User talk:Schpinbo

Talkback message[edit]

Hello, Schpinbo. You have new messages at Bloom6132's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You've violated the three-revert rule, so you've left me no choice but to report you. Good evening (or day). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisAnalyst004 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of familiarity with Wikipedia is glaring, either with regard to the simple instruction to sign your Wikipedia contributions - which you puzzlingly refuse to do still - or the fact that I have not, in fact, reverted three edits within a 24 hour period. I suggest you read up on what exactly constitutes a violation of that rule. In the meantime, I urge you to brush up on your mastery of the English language. As for your petulance on the Federer talkpage, we have a third party who already finds you unreasonable. Good luck, therefore. Schpinbo (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised you can't count to three. With respect to the Federer article, you are the only one who seems not to know that "greatest ever" refers to Federer the tennis player, not Federer the "Swiss" tennis player. Is "petulance" your favorite word? You seem to use it a lot. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the way you always react when getting schooled? And you have the gall to accuse me of trolling?? Since you apparently can't be bothered to read the article - which, given your lack of command of the English language should not surprise me - it appears you'll have to receive further schooling: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See below for exemptions." You will see that I did not "undo" three times in 24 hours. Nor a fourth time just ouside of the timeframe. In fact, you know what? I just reviewed the revision history for the Federer page. Guess who DID perform three "reverts" in a 24 hour period? That's right - you. Now kindly stop harassing me, or I'll have you reported. Schpinbo (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did, in fact, make "four reverts" within a 24-hour period. Here is the record, if you are able to read and understand it:

1. 00:58, 15 July 2012‎ Schpinbo(talk | contribs)‎ m [NOTE: You undid the user "Just another guy in a suit's" edit by adding the word "male" to the first sentence.]

2. 01:25, 15 July 2012‎ Schpinbo(talk | contribs)‎ . . (109,508 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (Undid revision 502331605 by TennisAnalyst004)

3. 02:17, 15 July 2012‎ Schpinbo(talk | contribs)‎ . . (109,508 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (Undid revision 502334257 by TennisAnalyst004

4. 02:48, 15 July 2012‎ Schpinbo(talk | contribs)‎ m . . (109,407 bytes) (+14)‎ [NOTE: You changed the wording again of the opening sentence, thus "undoing" what came before.]

You really shouldn't be lecturing anybody about the English language when you are very clearly out of your depth. Somebody who doesn't know how to spell "repetition" should not be affecting a superior air. Ta-ta. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are becoming an utter prat, "TennisAnalyst." As you apparently are unaware, the "undo" function must be engaged for my edits to count towards the three-revert-rule. That did not happen, in spite of your rather creative attempts to editorialize in your favor. In fact, other users to whom you went bleating for support had to point this out to you themselves (though one of them admittedly came to the opinion that neither did you). I asked you to leave me alone; your increasingly evident immaturity and - yes - petulance, have earned not only my ire, but the ire of others you have come into contact with in the last 24 hours. I will now proceed to request sanctions against you. Schpinbo (talk) 07:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clear up a misconception - the "undo" function does not have to be used for an edit to count towards 3RR. Any edit repeatedly making similar changes counts. And "utter part" does not help your case at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop acting like one. Your hostility in the last 24 hours, not only towards me but towards other wikipedians who dare disagree with you, is something you should start to be concerned about. Schpinbo (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, who are you responding to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, I didn't see that it was you. Given the back and forth between TennisAnalyst and myself, I assumed it was him. I should have realized it wasn't, based on tone alone. Schpinbo (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that was the case. I've replied on my talk page to your latest post. Gotta step out now - hopefully this blows over soon and we can all focus on constructive editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message[edit]

Hello, Schpinbo. You have new messages at Bloom6132's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Schpinbo. You have new messages at NeilN's talk page.
Message added 07:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:TennisAnalyst004 accusing you and I of being the same person[edit]

Hi Schpinbo, I'm writing about User:TennisAnalyst004 who has been causing a lot of problems. You don't know me but I saw your nice comment on the Roger Federer talk page. I also read the conversation you had with TennisAnalyst here on your talk page and the Federer talk page. After reading those, I can totally empathize with what you went through with him because I've been dealing with the same type of outrageous behavior from him. Ever since I started a discussion yesterday on the Federer talk page, he has been very hostile and rude towards me. Also, he has continued to post endless lies with absolutely no proof (diffs, links, quotes, etc.) and has made ongoing statements which show he has little understanding of how Wikipedia works (editing, following WP guidelines, reaching consensus, etc.). I ignored his hostility and ignornace inititally, but then once I realized it was going to stop I went after him, as you'll see on the Federer talk page. As I teach my kids, you have to stand up to bullies and set them straight.

Anyway, the primary reason I'm writing is because I want you to be aware that today TennisAnalyst wrote to an administrator, User:The_Bushranger, and accused you and I of being the same person; that we are sockpuppets of each other. Yesterday, he saw that I replied to your post on the Federer talk page thanking your for your input. Then today on the talk page, he accused me of being you when he posted this comment to me: "...you (Schpinbo) showed up here a few weeks ago. I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here. Cheers, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)." Then, he wrote this on Bushranger's talk page: "Bushranger, I strongly suspect that User 76 is Schpinbo. He (User 76/Schpinbo) tried 2 weeks ago to get the "greatest of all time" reference deleted in the opening paragraph, but failed to do so. It's very silly of User 76 to pretend that I've had issues with others when in fact I've only had an issue with him. Regards, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)." If you want to post a comment to Bushranger about TennisAnalyst accusing us of being the same person, feel free to do so.[reply]

By the way, I see that you tried to educate TennisAnalyst on how the 3RR rule works. Well, I've had the same problem. He posted a bogus warning on the Federer talk page after I had reverted two malicious edits of the conentious sentence we are discussing in the talk page, and told me that if I did one more revert that I would be violating 3RR. He even told other people to report me if I did another revert. So far it's been explained to him two or three more times that the 3RR rule isn't violated until FOUR edits are done within 24 hours. And what's really funny about this is that right BEFORE he wrote you here and threatened to report your for 3RR, he had done THREE reverts on the Federer page. And even funnier is that an administrator told him that he has a long-term history of edit-warring in the Federer article.

Just wanted you to know what's going on. I've been dealing with his bullying on the Federer talk page. You can read the whole discussion there if you want. Bullies and troublemakers like TennisAnalyst need to be taken on directly. Take care. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 76, sorry you've been accosted by TennisAnalyst. I have looked at his accusations on Bushranger's talkpage - utter and complete nonsense. I have to imagine that all a Wiki-admin has to do is check my IP (which I'm sure they have some way of confirming) against yours (which you leave open for all to see) to be satisfied that you and I are different people. Utterly bizzare behavior. As you've seen for yourself, I've asked for mediation in dealing with him before. Good luck on this; I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for the guy. Schpinbo (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Schpinbo. Utterly bizarre is right. I can totally relate to what you went through with him. Sorry about that. Hopefully, we'll get this taken care of. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Hi, I just wanted to make you aware that I submitted this request regarding the accusation TennisAnalyst made against us. Have a nice evening. --76.189.114.243 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing me up to speed ... a pity such bad behavior receives so little consequence. Schpinbo (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Schpinbo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Schpinbo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]