Jump to content

User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

ANI re your behaviour

Fyi, as you have not responded to my request for an explanation of your behaviour, I've taken it up at ANI. [1]. Happy Christmas — Writegeist (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have responded here. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Very sorry for the way things turned out. I am going to try and get Write and Jim to stop taking it up as an issue against your involvement. Very unfortunate. You have to understand that they have been conditioned to respond to deletions as a threat from the permanent round of deletions by Collect and Ferrylodge and Fcreid and Tom and Kelly and Grz and anyone else I forgot on the page, which have prevented material unfavorable to Palin being added completely, and are currently whittling away at such info that existed in the article for months, such as the 'Stambaugh gun control as an issue in firing' You really need to look at some archives; you'll see what I am talking about. Writegeist is pretty level headed in the face of abuse that has been slung at him from the F's and C. Jimmuldrow hasn't been there much. In a word, they are 'punchy', they feel threatened.

However, I feel that removal of the material entirely, when there were facts in that material, was, although not as unfortunate as their response, not the best decision you could have made. A quick glance at the material makes me think that it wouldn't pass muster for inclusion, but we don't know for sure yet. Reviews, the full text of other chapters of the book, to which that might have been an introduction, all kinds of stuff. Know what I mean? Dismissal of it for style reasons is a more cursory judgement than I had hoped for. I have restored the links to the information, but kept the quoted information itself deleted, until I hear from you.

In the end, that material isn't at issue. The continued presence of the material in the article being a little more assured, as in, we can stop being under siege for a while, and addressing the behaviour of people on both sides, and trying to get a consensus going, is the main priority. To that end, I will, as I said, write to Write and Jim. Anarchangel (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Posting a huge screed of materiel without one single tiny hint of where it might fit in the article falls squarely in the not a forum category; had the poster(s) not edit warred but rather rephrased and attempted to concisely state what content they felt would improve the article I would have certainly left that. Instead several people edit warred to re-add that large and unhelpful post; I have no patience to spare for such shenanigans. I still, after reading ANI and the article talk page and several editor talk pages not seen a single suggestion for improving the article, which is all the article talk page is supposed to be for. While I have all the sympathy in the world for anyone who has been attempting to edit an article Ferrylodge edits, it does not excuse such misuse of the talk page, and edit warring to preserve such misuse of the talk page. You may feel removal of the screed, after the edit war was already underway, a less than optimum choice. It is, however, the choice I made. That my ending of the edit war was followed by the bizarre "rogue admin" nonsense on ANI is only icing on the cake. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Vice versa and Happy Holidays.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
ROFL, Happy Holidays, Ferrylodge. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Very very heartfelt wishes for you also, you are one of the very best here. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 03:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

For all my talk page watchers

Because there are too many of you for me to say this on your pages:

Merry Christmas to all of you who celebrate the holiday, Happy Holidays of whatever flavor to those of you who celebrate something else, and just plain Best Wishes to the rest of you! KillerChihuahua?!? 03:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, have a happy holiday, and you better be back to 100% soon or I will hold my breath so hard until it is so. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays KC. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks

KC, please don't make personal attacks on me in edit summaries. If object to the accuracy of an edit, please just revert it politely.

I wrote:

"the current intelligent design article condemns ID, and several arguments favoring ID have been censored.:

Your edit comment was: Remove smear against the project without due evidence, inapropriately placed: Ed, if you can prove censorship do so - elsehwere. But stop your smear attacks here. Not wanted, thanks.

I don't know which assertion you object to:

  1. that that current ID article condemns ID; or,
  2. that several arguments favoring ID have been censored

Is it one or the other, or both? How would either be a "smear against the project"? And why are you making it so personal?

I would rather just discuss ways that the article can be made more neutral, by adding material which balances the one-sided narrative it currently has. Is neutrality a goal you favor? If so, will you listen to my ideas? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Ed, since I have made no personal attacks against you I have no idea why you are here - don't you have something better to do than troll my talk page? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
You have accused me of making a "smear against the project" and of being "bored" and "trolling" your talk page.
What I'd prefer you to do is discuss with me how the intelligent design article can be improved. I'm also open to hearing why you think saying the ID article condemns ID is a smear (or why think saying several arguments favoring ID have been censored is a "smear" which merits removing my suggestion from the goals section of the WikiProject. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
As usual, when you're talking about me, you are in error. In fact, you are completely wrong. Ed, try to get your facts straight before come posting here. Stating there is censorship is an accusation. A smear. Which you made. I can link to the diff if you've forgotten. I said "don't smear". So don't. Clear enough for you? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Kwanzaa

Hey, I don't know a whole lot about Wikipedia talk pages so bear with me if I make any policy mistakes. In regards to the Kwanzaa article I don't know anything about WND, but now the entire criticism section is gone. The previous discussion on the talk page seemed to conclude that the criticism section should belong their as Karenga's background was deemed relevant. Regardless of how you or I feel about that, the section should be included as that was the conclusion. And in regard to the WND, the only thing I added is that he had a criminal record, which is a matter of public record, so if you don't like the WND (and I know nothing about it) don't throw it out, find a better source. Whadya think? And where do you respond to this my page or yours? Happy holiday02:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezzi386 (talk • contribs)

I respond on my page - I prefer nt to split discussions. The previous discussion was in Feb 2007. Although at that time I did say that if criticism were about the holiday it should be included, the simple problem remains that there is no real criticism of the holiday which can be sourced to any reliable source. Karenga's criminal record is about Karenga, not about Kwanzaa, and belongs on his article - and you will find it there. If and when any reliably sourced criticism about the holiday surfaces, add it to the article and I will support you. However, do ensure that
  1. the criticism is of the holiday Kwanzaa and not its founder, Karenga
  2. the sources meet WP:RS
Ok? KillerChihuahua?!? 02:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
No and Yes
  1. As the sole creator of Kwanzaa, is it unreasonable to say that criticisms of Karenga are relevant to Kwanzaa. And it's not like he was convicted of tax evasion; he assaulted and abused black women, and the holiday was meant to be a celebration of African heritage. If this is what its founder did, doesn't that sound relevant to you?
  2. I agree

Ezzi386 (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page - and start a new section, ok?
Your first post was more about general policy issues, but now you're getting article content specific, and that belongs on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You're on a shitlist (sorry, excrement list), apparently

Someone needs to take their shovels away ere they can't get out. Sceptre (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you milked the wikidrama for all it is worth. Why don't you find something else to occupy your time other than wikistalking Bedford, like say, squeeze your spots?Die4Dixie (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"Stalking" Bedford is like shooting a dog with its teeth in a child's leg - yes, it's technically against the rules, but only an idiot would bother complaining about the poor dog. Sceptre (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Using analogies that equate me with idiots and Bedford with a mad dog highlight why you should just find some other way to occupy yourself. I remember a book theat i read when I lived in the UK, and you remind me of the protagonist : The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, Aged 13 and 1/2. I remember when I was your age, it is a difficult time. It appears that your angst is maybe greater than most.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't patronise me. Besides, I'm apparently a rapist. I'm sure the term "idiot" is way less offensive. Sceptre (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Dennett

Dear KillerChihuahua,

Regarding your last revision of the entry on Daniel Dennett (The Greek translation might be of interest on the Greek Wikipedia; I fail to see how it is needed here):

I believe that a translation of an author's and/or academic's book is highly relevant to his/her entry. It shows that one's ideas have been received in other countries and says something about how important and influential one's work is. If I were to write an entry about an American author in Greek Wikipedia, I would surely mention the English title, wouldn't I? If anything, I would add all the other translations of his books, to show how widespread his work is.

Besides, the line following the one you deleted (Dove nascono le idee) is also a translation.

I have undone the revision and hope that you will agree with my stated reasons for doing so.

Have a good day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neapoli (talk • contribs) 19:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as I feel translations belong on the article about the book only, if at all, however I will not edit war over it. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your tireless work on Sarah Palin, a spreading calm on an ocean of toxicity. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Guy! I dunno about "spreading calm" but I'm certainly trying. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Endorsed per recommendation on ANI. Anyone who goes up against Bedford has my respect :) Sceptre (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Congrats. And I see you've been granted a break, of sorts, from some of the craziness as the editor causing you problems got a block for over the top comments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Man, anyone who would try to bring order to a black hole like that has my admiration, FWIW. (Maybe it's time to enforce a new rule for articles like Sarah Palin: anyone who wants to edit the article, must first strike her/his thumb with a hammer. Hard. That might not fix things, but if properly implimented this will at least make the troublemakers share our pain.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Endorsed - even if I hate barnstars.--Tznkai (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Also endorsed. I don't envy anyone who tries to help keep our most toxic environments peaceful and productive. Orderinchaos 05:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Complain about Admin Toddst1

Thanks for your comments on ANI.

Regarding the notability/"Should have at least googled" please see my comment regarding G-hits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Mongrain. As I mentioned, I did google the guy, and on the surface he appears notable by G-hits but if you follow the hits, almost all appear to me to have been promo pieces placed by PR for local gigs. Alas, consensus rules. Again, thanks for your comment. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

My error! I thought perhaps if you had, you would have seen some of his more notable appearances and awards. Ah well, Google is what it is. Apologies for misjudging you - the bottom line is that the system worked as it should, and there is no grounds for complaint. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Muchas gracias. Toddst1 (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
No indeed, thank you for your courteous handling of my error. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Puppy!

Tiktaalik, the Song and Dance Swimapod

[With his usual enthusiasm ] Spread calm, and spread fishapod song and dance routine, puppy! Come join in!
[Sings: ]

From the water
To the land
Tik-tik-tik-tik-tik-taalik
Tik-tik-tik-tik-tik-taalik
Tik-tik-tik-tik-tik-taalik
Repeat.
Repeat.
Repeat.
Repeat...
Your friend the Swimapod 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
O marvelous singing and dancing Bishapod-of-loveliness, thank you for your kind post, and the invitation! I'm not sure I would fit in with a University stop-action dance sequence for the extinct, and unfortunately I cannot sing worth diddly, however I celebrate the wonderfulness which is you! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if there was a misunderstanding

Puppy, Bugs dropped me a note that Writegeist was blocked, and I backtracked that to the conversation at ANI where you happened to mention me. I think there may have been a misunderstanding - my comment was intended to express the sentiment "if you want to engage in that kind of thing, do it at WR, not here". I don't post at WR, never have, and have zero desire to resurrect a pointless and unproductive feud. My earlier olive branch was sincere. With respect - Kelly hi! 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. My point was that it appeared WG was busily doing "background" in order to dig up any dirt possible on me, whether real or imaginary. I didn't think my comment could be read that you were a WR editor; nor that you were assisting WG, merely that you'd given him the directions there. As this is the case, I'm not sure what I can or should do about that. I had not thought that your olive branch was anything but genuine. Does this help, or did you want more from me concerning this? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope, sounds like everything's cool. Kelly hi! 13:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

blocked

respond to above. I feel there is no need to ignore me. 75.91.169.43 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Not ignoring; short of time. As you are not currently blocked I presume and hope you will have patience, as I am a volunteer like everyone else here, this must take its place in line. I assure you I will get back to you. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

blocked

can you tell me why I was blocked in more detail? 75.91.169.43 (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

? What details do you want/need pls? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What harassment that I wasn't defending myself from 75.91.169.43 (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC) So.... do you block people reguardless of anything? Seems so. 75.91.169.43 (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Your question is uncivil and accusatory. Have you a reason for pursuing this line of questioning? I had thought you were attempting to identify how you'd gone afoul here on WP in order to avoid it, but you have now begun insulting me as well. I am losing inclination to devote any time to you other than keeping an eye on you in case your rudeness begins to cause more problems. 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Article probation for Sarah Palin?

