Jump to content

User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

Tissues

Feel better, Killah!

[Darwinfish, concerned, hands KillerChihuahua a box of Kleenex.] Here you are, Killah. darwinfish 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC).

Oh, thank you Darwinfish!!! You have no idea how comforted I am. I feel like my head is packed with cement and my entire brain is coming out through my nose. My throat is so sore I'm on liquids only, and my eyes are little red piggy eyes. This is the worst cold I've had in years. Your kind concern (and tissues!) are much appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
My, these are alarming symptoms! Take care, and don't hesitate to leave all those tedious policy mongers to their own devices. Unless, of course, you find it a helpful distraction, but your recovery has priority: get well eventually jolly soon! . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, dave!!! My husband has just given me a huge draught of one of those multi-symptom cold and flu medications, and I'm going to be having some tomato bisque here shortly, so I'm being taken care of. Thank you for your kind wishes! I am feeling better already, just getting such kind messages here. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
You should try some megadoses of vitamin C. It's been scientifically proven to be really effective against the common cold. I mean, according to what I read on Wikipedia. :P MastCell Talk 00:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why, then it must be true! I will do that, thanks MastCell. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)



ArbCom comment

I see in your statement to Arbcom [1] you include a "Comment on Neotarth's comments". Who is "Neotarth"? Neotarf (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh sheesh, my deepest apologies. I will correct that immediately. Thank you for bringing it to my notice. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
File:RedoxonVitaminC.jpg
Thank you.
Take care of yourself.
Neotarf (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! KillerChihuahua?!? 14:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Hi KC - your input here would be helpful to the Arbs in this appeal--Cailil talk 15:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, is that from that big long convoluted case? IIRC, I only commented in the Close section, disagreeing with Slp1 regarding whether topic banned editors should be allowed in the mediation. I'm not sure what I can contribute, but I will take a look. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough KC no problem =)--Cailil talk 15:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm really sorry I can't help, I simply didn't follow the case at all. I only commented when I saw Slp1's suggestion, which from my prior MedCom experience I thought would be a recipe for disaster. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

re your comment on my page

You posted on my talk page: My mention of metrics was in direct response to your question "How many people do you get from outside US/Brit? "

I never asked the question: "How many people do you get from outside US/Brit? "

My reference to "metrics" was to the efficacy of Teahouse on editor retention - the point of the Teahouse, right? Has it has a useful effect on editor retention? The "metrics" on meta (which you mention) rather peter out.[2]

So, what do you mean? What is you answer? MathewTownsend (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. I pasted that verbatim from your earlier post. So yeah, you asked that exact question.
  2. The metrics are something you'll have to discuss with Teahouse participants, I have told you several times now I have nothing to do with the Teahouse and only opened the Rfc because Sarah said she didn't know how to do that. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Debresser

Please see this nableezy - 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* thanks, going to check it out now. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Come join us

Yesterday some click to me to the SPLC article and instead of immediately hitting the edit page, I did something truly shocking for an editor; I read the article. It all seemed in order, neutral and informative. But then I read the lead again, particularly the phrase The SPLC is named as a resource by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Bureau's fight against hate crimes and then I checked the references. To me, the references clearly suggest that the SPLC provides resources towards a far more narrow scope than what the lead indicates; The SPLC provides information about pre-1969 hate crimes. We are discussing on the talk page, since I've been quite fond of some of your past edits I thought this would be a good opportunity for us to try and colloborate together. Hope to see you there.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Careful. WP:CANVAS frowns upon cherry-picking people to invite. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Go troll elsewhere please.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the personal attack. You'll note that I didn't accuse you of anything; I just offered a helpful remark. Your aggressiveness betrays a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
"POV pusher" is a slur. "He doesn't seem to understand how biased he is, though" is an observation. The former is intended to be insulting. The second is neutral. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC) It wasn't a personal attack. Little was not calling you a troll, she was asking you to go Troll somewhere else which is neutral. Viewmont Viking (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

@KC. Sorry dawg. I didn't mean to bring the drama to your house.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Little Green...sorry to have continued the drama. Peace out.Viewmont Viking (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. I turn my back for five minutes... no wait, all my kids are grown and gone, the sniping and behavior just took me back. LGR, thank you for the invite, in which I notice you don't ask for me to support any particular view but merely join and help. I will take a look if I can, not sure if I'll have time anytime soon but I will try. Still, why are you here? What was the point of that post? I know all about CANVAS, and if someone needs reminding of it on my page, I will do so. There is no need to jump in and make snide remarks here. And you may not actually be trolling, but you're certainly trying to stir up trouble. Don't do that on my talk page, please. LGR and Viking: No worries, I've been an admin for 6 years. I am used to drama. Not your fault. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't worried about the canvass claims. I honestly want to work on an article with you, maybe perhaps one less contentious as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Chihuahua, take a step back and consider the context. It should be quite clear why I felt obligated to leave that reminder. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Allow me to be very clear: don't leave such comments on my talk page. I don't need my talk page turning into ANI. If you leave such a post again and I see it, I will revert. I ask all my page watchers to also revert. If you come here for my help, I will be happy to do what I can. But don't come here to snipe at other editors who are here to ask for my help. I hope this is clear enough. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Made this clarification to Men's Rights probation notification on the talk page. I don't think it should be controversial, but seeing as the list contains people who were only notified that the probation exists, I thought I'd clarify that it is not the "bad person" list. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea; the template makes it clear that it is simply a notification, but it appears we didn't clarify that on the page. Thanks for noticing that and taking action. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My edits and 1RR

Please visit the discussion on my talkpage. Perhaps after all I misunderstand something. i have explained myself there to Nableezy, but your post on WP:AE seems to imply you would disagree with my explanation. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The place to make your case, or explain, is on the AE page. Please post there, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I noticed you asked for a diff of the self-revert, so just in case you missed it (other edits in different AEs in between, or perhaps only looking for an edit by Debresser), I did post the diff on the AE since I noticed it wasn't posted. Hopte it helps. --Activism1234 01:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I was hoping to see Debresser post it, but your assistance is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I was not making a case, nor explaining myself. I asked for your explanation. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have a question, ask it on the ANE page, please. It should be part of the record of the case. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Beitar Illit is still open at WP:AE

