My blog

[Pizza]

How are "broken compass," "unsupported assertion," "Argument ad neuseam," and "circular logic" fallacies? "Argument ad neuseam" seems more like a cheap debating tactic than a fallacy; ditto for Quote mining. I'm not sure about "unsupported assertion" given it can't be reasonably expected that anyone can argue for every premise for the premises of an argument; It's just a waste of time. I don't even know what "broken compass" is.
As for "circular logic" you should change that to question begging. Circular reasoning isn't always fallacious since it's not a formal fallacy but an informal one. Context and use is everything with informal fallacies. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

First of all, not all circular reasoning is fallacious. Suppose, for instance, that we argue that a number of propositions, p1, p2,…, pn are equivalent by arguing as follows, where "p → q" means that p implies q:
p1 → p2 → … → pn → p1

Then we have clearly argued in a circle, but this is a standard form of argument in mathematics to show that a set of propositions are all equivalent to each other. So, when is it fallacious to argue in a circle?
For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premisses already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to a conclusion not known or believed. This, of course, rules out the worst cases of Begging the Question, when the conclusion is the very same proposition as the premiss, since one cannot both believe and not believe the same thing. A viciously circular argument is one with a conclusion based ultimately upon that conclusion itself, and such arguments can never advance our knowledge.