What would you think of the idea of putting Sarah Palin on article probation, similar to that placed on Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation? I had hoped the insanity would die down after the election, but it seems to have continued. It might be a better option than full protection, which is hampering even non-controversial edits. Anyway, just soliciting opinions. Kelly hi! 19:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, once I thought about it, I actually proposed article probation here. With respect - Kelly hi! 19:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm keeping an eye on it... please keep an eye on me in turn, since it's my first "venture" into the kwazy world of protected BLPs :-). (And happy new year BTW! My daughter now has the complete set of "Skippyjon Jones", so of course I always think of you.) --SB_Johnny | talk 23:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
HNY to all, and to all a Good Article.
I agree that the article should be under probation and have said so. What I have not done is actually take this to the community; I appreciate the info that you have done so and have posted my support. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I wanted to leave you a note - I responded to the ANI thread. I feel that tensions are running way too hide and that it may cause bad blood. We should think about building consensus, and it would be bad if the opposing ideologies are busy fighting amongst each other instead of coming with an agreement. If you need someone to talk with, you know that I am always available. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I had to look - I didn't even know about the new thread.[2] I appreciate your attempts to calm the waters, as always. Pity Kelly feels the need to go back to that same tired whine whenever he doesn't get his way, and he thinks I am the cause. Fortunately, some of the editors are getting tired of this also, and are returning to discussing the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

About harassment and Orangemarlin

I'm going to leave this note here as the ANI thread is closed: I see where you're coming from about there being different grades of harassment. I still think that people should use "harassment" less, as it confuses a minor annoyance to the criminal type of harassment. Granted, I am deliberately picking a severe case of harassment for effect, but my point remains the same: it's a personal attack, and potentially defamatory if not proven. Which brings me up to my next point: can you talk to Orangemarlin? Three ANI threads in a day about separate issues is a bit worrying; even SlimVirgin didn't reach that level of complaints when she was her most infamous. I think that he'd listen to you more than me, so can you please tell him to calm down, at least a little bit? Sceptre (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, see WP:HARASS for what it means around here. In your case, WP:WIKIHOUND seems more apposite. Please take care to avoid doing it. . dave souza, talk 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to discuss this as calmly as possible; besides, HOUND is a gray area, and I don't believe I'm violating it. Please don't insinuate harassment either; it evokes something much more serious than it is, and it's debatable, at best. Sceptre (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd, random question

I have looked for this but haven't found an answer, so I thought I'd ask you (you know a lot of stuff, right?). Anyhoo, I've noticed that on some articles there is one space after a period (full stop) and others there is two. I have always been told that two is correct and one completely unacceptable, but I've noticed the proliferation of the one-space in recent years, especially on informal and internet communication. My questions are:

1. Is there a wikipedia policy on this?

2. Do you know if this is a US English/UK English issue?

3. Where could I go to learn more about how to handle this?

An odd, nitpicky question, I know. But I've been taught in school and on the job to be precise and consistent. Thanks in advance.LedRush (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Manual of style. miranda 11:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Not only do I know many things, I have many good people watching my talk page.
More specifically, Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation_at_the_end_of_a_sentence answers your question: It doesn't matter. Really, truly. Despite all the endless arguments pro and con as well as when and when not (see Double spaced sentences) your browser does not care, and will display a single space only. You will see both spaces in double spaced sentences in the edit box only - so if you wish to be Very Very Correct so it doesn't drive you mad and keep you from sleeping at night, online the standard is one space. As this is true for all sites and all browsers, I fear we are raising a generation of people who are completely ignorant of the importance of the double space full stop in formal typed communication. Ah well, things change, yes? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For making my life easier...

...thanks! If you hadn't stopped by the Biology Wiki-project page I am sure that I would still be trying to figure out how to to refs. The template you shared has been a lifesaver! --Yohmom (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I am so glad that was helpful to you! I appreciate you stopping by and telling me. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for creating Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It is a small article but a good start nonetheless. Cheers! Kingturtle (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

:-) Thanks! I knew if I didn't start small, it would take forever for me to do it. So I did a stub which I can add to slowly, and hopefully others will add to as well. It won't be a stub forever! KillerChihuahua?!? 13:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Johnny's Talk page

While I think it was good to warn Anarchangel regarding moving comments, I hope I can get some feedback on his other actions, especially on his placing contentions we've disputed into a category he names "refuted" in what is supposed to be a "Record of consensus building". I don't want to move his comments or get in an edit war (both, no-no's), but placing his opinions in that place makes it look like the discussion has reached a consensus when it obviously has not. I have politely asked him to stop and he merely reverts without explanation. LedRush (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Nods, that whole mess is making things more, not less, confusing and contentious. One ball at a time, tho - I cannot hit them all at once. Right now I'm just tryng to find out what he's trying to do. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
In the beginning, I believe he really was trying to provide a list of things we agree and disagree on, so that once it went into the agree column we wouldn't have to argue about it anymore. While I believe it was a good hearted idea, I don't know how helpful it is or will be. Now it's just making everything confusing (by splitting up arguments into many different areas) and hostile (by moving people's opinion and claiming victory when the dispute is clearly ongoing). Anyway, I am sorry if I seem impatient. Sometimes it is hard to realize that real life takes precedence over stuff like this. Rest assured, I will be patient.LedRush (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How now?

Who's supposed to hit the button now? Talk:Sarah_Palin#Moving_along. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd say since it is clear we've reached the same conclusion, it wouldn't matter who did it. What are your thoughts? I went ahead and did it, btw[3] since you didn't voice a preference, and on this edit it might be best if I undid my undoing of your undoing of the edit which led to the locking of the page (like a childhood rhyme, eh?). I hope we can get the editors to move past this and get the article moving forward now, but I'm not holding my breath. They've been warring about this since it first hit the news. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking that's probably best (so that we didn't end up being dragged to a noticeboard where we'd have to explain that we weren't, in fact, wheel warring with one another) ;-). Then again, we might be a cabal now, who knows?
As for you and me, I really wasn't trying to say that you were choosing a side on the content, but just that you were jumping into the (totally conflated) disputes a bit more than wisdom might dictate. Going forward, I suggest we leave the policy debates to the editors (with the exception of new editors who really are at sea), since taking a side on almost anything will likely be read into and subjected to all sorts of interpretation.
Not holding my breath here either, but gentle nudges require little effort, so no worries. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate you clarifying your post - it did read that you felt I was arguing content. BLP, NPOV are both often used to game the system here, or innocently misunderstood with the same result. Take NPOV: Just becasue an article has 99.99% one view, and .01% of another, does not make it unbalanced - the key is due weight. Some views are so fringe they are excluded entirely. Some editors think NPOV means equal weight should be given to all views. Like the Nazi's had a moon base - yeah, we should prominently feature that in the Nazi article. eh? Just because all historians and rocket scientists and anyone with even a flutter of knowledge on any of the applicable knowledge areas say that's an absurd concept, we should still give equal weight to those dozen or so fringe people who think its True. Well, clearly (to most rational people) not. BLP has a different Achilles heel, which is the false argument that: 1) if we argue about content, that makes the content contentious. 2) Contentious material should be removed from BLPs. Well, 2 is accurate but 1 is false, its often the editors who are contentious, not the disputed content. It is important to make that distinction, and make it whenever it arises, else people will have a misunderstanding of how contentious should be applied to BLPs, and we'll end up with hagiographies. And that would make Wikipedia inaccurate. There is harming the living, which I am firmly against - and there is whitewashing, which I am also firmly against. It goes well beyond this one little article. I will attempt to tone it down a little on policy debates on that talk page, but I promise nothing. The reason that article is fully protected and under probation is because of the misunderstandings, misapplications, and plain ignoring of policy. We can't act as though it is a normal article with editors earnestly seeking consensus - it has become a war zone with people trying to "fit" policy to their arguments to "win". KillerChihuahua?!? 15:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed... the page often looks more like warring pundits than collaborating writers and editors, but I more or less expected that. I did get a behavioral complaint from 2 of them about a third on my talk page here, so if you could have a look and see if there's anything needing doing, please chip in.
Sort of a tangential topic: if I recall correctly, I think the first time I read this article's talk page was after it was discussed on NPR, as it had apparently seen a flurry of editing a couple days before McCain made public that she was his running mate, which might make it a good place for a WV project on how Wikipedia was used during the elections. Do you think any of the editors there would be interested in that? OTOH, would that just end up creating another moultonish situation? --SB_Johnny | talk 13:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a looksee at your talk page, I cannot imagine what anyone is complaining about. *I* have complaints - you coddle people who need a good smack-down, but that's what makes us a good team. /humor
I think it might make a good WV project, but I'd be very very selective about who I get on board at the start - and I suggest some clear guidelines to begin with, which ensure focusing on large trends and which prevent naming names and making personal comments, that kind of thing. And of course there is no guarantee that it won't go Moulton on you anyway, but it is worth seeing if there is enough interest to make the attempt. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh silly me. Of course they weren't complaining about you, I was right! heh. I've left comments anyway. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I'm quite happy to leave the you in charge of the smackdownage, just try to keep an eye whether they're willing to work with me before doing anything rash.