Hello KC. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Debresser, it looks to me that you would have enough support to close either with no action (as you first proposed) or with a one-month topic ban. It appears that the floor is open for your decision. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't able to get on for a few days; I see you have closed this - thank you! For future reference, please do take whatever action seems appropriate when I'm not online; I'm not always able to be on every day. No need to wait for my input. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom request: Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

NoeticaTea? 03:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Declined at 11:11, 22 August 2012. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This may be of use to those posting here

Having trouble finding words to express your opinion of me or my admin actions? Take heart, there is a resource for your use: The Shakespeare Insult Kit. No need to search for the perfect wording, simply use this handy tool! KillerChihuahua?!? 21:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

[Very interested.] Ha! Excellent resource for teaching people a lesson! I'm a put that link on my page to remember it. Maybe one of you pribbling rump-fed apple-johns out there would like to create an automatic tool for providing instant random combinations, huh? HINT HINT@RexxS and Br'er Rabbit! darwinbish BITE 23:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC).
The great RexxS took hint! [Darwinbish comes within an ace of thanking RexxS, but restrains herself in mid-air and regains her foothold on the cliff of ungraciousness.] Automatic insult tool now on my page, try it! :-D darwinbish BITE 10:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC).
That's awesome, but why YOUR page, was MY find! ptah. You have too many monsters in your pockets. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Finders keepers. My hint, and my greater need for instant insults to use, due to having more obnoxious personality! [Haughtily :] But feel free by all means, steal Bishzilla's useful resource from her page too, be my her guest. darwinbish BITE 11:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC).
I used to have a book like this. It's probably in storage somewhere. My favourites included "you fat and greasy citizens" and "[your] horrid image doth unfix my hair". :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't pick a favorite. They're all so amazing! Although I admit, the unfixing of hair is a good mental image. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Now available for everyone (purge page for new insult):

Thou fobbing spur-galled vassal

KillerChihuahua?!? 11:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
For no good reason, this reminds me of my favourite quote from Macbeth: "Hautboys and torches. Enter a Sewer". . . dave souza, talk 13:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
But there is a very good reason! Because it is Shakespearian, and because most of them read like "enter a sewer." KillerChihuahua?!? 13:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to be foolishly pedantic, my recollection is matched by wikt:sewer#Etymology 2 that Shakespeare meant a servant carrying a ewer, or at least sorting out the seating arrangements which I didn't know. Hautboys is of course oboes. So it wasn't Macbeth as an early version of The Third Man, but expect you already knew all that. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
lol, love the Third Man reference. Neatly done. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

SPLC - FBI

First I have utmost respect for your experience and accomplishments and mean no disrespect (i.e. don't want to be on your bad side of all people but I'm still here because you are fair every time you can be). So to begin, I know you do not like others quoting you on your own talk page. You made statements on the Talk:Family Research Council regarding the relationship between the FBI and SPLC. A lot of editors believe what you stated as well, that the FBI listing SPLC as a resource means that SPLC is RS by being the FBI resource on Hate Groups, or that the SPLC is helping the FBI to define Hate Groups. First the FBI does not like to engage civilians unless absolutely necessary. More importantly there is a verifiable version of their relationship which is that in 2006 the FBI created their Cold Case Civil Rights Initiative which was intended to focus on racially motivated killings from the Civil Rights Era which had never been solved. They identified 108 possible cases. In February 2007 the FBI sought assistance from the NAACP, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Urban League to help investigate those aging unsolved murders. Well you can read the 2010 announcement yourself: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/march/coldcase_030210/civil-rights-era-murders-joint-initiative-yields-results I understand this to mean that the SPLC provided assistance and data for pre-1967 cases which the FBI had already determined were hate crimes. Also the SPLC created itself in the 1970's to financially drain the KKK and White Supremacists up until mid 90's. There is not a modern interaction between FBI and SPLC anymore. If anything the FBI is solely engaged with Terrorism where their hate groups are killing people. I am here because your statement and beliefs carry an exceptional weight across Wikipedia though we may try to pretend you are simply just another editor. Ok, I'm stopping now. Yendor (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that KC has a certain gravitas here at Wikipedia which may influence some editors. But then again she earned that distinction, so who are we to begrudge her that? Regarding the SPLC relationship with the FBI, Yendor has made some observations that I have made myself. Discussion is taking place over at the SPLC talk page regarding this relationship and whether to include it in the lead. I would encourage both of you to come over and discuss.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yendor, what I dislike is someone posting a link to a diff and then going on to paste part or all of the linked diff, or pasting my comments with no diff. It is redundant if the diff is included, space consuming whether or not the diff is included, and annoying regardless, as either there is redundancy (if both) or no way for me to find the comment I made in context (if no diff.) As you didn't paste a diff, I'm not certain what statement of mine you are disagreeing with. To the best of my recollection, I said that the FBI links to the SPLC as a trusted resource for hate groups, and that is easily verified by simply looking at the FBI page in question. Links are given to the following:

  • Shepard/Byrd Act Brochure
  • Justice Department Civil Rights Division
  • Justice Department Community Relations Service
  • Southern Poverty Law Center
  • Anti-Defamation League
  • Federal Civil Rights Statutes

under the heading "resources." As I made this statement as an argument that the SPLC has the trust and respect of the FBI, and not in any other context, I'm missing where you think I've erred in my rationale. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that "resource" part on the website was my biggest red flag. I think far too much was being read into that entry. But after discussion and a few new sources were found we made a great improvement to the SPLC lead. Please check it out.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

you revert on Euthanasia

It seems you were unaware of the current and very long discussion[3], due you made a revert[4] ignoring absolutely that discussion which precsisely goes on the content you have restored. I encourage you to revert your last edit and go to discuss to the talk page, in order to work for consensus instead of inciting edit wars. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, read the whole darn thing. The idea that following the law can be described as "avoiding prosecution" and still be somehow not POV, inflammatory, and biased in the extreme is absolute nonsense, sorry. Please cease your bizarre campaign to frame it that way. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It would be better the you familiarize yourself with the facts instead of spreading this nonsense. I have reverted your edit and put up an explanation on the talkpage of Euthanasia. The Banner talk 20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I've already replied to you on the article talk page. No need to post here again; I assure you I am watching it. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

