality because of this one issue, Iraq, he is still fundamentally a labour politician. Any attack on him is still an atack on Labour. Anything which ridicules him ridicules Labour. The spat between him and Labour shows Labour as a whole as disunited and therefore less credible as a government. From the 'conservative' point of view, throwing any kind of fuel on the blaze just adds to the fun. More, his disagreement with labour is on an issue which places him further to the left than the party as a whole. His politics is rather more 'classical' Labour than the modern centrist party. As such, the times might be expected to dislike it all the more. So in fact, the times does not need a specific policy on Galloway, it just applies its normal (well recognised) one, regarding Labour.

Galloway stood and won in a constituency where Labour was expected to win, against a sitting Labour candidate. I am sure he chose the seat carefully as his best chance. I doubt he could have won had he stood in a constituency where a 'conservative' would have been expected to win.

I would also point out the case of Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London. He was a labour MP and was expelled from the party for totally opposing Labours plans regarding London. He stood as an independant for Mayor. Eventually the Labour party was forced by public opinion to invite him back into the party.Sandpiper 5 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

GNAA Vfd[edit]

That Ta Bu believes he can do anything now he is an admin again. Wrong and what disruption caused! Policy is decided by the WP community NOT by so-called "admin consensus". I think that this article has to be exempted from VfD ever again but a discussion with the community has to happen, not just barked orders and threats from admins who are no more empowered to create policy than editors. --Mrfixter 16:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In defense of Ta bu shi da yu, we had a very lengthy discussion, which I started, on the suggestion of a new Vfd. I raised many points that showed that the previous Vfd's and future ones, were suspect in how & why people voted. He was against the whole process of redoing a GNAA Vfd. See GNAA Possible new Vfd comments and GNAA Previous decisions. To his credit, he has made a large effort to ensure this Vfd is done properly, and attempting to review and answer any questionable votes or comments. As for the "Admins only" section, it is appropriate in this case, only because of the trolls, sockpuppets, and phoney edit counts. Everything that has been done so far, is within WP:Vfd guidelines. And this Vfd, is by no means, and attempt to give administrators more authority, they are just trying to hold an impartial Vfd. Please take a moment to read the comments on the pages I listed. Thank you for your understanding. <>Who ?¿? 07:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks[edit]

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory redux[edit]

"This is the song that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends..." See [4]. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections[edit]

Thank you for your kind words, and for your support! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MABLogo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:MABLogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]