The WV thing might go better if we could extend the team there as well (you said you wanted to contribute there, after all ;-)). I'll set up a skeleton for it, but I think the editors themselves should be in charge of making the rules and setting the scope. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rash? Me? I'm firm and hard-nosed but not rash. I thought you knew me better than that. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hehe. I guess you don't know me as well as I assumed: I know you're not rash, I'm just teasing you :-). I assume you know as well that I'm a lot more hard nosed than one might assume at first, though I'm unlikely to do much thwacking on Wikipedia, due to the incredibly complicated policy structures governing thwacking ;-).
Oh btw, I'm bouncing some ideas about the WV thing off the goats (they think it's maaaaaar-velous). Will scribble later, just poping in for dry gloves atm. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Arrrgh, curse these printed comments! They allow for so little subtlety of meaning and inflection. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to pop onto irc later (after sundown) if you want to chat. And yes, yet another pair of gloves (my 5th today). --SB_Johnny | talk 17:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Still busy, you have email. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you out of dry gloves yet? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Gloves are on the radiator now... I usually go to bed around 7:30 or 8, and wake around 4. Are you an early riser, or are you nocturnal :-)? --SB_Johnny | talk 12:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we alredy have the normal template at the top, and I don't think everyone is reading it. We can place this in a NOTICE section at end of page, signed by both of us, or we can replace the standard notice at the top if you think that would be better. Your thougths? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll just drop it at the top for now. If you haven't done it already, I'll unprotect as well.
FYI (and if you hadn't noticed the pattern), I tend to be at the keyboard only a few minutes at a time, so don't sweat it if I'm not seeing everything (I generally don't go through my whole watchlist, I just do whatever edits I was thinking of doing while doing other things). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: MfD

In regards to: "Hi, what page did Raul nom for Mfd, please? I am referring to the similar-to-'User:Raul654/GoRight'. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)"

It took a while to find, but Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBeR/interesting edits. Actually, given my current opinions on personal use of userspace, I probably would have voted to delete that one as well as having such sandboxes seems to create more heat than light. Either way, I felt it was Raul trying to get back at a user with whom he'd had a long history. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I appreciate the effort. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Locking

It's my experience that being forced to use the talk page tends to make obvious consensuses (consensii?) clear. It didn't seem to me there was any urgency to letting the edit war continue, so protecting for a spell seemed like the right course to me. Nandesuka (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article "Alpha Epsilon Zeta"

I noticed that you deleted and protected the page "Alpha Epsilon Zeta" at 22:09, 11 September 2008. I'm kindly requesting that the page be unprotected, so that the article can be rewritten so as to establish the article's relevance. The previous author(s) were not judicious in what he/they included in the article; as a result, it was deemed "blatant advertising." I would like to write an article about this fraternity at the University of California, Berkeley, properly, being sure to cite sources and steer clear of anything that could be construed as advertising. Vrlobo88 (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am, frankly, hesitant to do so. The article has been deleted three times; once as copyvio and twice as NN Advert. There are good reasons why it was salted against protection. Write the article in userspace on a subpage (as me how if this is unclear to you) and I will unprotect and MainSpace your article if it meets criteria. Fair enough? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks.Vrlobo88 (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The article is ready for your approval. Thank you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vrlobo88/Alpha_Epsilon_Zeta Vrlobo88 (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Notability: The one line sentence in the lead "It is the only of its kind on the west coast" needs rewriting for clarity - specify what is notable and different about this frat.
  • Sourcing: You have four references in the article. The first and second are both college news sources, which is regrettable, because they often have some problems when challenged as not meeting source guidelines - but it gets worse. They're both reprints of the same article, surely you noticed that? Both are reprints of an article by Dana Hull, who writes for Knight Ridder. I couldn't locate the darn thing anywhere other than your two college sources, and I suggest you pick one, attribute it correctly, and remove the other. You can reference the same source multiple times in an article. The third reference is the frat's mission statement on their website, which you use to ref the mission statement which you reproduced en toto in the article, so although for the article's sake I'd prefer a different handling, the sourcing is fine for that specific usage. The fourth and final ref is The Student Affairs page at Berkely. Both the Alpha Epsilon Zeta Fraternity, Incorported Official Website, used for the third ref, and UC Berkeley Student Affairs, used for the fourth, are also listed as external links. The frat site is also listed in the infobox, as is correct. Remove both external links; they are duplicates. Your article is a great improvement over previous versions, but it remains extremely thinly sourced. Can you find anything else? I'll mainspace it as it is once you fix the External links and lead paragraph, but I'd prefer more sourcing. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking the article over. At the moment, the only other reliable source I can locate offers little valuable information (http://www.dailycal.org/article/103655/asuc_nears_solution_to_funding_roadblock). This organization is rather small, but I'm sure the article can be expanded upon as it grows. I've fixed the lead paragraph and removed the external links. Thanks again.Vrlobo88 (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Mainspaced -> Alpha Epsilon Zeta. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. Vrlobo88 (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"fringe-view" new editors

thanks for helping out on the MSG page. seeing the conflict makes me think about the most effective way of dealing with new editors who are convinced they are exposing a cover-up and/or are the target of a conspiratorial cover up. i have very limited experience in these matters, but IMHO, politeness appears as an essential component (along with linking WP policy). any other ideas? what a labor intensive process... -Shootbamboo (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been at this for years, and getting them to read the darn policy is the first major step. I appreciate your thoughtful posts: I am uncertain of the impact either of us are having. Hopefully he'll study the pages we've linked a bit and learn where he's going wrong. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


This one is a time-sink. I've wshed my hands of him[4]. Let me know if you need my help (ever, with anything) and I will be happy to do what I can. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You can always get Joe the Plumber to plunge the time-sink.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You're a sick, sick man. I mean that with all due respect, mind you. :P KillerChihuahua?!? 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
My meds are a bit off today.  ;) •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thank you for the offer! and i extend the same one to you (although I'm sophomoric). =) -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi KillerC, I wouldn't mind your help! Anon may not want your help but I do. I am starting to feel like a side-kick here. Ugh, I try to put in my 2-cents which happens to agree with Anon and suddenly I am his puppet/wingman/Robbin/Tonto/little brother. Cacycle (I think) just accused me of being a sock puppet. If you are still offering, please help! FFN001 (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A question about policy on the Palin talk page

Factckecker made a suggestion concerning the discussion of commentaries on Palin's quote in the Branchflower Report section. Basically, it is his position that while both views of the Palin quote be used (per policy), he believes that in reality more commentators disagreed with her interpretation of the report (complete vindication) than agreed and wanted to change the article to reflect this (by stating "some" agreed with Palin while "many" questioned her intepretation. Collect has claimed that this language is against policy and needs to be proven.

My reading of policy is different, but I was hoping that you could weigh in on the talk page (not about the content itself, but the rules by which we should decide which content is included) so that our discussion is more focused. Currently, the discussion is in 5.1: Proposed language has weight problems.

Thanks in advanceLedRush (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

From what you tell me, Collect is wrong about the policy. WP:Weight means if most think A, give A more weight. You don't give equal weight to A and B. Clear? Feel free to link to this post - sorry but I am stealing mere moments from my day to come here - thanks!!! I will read the section carefully and post there when I have time. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What would be the standard of proof in demonstrating that "most think A"? He is asking for a cite that says that, but I don't know how to count all commentaries or know why anyone would want to count this for a reliable source. I thought the proof would only be needed if disputed, and that any compiling major media sources that demonstrate skepticism in Palin's position would be tiring, but enough. Any thoughts would be helpful.LedRush (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Input needed on a Wikiversity project

Hi KillerChihuahua. I'm trying to get a project started on Wikiversity: Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections‎, which is a research project on how Wikipedia articles are created and improved, particularly when the topic is the subject of strong sentiments and relates to events that change over the time period in the study (probably January 2008 through January 2009, but there's some question about when the campaign actually "began").

I'm leaving you (and a few other folks) this note because you've had some interest in Wikiversity's studies of Wikipedia in the past, I wanted to get a few more eyes on the project before announcing it on Wikipedia: I hope to do that over the next few days on the talk pages of the 4 "beta test" articles: Barack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Joe Biden, with a broader announcement later after the initial kinks are worked out. I was also hoping you would know people who would be interested in this, as well as knowing people with a few "special skills", including:

  1. Data collection and sorting from the article histories (how many edits and what sorts of edits over a given time period, etc.)
  2. People who can make good graphs and charts from that data
  3. people who can help develop guidelines for whether and how to discuss individual editors if they are felt to be "notable"

I think this could be a very fruitful study: Wikipedia's model of content creation is quite complicated, but it works! --SB_Johnny | talk 14:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Soon as I can find the time, I will do what I can. Pls do not hold breath - you will suffer. See my contribs - I'm barely here. :-( KillerChihuahua?!? 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

John Ramsey Miller

dear Killer, thanks for your concerns. This is not about me or my business at all. This is an author that I have read (picked up book in airport bookstore and got hooked), and wanting to find out more about author discovered an interesting past, so added to the greatest compilation of human knowledge online, Wikipedia!

I have since found additional references to his work to provide accrediation.

cheers, Open Opentochange (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)To Change

Favor

Puppy, could you please use your admin superpowers to look at the deleted image File:RWBphoto.jpg, and its associated talk page, to see if a link is provided to the source? The image has been re-uploaded as File:Roland Burris of Illinois.jpg at Commons. Although it's currently being hosted at the U.S. Senate site, I think it's a borrowed photo, not a U.S. government one. From what I recall, someone had provided a link that showed the photo was taken by a private photog, not a government one. Thanks. Kelly hi! 00:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If that info was provided, it wasn't on the image page. All I could glean there was a PD-Self from User:Poxie, whose userpage states s/he is a Wikipedia "noob" so may have provided the wrong tag. Poxie last edited 19 September 2008, but you can try asking there for more info. Sorry I could not provide more info for you. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I had just remembered that I put the photo up at IfD and someone researched and found a link to the original private photographer - I just can't remember where they placed that link due to my apparently early-onset Alzheimer's. It will likely be moot soon once Senator Burris gets his official Senate photo taken, so no big deal. Thanks much. Kelly hi! 01:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah good, glad to hear there is a replacement to be available soon. I kept looking, though, and found the info you were seeking, I think: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive503#Copyvio_photo_of_Roland_Burris KillerChihuahua?!? 01:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Holy cow, you rock! I had totally forgotten mentioning it there. I have one more favor to ask - please don't contact my children to tell them I need to be placed in an old folks' home. :) Kelly hi! 01:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Glad I was able to help. What am I offered to dissuade me from allowing your children to learn that you are doddering, with one foot in the... in the... somewhere, anyway... I knew just a minute ago. Oh well. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of PS

Thank you for removing the "Admin log" from the talk page. I was considering doing the same, in my capacity as an (apparently!) uninvolved editor. I fully support your actions there. Thanks, Verbal chat 14:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I very much appreciate the voice of support. I would prefer to see the entire list gone, and if not that, at least to see Elonka remove herself from "uninvolved". KillerChihuahua?!? 14:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For all my stalkers, friends and otherwise

Ahem. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Puppy has spoken well. Happened to see this on a drive-by visit to your userpage, and thought it was a great commentary on the state of Wikipedia. I'm no fan of the excessive language some excellent users feel the need to throw out there, but all the civility police do is drive away good contributors and waste everyone's time at the drama boards. I've been meaning to write an essay on this topic for a bit; the ideas are still kind of germinating. Anyway, well spoken. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Black president