AE

I thought that this indicated such a pattern of edits are a recognized problem for the community. And then there is the personal attack on me which I cited, in the context of the EE general sanctions. Was I wrong to consider those two issues problematic? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where the edits are specifically problematic; and NPA is not specifically an AE issue; even if they are, what text in that diff do you consider a personal attack? Please be both specific and concise, thank you. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
To repeat what I said at AE, I feel quite offended by that claim: "'Old WP:EEML is not gone, at least the most of it. I belive that no one can honestly doubt VolunteerMarek, Piotrus and other members have changed their ways". I have worked hard for the past two years to regain the trust of community, and I find unfounded claims to the contrary quite offensive. I asked MK on his talk to refactor this, he ignored my request, hence given the fact that the claim was made in relation to an EE-article discussion, and M.K is subject to this warning, I lodged a complain at AE. I hope this is clear and concise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
You are telling me you don't like a remark MK made; he doubts that you've changed; that's not a personal attack. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F states "some types of comments are never acceptable" and lists "acusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." I'd have thought that the above comment fits this particular example very well, and in addition that it was a clear violation of AGF. Where am I mistaken? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Doubt is not an accusation. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok... I will have to think more about this one. Perhaps it's the fact that I am not a native English speaker. I thought that there is no significant difference between saying "X is a troll" and "I doubt X is not a troll", but if you say there is... good to know. Thanks for your input. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The difference is not always clear cut; but as you were, in fact, sanctioned in the past, and he is saying he doubts you have changed, it does make that not a personal attack. Had you never been guilty at all then "I doubt he has changed" would mean nothing, and "I doubt he is not (insert wrongdoing here)" might indeed be a personal attack. But he is not doubting that you are not a troll, or doubting that you are a kitten-kicker, he is doubting you have changed. And that is a concern, not a personal attack. I wish you well in your efforts to redeem yourself. MK still has doubts; this is natural. He may take more time to convince, or he may never completely believe you have changed. This may be sad for you, but it is not a personal attack. Your example, however, of saying "I doubt you are not a troll" could be a personal attack. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I see what you are saying, but I don't think I can agree with the conclusion that once you have made a mistake, you have to concede to be haunted by it for the eternity. I even wrote a wiki essay on this very subject. Your interpretation of NPA and editors history suggests that once somebody has made an error, it is ok to constantly bring it up and criticize them based on their past mistake. I do not think this is fair. If editors are sanctioned, it's one thing, but once sanctions expire, they should be treated as having a clean slate, unless there is a very good reason for bringing up history (as in, clear evidence that it repeats itself). M.K's has not presented any evidence to substantiate his doubt, he just expressed it, which I think is an unsubstantiated comment on others, and one that certainly goes against AGF, which clearly states: "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." As such as evidence has not been presented, I think that the discussed comment is a clear violation of AGF. Over my 8 years here I've been in conflict with a number of editors. I have, however, seen many of them change, and I am always trying to assume good faith, and approach them assuming they have moved on, and our past differences can be put aside. While Wikipedia:Forgive and forget is just another essay, not a policy, I do think that doubting others is a violation of AGF and thus, NPA. That said, I am always willing to be corrected; per your comment on AE I've asked Ed for a second opinion. If both of you will agree that I am overreacting, that there has been no personal attack or AGF violation, that this comment does not merit any action, not even a warning, and thus, that bringing up others past, no matter how old a cited misdeed was, is an acceptable part of wiki discourse, I am willing to save us all some time and withdraw my request. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No one is saying you have to "pay for it forever." I'm saying that yes, your past is with you here - less and less as time passes - and that while you are well within your rights to tell MK he's hashing over old, dead, dealt-with issues, his mentioning doubt simply does not rise to the level of a sanctionable offense. If he starts stalking you, and bringing it up everywhere you edit, yes. This comment? no. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a reasonable way of looking at things. You are right, he has not been commenting on me often (at least, not this year, and I really try to forgive and forget with regards to old days). So you are saying that even if this was a personal attack, it may be best to drop the issue, as a gesture of good faith and reconciliation? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It would certainly help your reputation as a patient, helpful and conciliatory editor more than making a fuss at AE over one comment, which is not much of an attack, if it even qualifies as one. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Very well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood

Right before you protected the page, someone removed the sentence "Eastwood has seven children by five different women, although he has only married twice" from the end of the introduction. I was wondering if you could put that sentence back.

Also, the Personal life section should be put before the political interests section, and Music should have a category of it's own because that has nothing to do with his personal life in the way that relationships do. 64.134.231.156 (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to use {{editprotected}} on the talk page - but the protection should have expired by now anyway. Sorry I wasn't here to answer this when you asked! KillerChihuahua?!? 21:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


Pudeo moves Mothers' Rights to Mothers' rights movement

With reference to Pudeo's move I've contacted him[5] and asked Tim Canens[6] to review it. I'm also dropping you a line as the sysop who's had the most experience of the men's rights probation. See my comments to both Pudeo and Tim for more details but frankly Pudeo's action looks quite pointy in that it references the RFC at Talk:Fathers' rights movement for his move of the Mothers' rights page--Cailil talk 23:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree it looks a bit pointy; however he seems to be claiming it was simply being bold, which is acceptable. Of course his claim that the discussion on Talk:Men's rights movement has any bearing is not useful; but as no one has complained, perhaps no one cares, or even thinks the move is a good one. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

