User talk:SpinyNorman

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.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

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)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

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)

Fair enough. I have tried to be fair and accomodating and only immediately changing things that I could classify as factually incorrect (e.g. calling ITAV "Her book" (which is biased, leading and inaccurate) instead of "The book" (which is Neutral, factual and objective). I'm sorry if I come across as stubborn, I don't tend to take a position on something unless I can substantially back it up. I look forward to working together in future.--SpinyNorman 03:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As do I. I still contend that "her book" is proper English (she is the credited author regardless of who actually wrote the book), but that's a debate for the article's talk page! See you around. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?!

My apologies! I made a mistake reverting a particular IP user's (137.113.48.2) changes. I mean no offence whatsover to you when I mistakenly made changes to the post. I thought I was reverting the change that said that Sen. Clinton "is a member of the Communist Party", which I beleive is incorrect. I must have clicked the wrong link. Please accept my apologies.

By the way, user 137.113.48.2 is actually doing a bit of vandalism. -- Marcusscotus1 06:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I had a look at your history and all the other vandalism revisions you did were legit. Sorry I got so prickly about it but I consider "vandalism" to be the A-Bomb of wiki labelling. Still, no harm, no foul. I assume you reverted it back? --SpinyNorman 17:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

ALF and SHAC

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 don't believe I'm edit-warring (that certainly isn't my intent). And I'm not sure what you mean by "relevant information", I don't delete information I believe is relevant. If you disagree with my assessment, then you are certainly free to discuss it. However, saying that Hall "said he was branded" seems a bit silly (if you'll forgive me for saying so). Pictures of the brand were published in the press. --SpinyNorman 05:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that you don't intend to edit war, but it's what you're doing. You're adding your own POV to articles and revert warring to keep it in. You can't say of Ingrid Newkirk in the first sentence that she is controversial. That's your view. It isn't the view of everyone, or even of nearly everyone, and it adds nothing factual to the sentence. You didn't just say of Hall that he was branded. You said he was kidnapped, yet you have no idea whether he was or not. If even the police don't know what happened to him, how can you know? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

PETA is a controversial organization, Ingrid Newkirk helped found PETA and continues to direct it. Ergo, she is controversial as well. That's not POV that's straight reporting. As to Hall, I understand your distinction and agree with it, and I believe we have arrived at an acceptable compromise. Isn't that how this process is supposed to work? --SpinyNorman 05:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, yes, but I think it can be done faster and with less pain. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

How?--SpinyNorman 16:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -Willmcw 23:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

But I haven't reverted three times in the last 24 hours. As for reverting without discussion being impolite and unproductive, what about when you do it? There should be a single standard here, wouldn't you agree? I don't see any commentary from you in the discussion section about the "controversial" label of Newkirk that corresponds to your last reversion. --SpinyNorman 23:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you haven't, and thanks for not doing so. This was a reminder in case you weren't aware of the rule. Yes, I joined a discussion about the edit. -Willmcw 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)