I don't think you've read the current version of the article. You can also see in the AfD that I call for the article to be renamed First African American president of the United States. I hope you will look over it and reconsider your call for deletion on the AfD. Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 16:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, I did look the the current version. We already have an article on the First black president of the US: it is found at Barack Obama. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that you consider the topic of the article as well as the content before judging it. The topic of "First black president" is one that's been considered for a long time. Its clearly a notable topic, and the fact that Barack Obama has been elected only heightens the topic's significance. Thanks for your consideration. • Freechild'sup? 21:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a "First Catholic President" article? "First Scotch-Irish President" article? "First Quaker President" article? "First Dutch-American President" article? And so forth. 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Elonka thread

Dude, I wasn't seeking your opinion on the matter - rather why I specifically asked Elonka about it, and not you. Being able to ask people specific questions in an environment where they can be franks is beneficial to everyone. Your weighing in on Elonka's conduct - real or perceived - did not advance that goal. Additionally, I think we have all learned recently that not having diffs to accompany what would otherwise be an appropriate challenge to someone's response is considered an ad hominem attack. You are better than that, and I am presuming that your judgment is somewhat impaired where Elonka is concerned. Maybe staying away is a good idea. If Elonka is the horrible, icky person you believe her to be, she will self-destruct eventually. How about a reboot of good faith until then? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on the Ad hom. That's nonsense. No difs means no difs, but you can ask for the darn things, and almost always get them - as I did earlier on Elonka's page to Landed little marsden[5] - and he came back not too long after with difs. Trying to make it an "ad hom" to not have bothered to dig out difs unles asked is absurd -w here did you get that idea? And please refrain from telling me what I think of others - you are quite wrong in this case and I daresay your mind-reading abilities are not any better at other times of day. Please note I have replied, twice now, to you on Elonka's talk page prior to you leaving me a note here. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the message here; I had previously considered the matter closed, and wasn't watching your page. I apologize if this led you to feel I was pointedly ignoring you - I wasn't. To be fair, though, I was staying out of the conversation you and others were having on Elonka's page. My question had been answered, and the rest of it seemed like a lot of drama to me.
I won't chastise you by requesting that you read my initial post to Elonka, but I will point out that my question to her about her Open to Recall status was quite specific, and she answered it. Your subsequent post went outside both the parameters of what I was seeking as well as - to my reckoning - into the realm of snarkyness, and I said so, relatively politely. Having just come from the Ecole RfA, wherein Husond made far more excessive attacks that you did (though also without providing DIFFS to substantiate those attacks), and I noticed it right away. I am growing of the opinion that if someone is going to state a negative about a person, they had best be able to back it up lickety-split. It isn't a politeness police thing, it's a put-up-or-shut-up thing. Tossing out what I felt was an ad populum argument (designed to appeal to the audience) instead of immediately backing up your statements seemed like poor form to me.
As for my "mind-reading", you can say what you wish, but you were the one who went to the trouble to post an unsolicited (and unnecessary) comment attacking Elonka's actions, so my impression of yours toward her seems rather less like fortune-telling and more like simple observation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from userpage

Look Puppy, I was letting this lie, but since you so unceremoniously came to my page to give me a personal message, I will give you one as well. You and your bullying cohorts mishandled the ball, and resolved nothing by smearing me with the label "fringe." What you should have done is debate whether or not there were multiple sources (so far, only Sarah, her mother and her press office, which all boil down to one source) and whether or not a multiple source is needed in such a case to obviate the need for a running-text attribution of source. You blew it, you live with it.AtomAnt (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have given you no "personal message". I gave you a standard notice that the article Sarah Palin is under probation. I have no "cohorts", bullying or otherwise, unless you count fellow Wikipedians - there are over 8 million of us right now. I am acting as uninvolved admin on that article, along with User:SB Johnny. As such, I will not rule on any content dispute. Your suggested addition to the article violated several policies, which is a different matter, and I will inform, warn, and block or ban as necessary. I sincerely hope it will not become necessary. If this does not satisfy you, I suggest you take this to the next step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - the link will tell you what and how. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

notoGLBT userbox

Hey! This userbox has been voted before not to be deleted! Please undo the delete. I have a right to oppose the homosexual lifestyle!

Thanks

--Wolfdog (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You have no rights here, except the right to fork and the right to leave. Post it on your blog if you want to spread your hate and bigotry. See WP:ANARCHY, WP:SOAP. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I missed that one. "Homosexual lifestyle"? How absurd. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your thing-y

Seems like there was a format lapse in your statement or something; I thought that I'd tell you rather than fix the format myself, as you did say that you're not well. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 13:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, does it still look wrong to you? It looks fine to me but there could be a browser incompatibility or something of that nature.
Also: In your statement you refer to "was wheel-warring over the lists" - there was no wheel warring; no admin tools were used at all. I'm confused by what you might mean. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm using the term very generally-- people undoing other people's comment. You had an extra line-break in your diffs, which broke a little bit of your formatting. Do you want me to fix it for you? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Well, you are using the term incorrectly. Wheel warring is specifically undoing one anothers admin actions - I block you, El C unblocks, I reblock - El C and I are wheel warring. I delete, you restore, I re-delete, someone else restores - we are wheel warring. Changing edits back and forth with insufficient discussion, is edit warring, not wheel warring. See Wikipedia:Wheel war. I am sorry if this sounds at all rude, but you are confusing people by your use of the term - wheel warring is very serious, much more serious than edit warring. Edit warring can gain one normal sanctions. Wheel warring can gain one a swift de-admin. No one has been wheel warring in this case.
And I don't see the darn linebreak, must be my screenwidth or browser or something, so yes if you would please correct it I would be most grateful. Thanks!!! This is the second time this week you've fixed my fat-fingered-ness. 15:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I found the hard linebreak, and removed it. THanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work

Thanks. Should have done all that myself, but in the past, have gotten nowhere armed with policy all by myself.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

no worries. You did the right thing coming to BLP noticeboard. Feel free to pitch in and help. I suspect we'll end up with a stub. We'll see what is there when we're doing removing the unsourced (and messageboard sourced, ack!) stuff and decide what to do from there. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Fyi, some canvassing by one of the SPA's who wrote this article (they may all be the same guy, there's a sequential series of SPA's who "nurtured" this article.) [[6]]Bali ultimate (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

I have asked for the Elonka matter to be handled as a full case, and copied over all comments. Please strike any comments no longer relevant. Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"Trolling"

I am not talking about the article. I am talking about your behavior, which (as you should know) has no place on an article talk page. Also, calling me a troll and lying about the "6 times" thing in your edit summary is just more antagonism. Go ahead and remove my comment if you wish, but at least practice a little civility. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement that an accusation of "trolling" was excessive.[7] I don't know that much about the dispute, but I'm definitely not seeing anything here which justified that kind of language. Then again, Scjessey, this comment of yours wasn't particularly helpful at de-escalating the situation either.[8] Perhaps everyone could take a deep breath, and try to do better in the future? --Elonka 04:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
If you don't know much about the dispute, why did you find it so important to get involved? Is it because it involved someone you consider an adversary? Why don't you take a deep breath and consider if your comments are helpful before you decide to comment. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn, Elonka, how did you find time to come and support someone trolling my talk page when you were busy writing this? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the virtually thankless task on Sarah Palin....it's so much better there now

The Admin's Barnstar
Your work on the Sarah Palin talk page has made the tone better, the editors better, the article better, and Wikipedia better. LedRush (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This means so much to me, as I know there are strong feelings there and some were concerned I might allow personal views to affect my fairness. I am so happy that I have been of help there - but you editors deserve virtually all the credit. You've done the heavy lifting, I've just stood there pointing in the general direction of policies you already knew and prodding your memory. So Kudos right back to you! KillerChihuahua?!? 11:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fetal pain

I noticed you warned User:LaurenMD in regards to NPOV, but did not alter any of the edits made to the fetal pain article. I'm a little concerned that the entire lead was re-written and the article basically rescoped without discussion. Maybe you could discuss, if you have the time, your problems (if any) with those edits in a little more detail? Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I did this instead. She hasn't responded in what, over a week? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Perspectives

Are you sure you wouldn't appreciate other perspectives on this matter? Hipocrite (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would love other perspectives on the matter. What do you suggest? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I got confused by one of your edit summaries. (specifically, I thought that this applied to my comment). Hipocrite (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh heh, no, that was my edit which darnit was a good example of editors improving incrementally, but probably didn't help he "edit war" topic at all. Btw, Elonka seems to think I'd asked you to contribute and is threatening to delete the page[9]. Every attempt at DR has failed, and largely because of her propensity to delete - apparently whenever she gets tired of a subject. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith, please. Elonka assumed, I assume, that you contacted me to join in the page - this was an error, but a forgivable one, on her part. Since the page had no notification at the top, I thought it was an open forum. Obviously, I was wrong, and I should not have posted to to main user page. Please consider redacting or striking some of your above comment. Retain hope that you and Elonka can reach some sort of mutual understanding, or that you can just agree to leave each other alone. Hipocrite (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to AGF that she thought that - but not only did she neglect to post a notice at the top of the page, she failed to tell me she wanted it to be the two of us. In fact, I posted there without her notifying me at all, so I'm committing nearly as bad a faux pas as you since she didn't send me an invitation. Altho my name is on the page so of course I knew it was addressed to me. I'm confirming with her now, and plan to figure out exactly what it is she thinks we are doing there, and who she will and will not tolerate in the Garden. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nice[10]. :-) Tactful, too. Much better than "why didn't you put a template up if you didn't want anyone else?" which is probably more my style (darnit). KillerChihuahua?!? 22:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to stifle any pretense to free speech. Even in a duel there are "seconds". •Jim62sch•dissera! 00:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
doesn't matter; she's blanked[11][12] both the page and the talk page, and instructed me she will communicate via email. Taht was spectacularly unsuccessful last time; I'm not going to define insanity. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


She doesn't want you to discuss: she wants you to bow and cow, And curry, And toady. •Jim62sch•dissera! 01:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Licet Iovi non licet bovi. •Jim62sch•dissera! 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA question for me

I just wanted to say thanks for asking that particular one. It made me really have to think about how I saw then, versus now. Just wanted to let you know how much I got out of answering it. rootology (C)(T) 08:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are too gracious. I am sorry for adding a 12th (!) question. It is the first time I've added a question that I can recall. I always cringe when I see long Q&A sessions on Rfas; its stressful enough without feeling interrogated. That question I could not resolve to my satisfaction by digging in your history; Imuch appreciate you answering it. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User Page