LOL

I can't help but laugh at the fact that I replied to what your comment was not about, then you replied to my comment that wasn't there. Awesome. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And did you notice you fixed the link in your message after you'd removed it? (or was that a different message?} The servers are wonky today is all I can think. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I was starting to feel guilty after starting that thread at the bot noticeboard and people started to pile-on that guy, so I wasn't checking my edits very carefully at that moment. Oh well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Eh, lesson learned on his part I'm sure. It was ill considered although I'm certain good intentioned of him; and seems to be mostly over. I agree people were a bit hostile, but at least he is learning first hand about Wikipedia disputes. ;-) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

Thought you might want to chime in on this. Cheers! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Background on user at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy

I saw you had replied at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Ad hominem editing?, while you were replying, I was posting more of the timeline and specifics at User talk:Dennis Brown#Continued disruption by socks of a user you blocked - feel free to review. Basically, it's a user who was blocked for disruptive editing and trolling, who is continuing their wikilawyersing on multiple talk pages. Their claim of an "improvement" was actually a policy proposal to allow them to claim their talk page rant should not have been deleted. My personal belief is that all their existing threads should either be deleted or collapsed under WP:DFTT. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information - I suspected such might be the case, but wasn't certain. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Employment Data via Bureau of Labor Statistics

Thx for your message.

The link is: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001

Regards, --cgersten 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

You need to take that information to the talk page of the article where you want to add it, and start a new post and say what you want to add and that you will be using this as the source, and discuss it with the editors there. This is the wrong place to put this. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

You've got mail!

Hello, KillerChihuahua. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Activism1234 04:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, read and replied. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Comment on my page

I havnt been to the 'evolution' page in a long time? Can you read dates? Stop posting garbage to my wall or i will start doing it to you. Jinx69 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Check the history; I didn't post that. Someone else did,[7] you removed it, then several editors in turns reverted you,[8][9][10] and I reverted back[11] to YOUR version WITHOUT the warning. Take your time. Check it carefully. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

AE

Dear Killer Chihuahua,

I was the one to suggest to an admin to look into Fut.Perf.'s history[12][13][14] before Fut.Perf. opened the AE case. So, I also brought my initial grievance to AE. I changed the "lied". JCAla (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And yet that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the issue at hand, which is that you incorrectly opened a duplicate case on AE with the names reversed. This is inappropriate, regardless of who bitched, whined, complained, or asked for help about the other editor first. If you were the Archangel Gabriel and the other editor were Azazel, then you still don't open a second case. All parties' actions are examined, and all are open to sanctions, including the one who opened the case. This is clearly stated on the AE page. Please read the big pink box on the top of the page carefully.
Good call on changing "lied". However, it should not have been necessary, and should have been done because you realized it was inappropriate when it was pointed out to you, not because it was "requested"[15] KillerChihuahua?!? 16:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I apologize for this, I can put my grievance below my case if that is more appropriate? I hope, it will be taken into account because that has been looming for a long time now. JCAla (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I see you have already done so, on both cases. I assure you, this is not necessary nor desirable. I have pasted my answer there as well, I trust we are now done with this particular question. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't post the whole background history of Fut.Perf. under my case, also I didn't lay out the concrete violations. So, I would have to move the background to my case then. Of course only those information not yet mentioned under my case. JCAla (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Which is precisely what you should have done to begin with, not open a duplicate case. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Then I will do this now as I assume the second case will get closed to include it into the first case. Just checking, not that I will be accused of double posting. JCAla (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do so; I advise you to be concise, and include diffs of any behavior, and avoid insults and speculation regarding motives. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I am going to be busy the next days, so I won't find the time and neither am willing to sacrifice more time to comment much further. While the hounding behavior by Fut.Perf. needs to be investigated and stopped, I have a proposal with regards to how we could continue without disruption on the Massoud article and see more clearly through the issue. My proposal is the following. I will let Fut.Perf. edit that article for three weeks, let him conduct his changes without interfering while an uninvolved administrator or editor checks the edits. Then Fut.Perf. lets me edit that article for three weeks without interfering with another uninvolved administrator or editor checking the edits also. I am not going to touch his edits present in the article, except for cases of serious objection which shall be brought to the talk and changed only after consensus on the talk is to do so. Fut.Perf. is not going to touch my edits present in the article, except for cases of serious objection which shall be brought to the talk and changed only after consensus on the talk is to do so. This way we can present information and counter-information in a balanced way and a third party can check for policy conformity. The lead needs to have a separate solution because it's hardly possible to edit it without changing content by the other. JCAla (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, but as I won't take it on, my talk page is not the place to suggest it. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Am going to copy it over there then. JCAla (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Obviously unacceptable anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, it certainly doesn't fall under normal discretionary sanctions. Mentoring is sometimes an add on, however. Regardless, though, this page is the wrong venue for that proposal. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom appeal

I've appealed the restrictions on that article. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. I'm a party why, precisely? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
It was against the backdrop of these restrictions and the previous request for amendment that I filed my report. It was not a simple content dispute occurring in a vacuum; the recent discussions about the novel restrictons and their potential abuse were highly relevant to my request. Ankh.Morpork 20:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the complexity is becoming rapidly apparent. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
They'll write books on it one day! --Jethro B 15:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!
Hi KillerChihuahua! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma

I notice that you voted for a topic ban without waiting for any reply from GPM. Does this accord with your standards? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll happily change it if convinced otherwise, but the evidence is fairly damning. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's disappointing to realize that it's easier on WP to get away with persistent disruption of the encyclopedia than with occasional, isn't it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vandalism warning warning

Template:Vandalism warning warning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Men's rights DRN