You kindly restored my page a month or so ago. Thank you. Can you also restore my subpage at User:2008Olympian/awards? Thank you in advance!--2008Olympianchitchat 07:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it, but I think you should reconsider the awards project you seem to be trying to get going there. there are a LOT of awards already, and the Ribbon with Star form is fairly specific to the Service set of awards. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Those are my awards! As in, awarded to me! Thanks again!--2008Olympianchitchat 23:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, my error! I am sorry. And you are quite welcome! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, see Cal Poly Barnstar, LSU Barnstar, Template:Ultras barnstar, Barnstar of Greater Iran, Police Barnstar, Law Barnstar, Template:The Featured List Medal, Template:The Ohio Barnstar of Merit, Template:Greater Manchester Award, Template:The Barnstar of National Merit for examples of awards that use the ribbon/star format. Thanks again!--2008Olympianchitchat 23:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Good grief, I need to get out more. I had no idea that form had proliferated so much. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Wikiversity:Community Review/Status of Moulton... it's like the energizer bunny. WV's not doing very well, in large part because of this crap. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I know I'm not the only one waiting to see how you deal, or don't deal, with it. I'll brt. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not spending any more energy on it, tbh. I have better ways to spend my time (this is supposed to be a hobby, right?), and am tired of getting flak from it from certain WV folks. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for chipping in there... it will probably be open for a week unless snowballed (most of the sane folks have abandoned the WV project due to the dramas).--SB_Johnny | talk 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempts at DR

KC - I like you a lot. I have a lot of respect for you. I believe in most of what you say, and have faith in the rest. However, I believe that the RfC being prepped will only escalate a conflict that can simply be resolved through communication, direct talk, and simplistic negotiation. I only see drama resulting from standard Wiki procedures because people put more faith in the cold system that allows for opportunists to push them the wrong way than in direct conversation and negotiation.

I'm not in the position to advise you. I have no clout to support me, nor do I have a position to stand on. You can and probably should just ignore this anyway. I apologize in advance if I have wasted your time in posting this. Sincerely - Ottava. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I spent all day talking, then Elonka deleted the discussions. I have not yet decided how to proceed. I appreciate your input. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have on advice received made copies for my userpsace; located at User:KillerChihuahua/CopyofWork1 and User talk:KillerChihuahua/CopyofWork1. No histories but the timestamps are there. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that one of the problems is the level of rhetoric. Use of terms like "unacceptable", "problematic", "abuse", etc, are terms of finality and ultimate consequences. What we should do is focus on future actions and compromises instead of worrying about who did what problem when. ArbCom measures are, after all, preventative, not punitive. Everything here is preventative. I think that you and Elonka need a mediator of some kind to serve as a way to lower the levels of rhetoric and get straight to the important matters. What matters is that there are problems with pages, that there are sanctions put about because of a concern, and that we need to make sure that people stay on task and try to avoid the problems. Language seems to get in the way of that and I think the language is leading to a lot of bruised egos on both sides. I've been called every name out there by many, many people and have been dragged about as Wikipedia's Satan for over 7 months now. If you need a go between who doesn't care about being insulted and is willing to listen to both sides regardless of the abuse, then don't hesitate to ask. I would like to see it in which both sides are respected and both sides are able to come to a point in which the situation is toned down, even if it would require that I, instead of others, became the object of hatred. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, to the best of my knowledge none of those terms were used in the discussions Elonka and I had today, altho I'm not going to search for them. I'm not seeing your point. She started a page; she and I edited most of the day; and mid-discussion she deleted the whole thing, with only one thing resolved - that I hadn't wheel warred. I don't want you to subject yourself to abuse; and more to the point, I'm not sure what good it would do. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm referring to the back and forth between both sides that has been happening for a while, not specifically you and her. I'm focusing on the big picture right now. :) But yes, if I can step in between you two to make sure that you don't feel that -she- is attacking you and she doesn't feel that -you- are attacking her, I will gladly take any of the heat and attacks from either side. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to help her understand policy and that she's too involved in ps articles to be helpful there, and she's ignoring concerns and attacking me. I really really don't see where you can help. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See views that you are going after her and you view that she is going after you. Regardless of the reality, merits, etc, there is a mutual feeling that the other is opposed. It would probably be best if someone serves as a medium between you two as the interactions are to a tense level and communication is strained. We all make mistakes, and we are all imprecise. We also have opinions that other people aren't able to keep up with for whatever reasons. Its human. Sometimes we need someone who is removed a bit to be able to filter things out and pursue interests. An advocate of sorts? A mediator? Whatever word. I feel that it would be more appropriate right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Gee, are we talking about perceptions, here? Try explaining that concept to the other party. I tried at least four times and got nowhere. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently I think SV is having a go. At least eight experienced editors currently are making attempts on her talk page with variations of Disengage from the pseudoscience articles. Others have tried as well. She is not listening. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a last comment then I will leave - above is "disengage from the pseudoscience articles". Perhaps this could be applied to multiple people involved? Sure, some people may unfairly target OM, but everyone jumping in will only hurt OM in the long run. It seems like there are a lot of invested editors on both sides over a simple dispute that should easily be solved if it is taken just to the correct forum and dealt with normally. Regardless, my offer to help is out there. You do not wish it. I will stop persisting with it. I do not see this amounting to any good and just leading to a larger drama filled process that will lead to ArbCom with them seeing that there was an escalation over something that originates in a (minor) wrongdoing by the original subject (OrangeMarlin) that could have been dealt with better. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
None of those people have appointed themselves AE admin; none of the others have claimed they are not involved. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
And this didn't start with OM; that's one incident among many, and not the beginning of the saga. Read Risker's comments on Rfar. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for adding, as I said I wouldn't - just a little note - the "involved" above was meant to talk about it being far beyond just OM and the content disputes and s iblossoming into other problems involving many editors. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologise, but do understand - Elonka's singling out of OrangeMarlin did not start this - the list started the furor, and that was well before the warning. I'm agreeing that its grown. If Elonka had listened to the 20 or so editors who told her the list was a bad idea, and removed it, we wouldn't be here. But instead she said her list ws protected by the SV ruling about AE. Well, ArbCom has told her it isn't, now, and she told evryone else they were wrong, but ArbCom she has said she will reluctantly listen to - the phrase she used was "willing to respect" - she says she thinks they are wrong, too, btw[13] - and that's the issue. OM and ScienceApologist are just more symptoms of Elonka pursuing editors unevenly and not seeing that she is involved and should step back. Now how the heck do you think being a mediator is going to help? Go help SlimVirgin, also trying to talk sense to Elonka. Go help MastCell, also trying to talk sense into Elonka. Don't help B; he made a couple of clear statements and has given up this lost cause. Ottiva, the attacks Elonka is making on OM and SA and now me are simply because we have all disagreed with her on some point or other and she is attacking us. That's it. Except they disagreed on articles, and I've told her flat out she's wrong about the policy she's citing to back up her little ax-swinging forays. And guess what? She is wrong, but instead of saying Oh heck, ArbCom has spoken, guess I was mistaken - she says Oh heck, KC is a wheel warrer and an edit warrer and blah blah blah. Nonsense, and transparent attacks because of her ego. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Outdent - (sorry again) - reading the above makes me feel that a simple solution is having someone balance out with Elonka, or replace Elonka, in the matter. Nothing more or less. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose "balance out" Wikipedia is not a battleground. If there is a problem with party a (not stating there is in this case), the solution is not introducing problematic party (-a). It's either getting rid of "problematic" or asking party a to recuse. Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hipocrite - "getting rid" of someone is against the "Not a Battleground" philosophy, and your level of rhetoric is exactly contradictory to that. We are all supposed to try and work together. That is what consensus means. KC does not hate any user, and she has enough good faith to believe that anyone can contribute as long as the system is fairly structured and that people are willing to treat each other with respect. I am sure that she would welcome such a system as the appropriate solution and that I am sure that she does not wish to "get rid" of any user in such a destructive kind of way. Her RfC appears to be frustration at a broken system and not animosity towards another. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
At no point do I refer to getting rid of someone. I refer to "getting rid of problematic" - that would leave "party a." I am sorry that you misunderstood me. As such, I ignore the rest of your comment as not valid. Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(after EC) I'm not sure I follow your entire statement, Hipocrite - although I have asked Elonka to recuse from pseudoscience articles and explained my reasoning (to a limited degree, I didn't want it to be an essay.) I believe that is what SV is asking as well. Elonka seems resistant to the idea that a) she is perceived as involved and biased, and b) whether she is or not, that harms her effectiveness. Combine that with her unique interpretations of policies, which she also rejects feedback on, and it is a problem. Regarding balance, I think if there is a problem article which needs admin attention, whether covered under AE or not, it can often help to have more than one admin involved. I'm not sure that's what you meant by that, though. And I'm not sure what Ottava meant either, so I'm unable to comment intelligently on that. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand Hipocrite, Ottava. If someone is causing harm, they are indeed "gotten rid" of, and this prevents battles. See block, ban, topic ban, and many of the ArbCom remedies. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the solution is a topic-ban for Elonka. It's a viable option for pseudoscience articles. She's being disruptive. It shouldn't be a big deal for an uninvolved admin to topic-ban her under the AE guidelines, should it? Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
But do we really need blocks or bans? This isn't a run of the mill trolling problem. Its two sides who both think they are right. You might think she is wrong, but you can acknowledge that she at least is acting in the way that she thinks the rules should be interpreted, right? I think it is best if she backs off in terms of not using administrative power, but I feel that all people should be involved in discussions about the matter as a whole. I would like to see multiple people working the enforcement in a way which they discuss with each other before taking action, and any warnings are done directly and personally in a way that would not publicly embarrass someone or be seen as a threat. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right, its not a trolling problem, and you're right, its "two sides" - sort of like a vandal and everyone who is trying to get them to stop is "two sides" - Ottava, if you cannot be troubled to read the background of this, then really you shouldn't be trying to offer solutions. You clearly are misreading the entire situation and its history, and have been from the beginning, Props for trying to help; but you need to either learn what's going on or recuse yourself from this discussion. All your suggestions have already been tried, multiple times, by multiple people. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read the background. I have discussed this for a long time. The hostility above by Hipocrite and your recent interpretation of my understanding seem to only reinforce my view that you are currently blowing things out of proportion. I do not wish to be attacked any further, and I will withdraw myself permanently from your talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I see no hostility by Hipocrite; none whatsoever,a nd further he has a very strong reputation as a very even, calm person. I really fail to see how anyone could "blow out of proportion" simple straightforward facts such as clear misunderstanding of ArbCom decisions, as clarified by ArbCom; clear misunderstanding of the term Wheel war; clear misunderstanding of Edit war; clear and easy to find concerns by muliple editors about Elonka's involvement in Pseudoscience articles. You are viewing a number of long-time respected admins discussing a serious issue, and you see hostility and over-reaction? That is troubling. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, I like you, and you're a nice guy, but I think you just want everyone to be Happy and Get Along, and that's nice, but not always realistic. When you have a crooked cop beating people up, you remove them from the situation and/or you take away their billyclub. That's not hostile; that's protecting those who are being hit, and the city or town where the beatings are occurring. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(TO THE LEFT!)(ec) Not to be overly disruptive, but I citation needed the 'fact' that I have such a reputation. I think I get angry and fall off the wheelbarrow to easily oftimes. I can also see where my unclear statement above could be misread to make it seem I wanted to eliminate editors, which I don't. I also believe a topic ban on Elonka is unwarranted. If I were to take the strongest possible stance against Elonka that the evidence could possibly warrant, the most a restriction could read was "please stop enforcing stuff on articles about psuedoscience, broadly interpreted." I do not support such an imposed restriction at this time, and I do not think that the evidence demonstates that the strongest possible stance is appropriate at this juncture. There is a solution to this problem that can and should be reached amicably. (after ec) PS - above analogy is probably overboard. It's just a website! Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah my analogies tend towards the overstated, dunno why. I think my subconscious wants to paint a BIG picture so my listeners/readers get the point. I could try one with hall passes, but it hardly seems worth the trouble. Regarding Elonka, I have been trying to address concerns directly with her; she responded by accusing me of wheel warring, edit warring and so on as I have explained below in this section to Johnny. In other words, classic defensive attack posture. I'm not ruling out topic ban for admin and/or editing; I don't think I'm ruling out anything for consideration at this point. There is a problem; it is not addressed, and it needs to be. And citeneeded? Well, we havent' worked together much (ok, never that I remember) but every time I see you on a talk page, you are calm, rational, measured. Very Wu wei. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll jump in if you can explain to me what it's about. Is this on an RfC or something? --SB_Johnny | talk 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, and I'd prefer not ever. Synopsis... hrm.
  • Short synopsis (with disclaimers) of the general backstory at [14]- the last post is the one with the synopsis.
  • [15] ArbCom is requested to clarify, specifically, is Elonka mistaken that she can cite SV decision and AE and her edits are sacrosanct? (she's mistaken) + Should admins doing AE (such as Elonka) heed feedback they receive (yes)
  • User:KillerChihuahua/CopyofWork1 and User talk:KillerChihuahua/CopyofWork1 - Elonka deleted these but the conversaion is fairly clear. Only thing resolved was, is Elonka mistaken that Wheel warring denotes any warring by admins? (she is) and is Elonka mistaken in her assertion that KillerChihuahua is guilty of Wheel warring (she is mistaken)