*Sigh*, I've just come across the one thing I'd hoped never to see on WP:DRN - a complete misinterpretation of policy by one of the volunteers while trying to help in an area under probation. These comments by Guy Macon are bizarre[16] - he seems also[17] to have completely ignored what both Slp1 and I wrote showing where we posted the sources + quotes. The issue here is about WP:V and WP:NPOV and Guy has dismissed a series of academic publications because in his opinion they're not academic. This is precisely the kind of help every content dispute at a resolution board doesn't need. Even more so when the dispute is in an area under probation. This raises two issues for me
1) can we believe in DRN to handle complex matters in 'hot' areas if we don't vet volunteers' knowledge of policy like they do at MEDCOM
2) Does this issue WRT men's rights need supervision (from sysops, like yourself who understand the terms of the probation)
Sorry for being melodramatic BTW I'm really disappointed in this - no wonder we have to deal with so much stuff at AE if DRN and other projects are giving this kind of help--Cailil talk 23:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC) I've striken the above - Steven has resolved this as only he can--Cailil talk 01:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems I missed a little drama while I was gone. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, now that I've scanned the page, the dispute appears to be ongoing not closed. Is there anything specific of which I should be aware? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi KC, sorry for the slow response I'm off wiki ATM and will remain so for a number of weeks. There are a series of issues here:
1) misconsructions of policy (specifically NPOV) being used to stonewall discussions
2) a complete system failure at DRN (and a startling refusal to hear the point about it by the volunteers Steven of course handled it well but only dealt with it very briefly and did not in fact have any input on the dispute).
Crucially for me DRN was used IMHO by the two volunteers to reinforce their opinions on the subject NOT the policy or source positions. I believe this is major and could/should be put under the microscope. Straight forward ABF by those who self-identify as neutral outsiders is unacceptable and has frankly escalated the dispute. I warned the volunteers in question and Steven that their lack of care was dangerous to this issue but nothing was done to adjust the actions of the volunteers. Steven made a comment on DRN's talk page which I believed resolved the whole matter but was ignored by both Guy Macon and Amadscientist
Also a series of allegations about me (of an ad hominem nature) were made and Amadscientist refused to redact them see Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_8#A_notethe archive of WP:DRN's talk page.
At this point I'm of the opinion that under a strict reading of the probation both DRN volunteers infringed it. (They also outright ignored the input of outsiders who are not DRN volunteers - showing a serious issue with that board.) I'd welcome a review both of the DRN thread & all involved, as well as a review of current discussion on Talk:Men's rights. I was told to take a hike by Amadscientist even after Steven requested I not leave. I was left with no option but to withdraw.
I can give a few further diffs/links but as above I am under extreme work pressure and wont be on-wiki often--Cailil talk 20:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
It's late here as I read this so I won't try to untangle it all tonight; I did scan the linked DRN talk page discussion and am a bit concerned about Amadscientist's response to Stephen Zang, and his understanding of what is and is not an ad hom. However, that is now archived and therefore a closed issue. I will do some spelunking as soon as I can, hopefully tomorrow, and let you know what I find. Unfortunately, there may be little I can do for you. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
KC, on a related note, could you please take a look at the edits by one User:Memills? He added this laundry list of supposedly very important MRA organizations, an addition clearly in violation of WP:ORG and WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. His additions were reverted by Kaldari and Binksternet but Memills restored the contested list. It was removed again, this time by Kevin Gorman. Memills reverted again, see [18] and [19]. This in my opinion borders on a refusal to get the point if you consider that people have been responding to him and another editor on the talk page, explaining why they shortened the list. I'm also concerned about possible BLP violations. Memills keeps adding people to the list of "prominent men's rights authors and activists" [20][21]. My concern is that some of those people have never actually self-identified as MRAs and perhaps would object to such a categorization. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Aw, I just saw that you already confronted Memills, though on a slightly different issue. Thanks and keep up the good work. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

ptah. After edit conflict (yes I know some of this makes no sense now):

You may have missed that I have already warned Memills twice now, and there is a current discussion where I warn him specifically against edit warring against consensus and his EL violations. I have advised him to gain consensus prior to making such changes in the future, and if he edit wars again I will unfortunately be forced to take action. Please try to work with him on the talk page, and remember that patience is necessary as he clearly does not understand some of our policies. Let me know immediately if he edit wars again, in case I miss it. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

New section about ID

In the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design article you state that undirected is not the synonym of randomness or chance.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/undirected?s=t states that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.179.144 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not in this instance, no. Feel free to bring it up on the article talk page. -- KillerChihuahua

Please don't abuse the term "harassment"

You're using the term "harassment" very liberally. The question was perfectly justified and it can hardly come as a surprise to Atshal for the reasons I outlined on the article talk page.

Like I also already said, I'm not going to further press the point but strongly felt it needed to be raised. If you see absolutely no reason to be particularly mindful in the case of Johann Hari's article, fine. But please don't throw ridiculous accusations of "harassment".

Asking honest questions is perfectly fine, and not "harassment". Inappropriately using that term in situations like this one only weakens the case against actual harassment.

If he isn't Johann Hari, he should see how the question might arise in light of the Atshal account's editing history and a simple "No, I'm not Johann Hari, but I see how that question might arise given my editing history" would have sufficed and isn't too much to ask under the circumstances. --87.79.105.193 (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

We disagree. Leave him alone. You've asked, not once but multiple times, and you will cease such harassment or there will very likely be consequences to you. Note: if you are not the same editor as before, do be aware I can block multiple IPs, and whoever pursues this agian, will be presumed to be party to the harassment. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
or there will very likely be consequences to you -- Not very likely, no. The only thing would be a rangeblock against my ISP, but that's not going to happen, primarily because I never engage at any one location for any prolonged period. So, please don't embarass yourself further. I am indeed the same IP editor. And like I already repeated to you and which you impolitely keep ignoring: Like I also already said, I'm not going to further press the point.
However, given your onwiki involvement with certain individuals who have had onwiki and offwiki relations with left-wing British writers, your accusations and threats might end up looking very bad in an Arbitration case. Just a thought. Now go petition for that rangeblock, I've said my piece and moving on. Like I already said three times. Are you going to ignore it a third time? --87.79.105.193 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am going to ignore this rather strange rambling. It makes no sense to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
OMG, you've been associating with individuals who have been associating with left-wing writers? Bishonen | talk 15:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC).
Yeah I know, it's news to me, too. I'm horrified... or at least, I probably would be if I had the faintest idea what he's talking about. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Satan is British? I know Hollywood commonly casts British actors as baddies, but that seems a stretch. Also, what books has said fallen angel wrote? Struggles to think of currently available left-wing Brit authors. However, am reminded of the ancient Scots language joke: What's red in colour, has one wing, millions of arms, and udders? A left-wing military coo. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
No wonder the Scots are known for being dour... their jokes are terrible! KillerChihuahua?!? 17:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
You think that's bad? I have in my possession (on a shelf somewhere, I hope) a copy of the Edinburgh Courier from 1852, which has a column of witticisms. One of which is rather similar to the above. Can't remember the spelling, but in Scots "aw" or "aa" means "all". Question: Why is the King of France more powerful than the Pope? Answer: The Pope must govern through his bulls, but the King of France can make a single coo dae it aw. . . ouch! . . dave souza, talk 23:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that one's fairly funny. --Puppy (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Aaooooooo! LeadSongDog come howl! 16:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Johann Hari

The rules at WP:BLP do not say that a blog is never acceptable. They say that a blog is acceptable if it is done by a professional writer and subject to editorial control. See here! I disagree with your reading of policy and I stand by what I wrote, although I have thought of ways of wording it better. I can see that Blottr is a borderline case as to whether it's a respectable source of news, but there was also this piece in the Telegraph. Epa101 (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only thing I've said on that talk page was a warning against harassment[22] You must have meant to post this to someone else. However, now that you've posted here, allow me to comment that whoever you're arguing with is correct: don't use a blog on a BLP except in very narrow circumstances - the blog by the subject of the article might be acceptable for what that person said, for example - but no blog is acceptable for negative information on a BLP. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
You posted on my talk page here. I meant this comment for you, and you have since reversed my edit of yesterday. The information that you've provided on BLP does not seem to support your position that a blog is never acceptable: it just says that a blog has to come from a reliable source, such as a professional journalist in an established newspaper, and not just someone anonymous on Blogger. I don't want to start an edit war, so I shall take this to WP:RSN for consideration. Epa101 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Extremely negative stories about living people require extremely good sources, and these opinion pieces don't appear to reach that standard. Being described by The Church Times as a "blood-crazed ferret" doesn't really add to the credentials of a blogger in that context. . . dave souza, talk 21:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's just humour. Even professional journalists have senses of humour. I've put an article up on WP:RSN with more sources, including one that went before the Leveson Inquiry. Epa101 (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


Someone please crosslink to blpn, with link back to rsn. Thnx from kc --Puppy (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

unplanned problems

This is killerchihuahua, my netbook has locked up and may be dead. I will be unavailable for an unforeseeable period of time. I will be available again as soon as possible. Ps: editing Wikipedia from a phone or small tablet is a pain. --Puppy (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Up and running again. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 14:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Another addition to MBD by same IP you have warned with blocking

Hi! Since you were the nice admin who came along and rescued me from fighting in the wilderness seemingly alone, I wanted to let you know that the same company has been added to MBD today by the same IP. More than likely you have this on watch, but just in case, I'm inquiring if you can block this IP straightaway, or does this need to escalate with a notice elsewhere? I'll be happy to revert again, but where do I go from there since they've had a final warning. All the best Fylbecatulous talk 13:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for bringing this to my attention - I have about 5000 pages on watch and don't always see these things. I have blocked and also semi protected the page. I am so sorry you were lost in the wilderness alone. If you ever find yourself in the desert, abandoned, with one drop of water left... no wait. You know what? Go ahead and ping me here well before then, and I will do what I can to help.  :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 14:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, thank you so very muchly ツ Fylbecatulous talk 15:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:V

The answer to your question on WP:V is the RFC at Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC, which directly addressed the wording of the lede section. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, I missed an entire Rfc on V. Bah. Ok, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
FYI... the sentence was still contained in the policy... it has simply been relegated to a footnote. I have made it more visible by shifting to a parenthetical. Let me know what you think. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the parenthetical to the footnote, definitely, but then again, had I known of the Rfc I would have argued vigorously for keeping it in the lead. Let's see if your ref to paren tweak holds. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Nope... didn't stick. I have opened a discussion thread at WT:V to discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes

Hi, pending changes still hasn't been endorsed by the Wikipedia community, so it shouldn't be enabled on pages. Furthermore, if semiprotection is enabled too, it renders PC-1 pointless since the new users whose edits would need review can't edit anyway. I've removed the pending changes from Newsvine. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm misclicking like crazy today, sorry. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving, KillerChihuahua!
As we all sit down at the dinner table and say our thanks, I would like to give thanks to you for your wonderful contributions and wish you a very happy Thanksgiving. May your turkey, ham or beast of choice satiate you until next year! TRA! ```Buster Seven Talk 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
A traditional Thanksgiving dinner.