- and that's where it is right now, complete with absurd accusation on two ArbCom statements by Elonka that I have edit warred on ps articles, as well as the same accusation on her user talk page. She didn't like the feedback I gave her, and now she's accusing me of wheel warring and edit warring, and its childish retribution to someone (me) who only ever wanted to get her to understand the ArbCom decisions and policies, and to distance herself from the pseudoscience stuff where she is pursuing similar harassment campaigns against OrangeMarlin and ScienceApologist. She is involved and won't admit it, and she's attacking people on very flimsy grounds. As with OR, I don't see where you can help, although I am open to ideas. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

don't be doing this

Don't be leaving stupid messages on my talk page. You are nothing but a simpleton and you don't know who you are dealing with. You have been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.139.239 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Very erudite. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Please try to avoid uncivil edit summaries. This was unnecessary, especially on a page which is intended to provide advice for new administrators.[16] --Elonka 20:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Pointed yes; uncivil, no. Elonka, I've discussed the concept of perception with you and you have failed to get it. However you choose to see your actions, KC is merely highlighting the perceptions of your actions shared by many. Also, warning someone with whom you are in conflict is bad form. Use AN/I instead. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was civil. Elonka, you were advising new admins to follow in your footsteps with the kind of behavior that has earned you an Rfc, a recall, and I have lost count of how many people telling you your methods at dispute resolution are counter-productive, and you're actually full of enough gall to come here and complain about my perfectly acceptable edit summary? Perspective much? Common sense much? Your DR is at the very least controversial, and far stronger words could be used. Don't go trying to teach new admins your bad habits, please. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That whole perspective thing, like the vision thing, just keeps getting lost. •Jim62sch•dissera! 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Offer

KC;

Can I ask for a volountary Everyking/Snowspinner resolution on your part? That is to say, for the time being, you'll simply ignore Elonka completely, I mean. However well founded (or not, he says with a fence-post squarely up his bum) your reasons may be, your evident frustrations are impeding communication.

Please place trust in your fellow editors, and just find something else to do? If there's something that Elonka contributes that you feel simply cannot be ignored, you can always place a note on my talk, or a subpage I'll watch. I'm offering quasi-defact-mediation here, mate.

brenneman 01:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my damndest, and that's going to have to do right now. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
fyi, I had the school pages watchlisted from their inception, and her addition showed on my watchlist. Not sure if that makes any difference to you, but there it is. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Redacted

I've just altered a signed comment of yours, attempting to decrease heat. Please consider carefully before reverting. - brenneman 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries - I was going to do that myself, got called away from the pc. Thanks, and thank you for your courtesy in leaving me this note here. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Could use your eyes here

I think it's safe to assume you're not likely to have much of an opinion on this, but this has been going on for a month or so now and could use some monitoring: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)#section_break. I'm not perceived to be neutral (though frankly I don't care much... this sort of thing is why we have redirects IMHO). --SB_Johnny | talk 14:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

oh dear. I do have an opinion; I'm missing why people are arguing to be wrong. I have far too strong an opinion about this to be unbiased, sorry. If you want someone to mediate between those who know what they are talking about and the ignorant masses, you'll have to look elsewhere, sorry. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, "ignorant masses" is a BLP violation, I'm reporting you to Landed Little Marsdon. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
And it's elitist. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote mining

Since you've neutrally contributed to it in the past, I thought you might want to look in once more on the article's present state and current RfC. (That is, if you have the time... you seem to have a lot on your plate.) arimareiji (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikiversity project on Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections

Hi KC. I started a second round of announcements for Wikipedia and the 2008 US elections, to folks who had commented on my talk page on Sarah Palin-related issues (see also, Sarah Palin resource). I would also greatly appreciate any feedback or ideas you have about some starting questions about the project as a whole.

WV's been a bit calmer the last week or so, in a good way. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Flu

Sorry youse fled
Due to flu,
Hope you'll recover
And return anew!
dave souza, talk 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC) in the manner of William Topaz McGonagall

Sorry to read you are not feeling well so..

Hi, sorry to read above that you aren't feeling well. I can totally understand you not being able to spend time here until you are feeling better. I would like your opinion on this and please feel free to take your time as it is in no way urgent. I came across an editor user:Naegele who seems to be advertising himself. He is adding entries about books and articles he's written to a variety of articles. Though these types of edits are concerning, it seems that he has also added an article about himself to Wikipedia. To me it reads a lot like an ad, ie: lots of links to books he's published. Anyways I thought I would bring this to the attentions of someone like you with more knowledge about whether things here are hokey or not. It just doesn't look right when I saw his contibutions and checked a few of them. Here is a sample of some of the difs I just looked at; an article he wrote, an article he wrote about himself, here is an article Naelgele wrote but then he also adds his own personal website to it. You can check all of this out with his contibutions. This all seems over the top with WP:COI along with I'm sure other policy problems. When you feel up to it, would you mind taking a look. I could be very wrong here but to me something just doesn't look right here? Thanks, and feel better soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[17] He will almost certainly re-create it; in which tag for speedy using G11 (advert) and/or A7 (nn). If that is declined, list on Afd and let me know. Sorry for the brevity of this reply; I honestly don't mean to be rude and hop you understand. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah dang just saw the notice was today; so my deletion note is inappropriate, but there is no way to change those from here. :( KillerChihuahua?!? 15:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey no problem, I totally understand not feeling well so don't worry. I didn't expect you to get to this today. As for him getting the notice today on his talkpage, there shouldn't be a problem because his other stuff he added about himself he was told about COI and that it was inappropriate. Hopefully this will take care of the matter. Thanks for your quick reply. If there is a problem about this please pop over to my talk page because I too didn't notice the date on his talk page about it. I don't know anything about how to speedy delete or any of that as I have never done it so I don't understand how to. I am very limited on my knowledge here do to the meds I take for my own medical issues. That is why I brought it to someone I thought would know how to handle this, you! :) Thanks again, feel better soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

First, I too am sorry that you are not feeling well, and hope that you feel better. Second, I have read the comments of User:Crohnie above, and they need to be addressed, respectfully. The changes to the following pages were made to insure their accuracy, completeness and to reflect what actually happened in history: an article he wrote, here is an article Naelgele wrote but then he also adds his own personal website to it, contibutions. Third, nowhere on the "Violence against women" page does it reflect that approximately 2 million women were raped by the Soviets at the end of WWII, in the largest mass rape in history. Fourth, nowhere on the "Violence" and "Mass murder" pages do they reflect the fact that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million men, women and children—his own countrymen; and that Mao Tse-tung was directly responsible for an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960. These are colossal omissions; they are not merely minor oversights. Fifth, you or User:Crohnie might argue that I should provide the original sourcing for my article; however, with due respect for both of you, I do not have the time to go back and do so, because the files are in dead storage. I assure both of you that it is totally accurate, inter alia, because one group representing the victims contacted me and praised me for writing the article. Sixth, the changes to the Greenspan page involved another article of mine in the American Banker, which is also cited to give readers an accurate description of what has been happening as the economic tsunami takes its toll globally, which is the result of Greenspan's policies at the Fed that are producing economic chaos and hurting millions of people globally. Seventh, the page in my name is thoroughly sourced; and notwithstanding your comments, we have never been contacted by anyone from Wiki, ever, except with respect to (1) some minor edits that we agreed with, and (2) the requirement for better sourcing/backup to substantiate the entries at the page, which was accomplished by more than 20 footnotes.