Thank you so very much!!! One thing I am thankful for is wonderful editors like you, who make editing Wikipedia so rewarding. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Coming from one of the fairest admins, That is indeed a gracious compliment. "Back 'atcha." ```Buster Seven Talk 19:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You are too kind. I try; I hope I will always manage to live up to your compliment. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Spatchcock your turkey.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: November 2012

No problem, just let me know which vandalizing act you refer to? Hima78 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I can see now [article]. Please review that part because first of all...which war is referred to? there was no war going on at that time. Secondly, which Usama are they talking about?? I made my edition based on the sources quoted there. Please check them out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hima78 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Impolite behavior by some users

Dear user KillerChihuahua,

I would like to thank you for your message in which you stated that it would be better to just ignore impolite behavior by some contributors. At the same time, I am very sorry for the delay, I was really busy... I can not, however, agree with you. I believe Wikipedia should be based on mutual respect. I also believe that wiki contributors should exchange ideas and scientifically based arguments, not insults. Some users, instead of trying to understand others' contributions and thoughts and replying to them using arguments, they just reply using contemptuous insults. Can we just ignore that? I believe if this kind of behavior is not pointed out and if contributors behaving impolitely are not warned then blocked, this behavior will spread among the community members and then things will turn out of control. Regarding user Omar-Toons, he is also problematic in the Spanish wiki as he has been blocked many times [23] he also used impolite language as you can see here [24]. He is problematic as well in the Italian wiki as you can see here [25]. We can not just ignore impolite comments as we can not just ignore vandalism. Fort-Henry (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are you here on my page? Do you want something from me? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Get stuffed

Happy Thanksgiving
A big thank you from me to you.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Aw, thanks!!! I hope your Thanksgiving was lovely and you got stuffed, too! KillerChihuahua?!? 15:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing

Just in case you missed this[26]. I thought it was worth dropping you a line given the sanctions Memills is under (I realize he can edit teh talk page but this is pushing it even for someone not under a topic ban)--Cailil talk 14:52, 25 November 2the 012 (UTC)

The point of his having talk page access is so he can learn to follow policy and Work Well With Others. If he soapboxes, you can ignore him or simply tell him he is soapboxing. If his suggestions run afoul of any policies, tell him so briefly, if you have time and feel like educating him. Encourage him to learn what NPOV actually means, especially UNDUE - he seems to think it means SPOV (sympathetic) which of course it does not. If he gains no acceptance of his ideas on the talk page, the article will not change as he thinks it should - which will hopefully teach him about CON and how it works. If he makes personal attacks, let me know, but long winded pointless soapboxing is not (generally) against the rules here. I'm hoping he'll learn that badgering or pontificating does not generally lead to consensus, and learn to discuss the article with an eye to improving it in cooperation with his fellow editors, and sometimes people need to make mistakes in order to learn. He seems to have a lot of trouble with understanding how Wikipedia consensus building and NPOV actually work, but denser people than he have learned and we can have hope that he will too. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep - the Jason Russell talk page

I did a couple of reverts - but the other party seems to enjoy his "attention". Perhaps you might opine? [27] shows his single-mindedness thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
FYI, the BLP has been restored.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if s/he makes this edit again, or continues this, please take it immediately to ANI. This is ridiculous. Be sure to add the links to the previous ANI as well as all 3 BLPN discussions, and if you feel like putting in the effort, the multiple talk page discussions might not come amiss. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

My talk page

That's fine, but ClueBot'll probably move them to an archive soon with the headers. Was planning on doing that anyways though, just never got around to it. ⁓ Hello71 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, glad I didn't offend. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Memills (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr Hankey

Sorry for the confusion about the purpose of that subpage; I should have put an explanation at the top of it to start with. If you want to oppose the selection, I think the place to comment now is Raul's talk page. As I said at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Christmas, if he takes a different view to me and decides to unschedule it, so be it. Regards, BencherliteTalk 13:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was editing Before Coffee, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning header for Men's rights articles

Can you add a edit-warning header to the various articles under sanctions? If you try to edit Paul Ryan you will see an example of what I mean. I've no idea how to do it myself (in fact I probably don't have the permissions) but USER:TParis probably does. Ta.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean an Editnotice, when you click Edit this page, etc??? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the edit notice. Thanks.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that can be done. It's kindof a pain, though, because you have to create a template for each page under probation. I suggest you come see me at my User:KillerChihuahua/sandbox for tweaking it, then it needs to be copied to {{Editnotices/Page/Men's rights movement}}, and then again to {{Editnotices/Page/Other article}}, replacing "other article" for each article you want to add the editnotice to. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • NOTE Make absolutely sure you don't add the editnotice to any page which does not already have the talk page notice. If the article falls under the Men's rights movement umbrella and simply has no talk page notice yet, go ahead and add that before making an editnotice. If someone reverts you, please let me know, or ask on ANI, don't argue about it, ok? It will save grief. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, LGR, you still with me here? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, RL called me away for a few mins then I got Stiki-sidetracked. I'll get back on this later. Thanks.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Just wasn't sure if you'd seen that I'd replied. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added one to the main Men's rights movement article. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked through your history to see what you did, but I'm not sure I have the permissions to create an editnotice on a page outside of my userspace.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. It's admin only now. Just let me know which pages you think need them. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A malicious edit

Hi KillerChihuahua (and what a nice nick !!!)

So, there is this page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathan_jokes

An editor User:Mar4d added this to the page: at ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathan_jokes&diff=422109426&oldid=421118850 ) "... "stupidity and sex" are relegated to Pashtuns. "

A user 111.68.103.164 who has been issued notices of warning before changed the above edit at ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathan_jokes&diff=474124375&oldid=464556430 ) to this:

"... "stupidity and homosexual sex" are relegated to Pashtuns."

The original article used for the reference ( a poorly written article and that too from an unread blog at http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/1114/did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-pathan/ ) has the original words:

"..... stupidity and sex".

The user 111.68.103.164 wrongly and in my opinion (being a Pashtun) maliciously edited this article. His noteworthy contributions among others are that he blessed us with this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cytherea_%28entertainer%29&diff=prev&oldid=362525578  !!!!!

anyways, thats not it, while trying to remove such malicious edits we are encountered by the user User:TopGun who puts in this nonsense so that the nonsense that was put in by another cannot be removed. ".....homosexual stereotype.[citation needed] "

at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pathan_jokes&diff=476493838&oldid=476492685

Lastly, there are editors of wikipedia who have certain agendas and biases. Please take a look into this and help end the nonsense. Also a warning to the users might help them avoid such "misunderstandings" in the future. Thank you. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The edit by User:Mar4d was in April, 2011. There is nothing to do about that now. The edit from the IP was in 2010, and was immediately reverted, so that's not worth bringing here either. The content from TopGun can be removed, due to not being cited, regardless of what he puts in hidden comments. I have already done so. You may remove any content using that blog as a cite, it does not meet WP:RS standards. Lastly, if you link to a username, be sure you type User: before the name, or the link won't work. I've fixed your links above. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and will do. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad I could help. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Trolling/ Vandalism ?!