Thus, I respectfully request that you promptly reinstate the page as written. Thank you for your attention to this matter; and again, I hope you feel better. naegele (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC) NaegeleUser talk:Naegele Also, the deletion does not show up on either of the following pages: "Wikipedia:Deletion today" or "Wikipedia:Deletion yesterday," however, we assume that the page has been saved by you. naegele (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC) naegele (talk

Hi, I just noticed all of this ending here and commented too. I won't comment anymore unless someone asks. I wasn't aware of any of this since my original comments to you since I too am having some serious medical issues at this time. I did want to drop off a note to you though that I am sorry I dragged you into all of this. I hope you are feeling better, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Intelligent design

I'm not sure where you got the idea I was even close to using my tools to do anything about the issue, but I can assure you that I have no intention of doing that- too many people are out for blood in these kind of "discussions", they would love to have me against the wall. This is a rather odd case- almost any other article on Wikipedia, myself and other involved admins could easily remove the images in an "admins enforcing policy" role. Here, because the regulars on the article rather like the images, and because they're used to fighting the good fight to keep rubbish out of the article, we find ourselves as one party in a "content dispute". Frankly, it's tiring, and I think other admins would be better off just stepping in and removing the images, rather than trying to act as referees. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I hit the Wrong Page not once but twice. I found the right one - just remove the note or I will do so, apologies. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And for crying out loud, its not "enforcing policy" when there is a dispute like you are having. This is fair use, and there are claims all criteria have been met. You can't just say "no they haven't!" and its all over. Consensus, remember that? Enforcing policy is for policy violation, and this violates no policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the point I'm making. On any other article, it would be seen as enforcing policy. Here, it has been drawn out into a ridiculously long discussion- it's very clear that at least two of the images are in violation- the others have an argument, but not a great one. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
and I'm disagreeing with your "point". If its an admin enforcing policy on "any other" article, then either a) admins are throwing their weight around to win content disputes or b) there is a misunderstanding of policy or c) both. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So, every time someone disagrees with the removal of album covers from discographies, its a simple content dispute? The line isn't as hazy as people make out, but the vague wording on the policy leaves room for endless debates and "interpretations". J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And you're not talking about removing an album cover, so please stop with the false analogies. Take this off to the article talk page. I'm not in your edit war; you're arguing with the wrong party - and for what its worth, you are also not persuasive. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just saying hi

Just stopped by to say hi. From the user page of KP Botany (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

This is very scary. I'm not scary. :-( I'm a sweet, nice puppy. why do you scare me with rabid puppy picture? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, did not want to scare you, but figured if we're both Killer Chihuahuas you would consider it a greeting, rather than scary! Only rabid humans should be scared. And cats. --KP Botany (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
What, you've never seen a dog fight? Threat positions are threat positions. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To my talk page stalkers

[18]

Since he removed it with a snide accusation and failed to confirm that he won't pretend he knows my position about something I have said nothing about, I would appreciate it if you would all keep an eye out and let me know if he pretends he knows what I'm thinking again. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 14:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

race and stuff

Yeah, I keep an eye on it - interesting blog entry and sounds like good research, thanks for passing it on. I will pass it on to others as right now I HAVE to focus on my own work. That said, I would kinda like to ask a favor of you. A few weeks ago I did a massive rewrite of Culture. In my view, that article started going bad years ago and just kept getting more and more messier, lots of redundancies, tangential material, mixing up different (but unidentified) points of view, and no depth. The article still needs to cover some as yet uncovered topics, but I really put enough time into it and have to refocus. My concern is that having written most of it it is all in my style. Would you have time to read and edit it? I do not mean copy-edit (I mean, there are probably typos, but that is not my main concern) - I mean seeing if any sentences should be reworded or rearranged, or even paragraphs or sections reorganized, for better style, clarity, and flow? It shouldn't matter if you have not done much research on the topic (but I think your interests are close enough that you are clearly well-informed). The point is, I know all the research, but a wikipedia article has to be accessible and intelligibel to a diverse audience. I realize this is a lot to ask, but I figured no harm in asking. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to find time. I apologize for not answering you here before but I had hoped to have time to read it carefully before replying. I don't want to do a "drive-by" scan of it. I appreciate your patience - KillerChihuahua?!? 15:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Viridae and John

Both have a history with me and are only trying to stir the pot. Though I do all I can to avoid them and others that I have long histories of dispute with, they don't seem to ever get the message that I have moved on...both are simply chiming in in their usual condescending manner and based on much to do about nothing, as is certainly evident in this case.--MONGO 04:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh well I seem to be getting into much the same situation with John, except I am the one trying to resolve things and he is treating even that in a condescending fashion - he recently said "if its important to you to resolve this" (emphasis mine) - and I'm thinking to myself, what kind of jerk-off idiot wants to leave things unresolved with co-workers, which is what we are in a sense? So I'm not horribly optimistic but I am trying and hopeful. See also "to my talk page stalkers" two sections above this. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm very glad you think of us as being co-workers. I now regard our dispute as being resolved, per the discussion at my talk. I don't think either one of us is a "jerk-off idiot", and I look forward to working with you to resolve the wider issue of non-free image use at the ID article. --John (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hrm. Well, I cannot say I view it as resolved, but between your misunderstanding about my base position and purpose, combined with my getting muddled about the details, along with everybody and his brother trying to make the question part of the image dispute, it certainly has a lowered chance of ever getting anywhere much. Its beginning to hit the diminishing returns position. Let me think on this a bit; but certainly I think at the very least you now know my concern is about tools during a content dispute, and whether your block warnings were or were not appropriate given the timing and your other actions, ie "were you involved and when did you become involved" to paraphrase the famous Watergate question. I don't know whether the best course at this time would be to try a very focused discussion now that the issue has been understood, or to drop it.
Regarding the image use, I avoid those debates like the plague. Criteria #8 is a matter of opinion; it cannot be "ruled on" by fiat but must be resolved through discussion with consensus being the aim. I have enough mediation elsewhere, thank you. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The best communications are person to person, followed by phones and lastly via the type of forums we employ here with talkpages and noticeboards of course. I try to believe that well more than half the disagreements on this website are due to the format we utilize to communicate here...anyway, have a good one.--MONGO 16:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Eyes To See

Lengthly post about article, reproduced in at least two other places

Welcome Chihuahua, on your 1st time involvement in my Biography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier (Current)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243 (old)

I´m at a loss to understand any principled reason or justification for you to just fly in for the 1st time within minutes of my edit, and undo a proper edit within Wikipedia guidelines for Biographies. There was no COI in the edit I made. The guidelines discourage anyone from editing their own Biography, but it is not actually forbidden if done for the right reason.

I committed to user Kingturtle at the time the old version was decimated to the current version, I would not edit my biography, and I have stuck with that promise.I did not see until yesterday a major editing error in the current version. Wikipedia standards of excellence required it be corrected. In their haste to make the old version encyclopedic, they wrote this:

  • On the first day of televised debate in the House of Commons, Cormier sat in the first row of the visitors' gallery wearing a gag over his mouth with the words "Fear of The Truth" written on it. He clung to the brass railing as several sound. The video was not shown on national television, but was witnessed by the security guards attempted to remove him and eventually let go without making a full visitors' gallery.[6][7][8]

It is obvious to any literate person those editors did not just copy and paste from the old version, but words were jumbled to the point they make no sense at all. This is not worthy of Wikipedia, so I correct it to the referenced, with citations, newspaper reports verifying the historic event as it happened.

  • On the first day of televised debate in the House of Commons, Cormier sat in the first row of the visitors gallery quietly wearing a gag over his mouth with the words, "Fear of The Truth" written on it. He clung with all his strength to the brass railing as several security guards punched him and pulled his hair and eventually he let go without making a sound. The video was not shown on National TV, but was witnessed by a packed visitors gallery.

Because I know some of you are offended by certain adjectives, I edited again, removing the words ¨quietly¨ and ¨with all his strength¨ so there would be no dispute.

That jumbled misrepresentation of the basic facts was there since last July. Since no else saw it or corrected it, I had to.

I have to question your professionalism and neutral POV by your action. Please undo your improper action.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're writing about yourself. Don't do it. This isn't news to you. You've been informed of our COI rules before. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I corrected a sloppy job of other editors. There was nothing new added to the article. It took me 7 months to notice it. You did not improve the Article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DoDaCanaDa (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 February 2009
You're missing the point. I'm an administrator who has informed you your conflict of interest personal point-of-view original research tendentious editing, which has gone on for some time now, is ending. You may learn our policies and follow them. Or you can keep ignoring them and I will revert, and if necessary block, you. I don't care what your opinion of my writing skills is. I'm telling you that if you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to learn and follow the rules here. I'll be happy to help. I suggest you start by reading what I've linked here in this post, and in the COI warning I left on your talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think this ¨You're missing the point. I'm an administrator¨ has gone to your head and you are in danger of losing objectivity, especially in view of your immature post on user talk Hipocrite you named Applause for the tag he placed nominating the Biography on me to be deleted. DoDaCanaDa (talk)
Your opinion of the maturity or lack thereof of my post to someone else is irrelevant. My potential value, or use, to you is that I am a knowledgeable editor who has a strong understanding of the key policies and guidelines here, and I can answer questions and give you good advice. I have already given you such advice, which you are ignoring in favor of petty insults on my talk page. Not a good sign. It appears you'd rather snipe at me than learn the ropes here. I remind you once again that violation of policies after you have been repeatedly informed of them leads to blocks and bans, and not to the respect and assistance of other Wikipedians. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As a knowledgeable editor and Administrator you must be aware of these Wikipedia guidelines: The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material: and Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself.

I could see very clearly this paragraph in the BLP was wrong and a serious editing error:

  • On the first day of televised debate in the House of Commons, Cormier sat in the first row of the visitors' gallery wearing a gag over his mouth with the words "Fear of The Truth" written on it. He clung to the brass railing as several sound. The video was not shown on national television, but was witnessed by the security guards attempted to remove him and eventually let go without making a full visitors' gallery.

Obviously this does not make any sense at all, and because it was like that for 8 months, and no one else corrected it, I had to act fully in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the email. I've been rather busy outside of the wiki world, but I'll take a look. The Jade Knight (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI and any lurkers of your page

I did some more research about the Ray Joseph Cormier article. I just wanted to bring to your attention and anyone else who might see this here my comments and questions on the discussion page. This kind of way to build an article is totally new to me, scanning old refs to be used to build an article because they are not available on the web. This can be a learning type of thing for me so I would appreciate any comments about this. I did still vote to delete but I would love some input on my way of thinking this through. Please know that I am not canavassing in anyway, I am looking for yours and any others opinions on my thought process here. Sorry for the disclaimer but canavassing is always confusing to me no matter how many times I read it. :)

On another note, incase you are not aware, User:Mastcell is on extended wikibreak that he said may be permanent. There are comments there and on User talk:Orangemarlin. I think I remember correctly that you know Mastcell. I think he's burned out and it will be sad if he does decide to go permanently IMHO. Anyways, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolving Differences

So how do we move forward on a better footing?

What we know so far is:

  • I believed I was acting in compliance with the guidelines when I made an edit that did not substantially change an obviously convoluted paragraph in my BLP but restored it to readable English. This is the Wikipedia policy I followed The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material: and Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself
  • You, never being involved in my BLP before, and at the request of another admin, and interpreting the guidelines from a different perspective, reversed my edit to the convoluted gibberish it was. If you were one of the usual handful of detractors who have been against my BLP from the beginning, I might have responded differently, but I didn´t know who you were, and from my POV it was an affront to me bordering on vandalism. Everything has escalated from that point.

As the more experienced Editor/Administrator, how do you propose we move on in a more positive Spirit? Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First, WP:AGF - Assume Good Faith. That means before you respond to anyone, try very hard to see how they are trying to do good. Assume they don't mean to ever harm you or Wikipedia. For example, those you view as "against your BLP from the beginning" - assume they want what is best for Wikipedia, and don't mean to hurt your feelings. Second, and this may sound asinine - learn WP:TPG - talk page guidelines, including formatting. Tiny thing but seriously, it will make communication so much better with everyone. You don't format correctly. You use bullet points and don't indent with colons. This makes it harder to read and follow discussions, and has the additional effect of many experienced editors having an instant classification for you as a Newbie or someone who is not intelligent enough or technical enough to be able to work at Wikipedia. Yes, we try to Not Bite the newbies - but we also focus on trying to Teach them the Rules above all else, as they clearly haven't a clue. All your concerns will take a back seat until you learn to use talk pages correctly, and you protesting they shouldn't will be ineffectual, so learn to do it. Third, when I or any other experienced editor links to a policy or guideline, as I have done several times now, read it. We're not linking for the fun of it. We're linking because we think there is a good chance you don't understand the policy or guideline we are linking to. FYI, my being a "drive by" admin might have given you a clue that I am "uninvolved" - I don't have an axe to grind here. And yeah, I know all about the ArbCom ruling about BLPs. When Dawkins came and removed an item from his bio everyone let it go and even thanked him for correcting it - but you know what? He didn't edit his bio extensively, he learned formatting on talk pages and articles before he did a thing, and he treated others with respect and courtesy. When he was questioned on his talk page, he was polite and helpful, not defensive and rude - and all of this was after we had as policy not editing your own article, and before the arbcom ruling that it was ok to fix an obvious error. We do apply some common sense, at least most of us do. You might want to think about how your behavior towards others has worked to disincline others to help you, and instead has been disruptive and an overall negative. Read the linked pages in the welcome message on the top of your talk page: The five pillars of Wikipedia, Tutorial, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Manual of Style. You have fifty (50) edits to Ray Joseph Cormier, which is not a few corrections to "very obvious errors", so you can stop citing that ArbCom decision at everyone, its WikiLawyering that won't hold water. That is COI and SPA (single purpose account). We frown on both of those things. I think I've typed enough for one message; I'll wait for your response. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • To move forward, we must be on the same page. I have to respectfully disagree with your assertion I made 50 edits to the current version of the Article since it was reduced from the old version in June. I maintain I made only three significant edits.

In the section ´Pilgrimages´ the editors included the 1981 part, but the 1986 part with the References was left out. This left the Article unbalanced. The Article talk will show I discussed this often, pleading for someone to fix it, but no one would actually help to improve it. Finally I acted and restored the balance.

The 2nd edit was changing ¨celebrating¨ Remembrance Day to ¨commemorate¨ We do not ¨celebrate¨ Remembrance Day.

The last justifiable edit caused the current controversy. This is not abusing the ArbCom decision.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please format your post correctly.
You made 50 exactly. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for disturbing u.....

Hi! I am a genuine editor but a guy keeps reporting me as a vandal, when he himself is biased. I m trying to resolve the problem with a discussion but what if the other party vandals and does not want to talk. How do i report them to you. And what actions can be taken. Sorry to disturb u once again.

P.S: You are the one whom i was reported to, that is why i m asking u.


THANK YOU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adil your (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I will reply on your user talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks for the fun comment on my talk page and the generous offer of help in the future! Sorry I didn't manage to answer your questions, but thanks for your participation in my successful RfA. Nja247 19:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I know it was 11th hour questioning. Good luck, and I do mean the offer of help, should you ever want it. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

*

Resolved

Its a pity to see that blatant vandalism by Adil your (talk · contribs) was reviewed by you as not vandalism. I request tou to go through the edits again and block this disruptive user. Regards, --KnowledgeHegemony talk 14:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC) (Strike my message and remove impolite header)--KnowledgeHegemony talk 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

(talkpage lurker) I have responded on your talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Not everyone speaks every language. Please make further reports to AIV more clear, specifically, including diffs of vandalistic edits and explainations of why such edits are vandalistic (KC - FYI this means something I will not repeat in mixed company). I have given the user in question a final warning. Hipocrite (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've stalked your (Hipocrite's) and page and KnowledgeHegemony's talk page; thanks much for following up on that. It would have been nice had 1) Shovon76 given difs for actual vandalism, rather than foaming at the mouth over what appeared to be 100% content dispute, 2) KnowledgeHegemony been a bit more polite as well, AGF'ing and rather than insisting I track through the edits and block on command, had actually bothered to paste a dif of the vandalism. I appreciate you warning Adil your; I will also keep an eye on Adil your however I am still English-only. KnowledgeHegemony should you read this: rather than telling someone to dig through edits, paste the dif for the vandalistic edit yourself. Presumably you know what you're talking about; paste a dif and type an explanation and I will know too. Ordering me to read an editor's contribs en toto searching for vandalism when you already know where it is, is a bit rude. Of course you started with "poor admin action" rather than "Perhaps you missed this!" which would have been a more helpful attitude. I'm not too inclined to think much of your ability to Work Well With Others, but hopefully you can take a look at what you wrote and think about how it felt to me to read it, and be a little more polite next time you want something from someone. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry for the rude message. I was a bit frustrated at that time. Please pardon me for the same. Regards, --KnowledgeHegemony talk 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello.....

I can see that you have come under some heavy fire by indian editors due to some of my edits but I assure you that i have tried my level best at being neutral and un-biased but i guess some editors just don't like me....Well I m sorry for what you have to hear from this Knowledgehegemony guy because of me.... I m writing this because I think that u r a genuinely neutral Administrator and I once again needed some help on an issue and I hope that you will look into it.....The State-sponsored terrorism page is being vandalized by some Indian editors including an adminstrator....Now even though this administrator gives his reasons but it does not justifiy deletion of entire section......A Pakistani editor put a section of India with proper references to go with it but some indian editors didn't like the section and removed it entirely and had the editor blocked.....but they don't mind the Pakistan section which is full of myths and information which is entirely without reference.....I think they are being biased here and this issue needs to be sorted out as the editors here are in a serious Indo-Pak edit war...... Adil your (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a genuinely neutral editor. You are asking me to become involved in a content dispute; I am not interested in that. Ensure your edits are well supported by cites from highly reliable sources and work with your fellow editors. Cease referring to ANY editors as "Indian" or "Pakistani" as that is partisan and will not improve relations with your fellow editors. It does not matter if your fellow editors are Indian, Pakistani, Greek, American, or from another planet; what matters is following the core principles. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice...I just thought that having someone blocked just because he does not agree with your views is wrong..... and i think this also counts as bieng against the core principles of Wikipedia...So I thought you might wanna have a look but its OK if u don't want to interfere... And I wanted to ask you for one more thing...What do u do when a reference is found out to be fake or a broken link...?? Should I just remove it...??Adil your (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. If an editor was blocked, they probably broke a rule. If not, they should place the unblock template on their page for review. Either way, it doesn't even exist for me unless you link a name and an incident. Your meandering vague accusations are worse than useless.
  2. Find a replacement for the link.
    KillerChihuahua?!? 12:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


"Your meandering vague accusations are worse than useless."...??....Well that was rude....For your kind information the guy did put the template and he was unblocked by another admin only within two days AS he was wrongly accused....But the matter is resolved now....Will find the Replacement for the link.....PEACE....Adil your (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you find my helpful critique rude. You meander; your complaint is unclear. You are vague; do not state what policies, if any, are being violated. You fail to identify the editor whose edits are of concern; you fail to link a page or edit; your post still takes my time to read and reply to. Less than useless. If you wish for your posts to be useful and have results, read and learn, do not bristle with defensiveness. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to waste your time.....Thanks for your time anyway...117.102.63.125 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you've learned how to write more concise and helpful, informative posts (state exactly what the problem is. Include policies violated, if any, and links to difs and name names) then the time was not wasted. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Edit in Question is the following page....[[19]]......And the editor in question is YellowMonkey who is an admin...He deleted the entire Indian Section which by the way had proper references... I once again apologise for any inconvinience.......Best Wishes.....Adil your (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey's edit summary stated he was "rv banned/block evading users" which is completely different from ordinary content edits. What is your complaint about this edit? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Removal Of Section called "India"....Like other countries there was also a Heading called India which was removed by him.....My only concern is that eventhough it was Referenced he removed all the text and didn't give any valid reason for doing so....As you said that the summary stated "rv banned/block evading users"....How does this relate to the deletion of the Indian Section....Kindly throw some light.....ThankYou.....Adil your (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If he's undoing banned users' edits, they don't fall under any other criteria. We undo their edits. Good, bad, crappy, sourced, unsourced, POV, NPOV - it does not matter. We simply undo them. The reason is so people won't try to continue editing during a ban/block. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie......ThankYou.....Adil your (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have found out that he has been removing it no matter who puts it there....And the section was actually written by another user who was not banned at the time.....See this....[20]....And again.....[21]....And again with a different user.....[22]....Well, I don't know....May be I should just give-up and let him do what he wills to do with the article....He is an admin afterall...One can't argue with that...Anyway...Thanks alot for all your help......Best wishes......Adil your (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just venting

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you didn't do the right thing - I think you did. And I know that around this place, your mileage may vary. But I swear I don't understand how someone can get blocked three months for stealing barnstars, but calls to simply officially warn someone to stop steamrolling WP:CIVIL (after two WQAs telling him to do so made no impact) can go unnoticed.

Not trying to get you involved, it's just that sometimes I really don't get this place and needed a Voice of Reason(tm) to vent to... you just happened to be the nearby person who fits that criterion. Lucky you, eh? ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

heh, I appreciate the compliment. I try.
There was more to the BS story than stealing - it was forgery as well, and a second offense. The first time around there was much discussion, with the editor on his talk page, and on ANI, and finally the editor was blocked. Immediately upon his block expiring he restored the forged kudos and barnstars. When he was warned about it, he edit warred and templated the warning admin - who was the blocking admin the first time, btw - with a frivolous warning template. He also used an edit summary which was a bit rude. So he was more or less thumbing his nose at Wikipedia, making it clear he had no intention of being anything but a Problem Child. It takes a good bit sometimes to block someone for violating CIVIL - I myself think its over-used - and even more to block someone for misusing a noticeboard, if their misuse is plausible at all. However, once blocked, if you immediately restore the precise thing which got you blocked the first time, and act like an ass when warned, well, you're really putting a "BLOCK ME" sign on yourself, aren't you? Please do bring to my attention any repeat offenders of any nature who seem to be in teh "always warned but never dealt with" category. Its hard sometimes to remember who did what when, you know? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive_13&oldid=1142471596"