Hi KC,

On the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amu_Darya

A user from the IP User:174.26.142.159 edited this page and did the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amu_Darya&curid=3067&diff=526972493&oldid=526484363

The original text was: "......In the traditions of the prophet Muhammad " changed to: "......In the traditions of the prophet MIke (hadith)" Obviously it was some troll edit, I undid the Vandalism but I wanted to describe it here so that if the same user does more trolling in the future we would have a reference. (is he going to be issued a warning now or the second time? cuz I dont precisely know about how that works.)

Thanks. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You can warn a vandal; use the templates found at WP:UWT. For example, if it is their first time, you can see on that page that you use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, simply place that template code on their talk page, followed by four tildes for a signature ~~~~~ and it will become the full warning message when you save. You do not have to be an admin but you do have to be sure when you warn: do not warn for bad edits which are not vandalism (see WP:NOTVAND and do not place warnings for old instances of vandalism. A good rule of thumb is if it happened more than 24 hours ago, don't warn. Be sure to check their talk page first to make sure they were not already warned for the vandalism you are warning them about. Now, the Mike Vandal may be someone who meant no disrespect, but who was simply checking to see if he could edit Wikipedia. He's probably a schoolchild named Mike, and he's probably in a predominantly Christian country, and may only think of Mohammed as a cool name. He has made no other edits[28] so we can't know for sure. So, err on the side of WP:AGF and don't use the vandalism template. Use the test edit template, {{subst:uw-test1}}. If you are absolutely sure the edit is vandalism and not a test (like this edit, for example [29] then use the vandalism templates. Once an editor has gotten to three warnings within 24 hours, you can report them to WP:AIV for blocking. Be sure to read the instructions there. KillerChihuahua 11:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

EthicalV

Hi KC - hate to bug you with most stuff about this, but could you look over the contributions of User:Ethicalv, w/r/t the MRM probation? Some of his contributions definitely fall under the aegis of the probation, although not all of them do, and he's certainly violated the terms of the probation in areas covered by them. If you don't think that most of his work is inside the sanctioned areas I'll take it to ANI when I have the time. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

My time is going to be really, really limited over the next couple of weeks, I'm afraid. I will look when I have time, but please feel free to take this to ANI; if he's causing problems admins there can help you out whether his actions are under MRM probation or not. KillerChihuahua 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The wonders of too many problems and too little time :) If you don't have time, don't worry about it. I should have time to put together an ANI on him sooner or later. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Your importance is rising

[30]. Ucucha (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL, thank you for this! KillerChihuahua 21:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Allisgod (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I managed to sleep through that one, without even being able to make a response. Anything you'd care to complain about directly to me? KillerChihuahua 12:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7

I have mentioned your name at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tomcat7. I have filed the RFC/U on Tomcat7 do to his continued edit warring and other concerns. Your input would be helpful as I named you and your interaction with Tomcat7, specifically making the warning about the Friedrich Eckenfelder page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can add anything; as you know I only reverted and warned trying to end his edit warring and WP:TE about sourcing and tags. I did take a look and saw he'd been inappropriately threading comments, so I removed them and posted a link to the guide on his talk page, so hopefully the Rfc will run better now, if nothing else. KillerChihuahua 00:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Signing Talk Pages

I don't sign talk pages because its difficult for my fingers to reach the shift and the tilda key at the same time. So I let signbot do it for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

( Cross-posting to user talk page)
So use the button, above the edit box. Looks like a pen with a signature started. Click on it. There is no excuse for intentionally not signing. Signbot is not everywhere. KillerChihuahua 16:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Vsmith

hello, i wasn't attacking vsmith. In fact its him who called my edit not just promotional, but a blatant as well. The problem however is that vsmith is using wikipedia for promoting his personal views which resulted in the page medical uses of silver to be absolutely biased towards negative. Just read the vsmith and the article talk page observing his replies. He even disallowed wp:medrs to be used. Ryanspir (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Nonsense. I was the second person to tell you you'd violated the WP:NPA policy, and we're both looking at your edit implying[31] that Vsmith is insane or at least mentally unstable. You violated our policy against attacking other editors, and if you do it again and I see it, I will probably block you. So the way forward is not to complain to me that you didn't attack Vsmith; that won't wash. The way forward is to stop attacking other editors with whom you have a content agreement. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 13:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please specify

Please specify if you meant that all the suggestions were accepted or not? Refering to WP:evolutionQuacod (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Just the one I did. You had a second suggestion above, which was unclear to me; you may wish to try to explain what you think should be done and why on the Talk:Evolution page and see what other editors think. But the one I did was obviously the wrong word, perhaps due to edits by multiple people, but probably an accidental typing of the wrong word. KillerChihuahua 13:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Have a most excellent chrimbling-yule. Message ends. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And the same to you and yours. :-) KillerChihuahua 14:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Darwinian Venus Flytrap for you for Christmas

Christmas treat for you in box, mind your fingers!

Merry Christmas (whack!) Cool fighting santa hat, isn't it? darwinbish BITE 11:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC).

Ooooooohhhhh, me loves! Thank you!!!!! Who made cool image? Is perfect!!! KillerChihuahua 13:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

To my talk page watchers: PLEASE READ

I want to offer holiday greetings to all my fellow editors, but do not wish to spam anyone with unwanted messages (I know there are mixed feelings about this sort of thing); so I am asking for everyone who would like a holiday greeting from me to add: {{subst:User:KillerChihuahua/HH}} to their talk page. Please add only to your OWN talk page, thanks - KillerChihuahua 21:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Gotta enjoy those winter roads. Best wishes to you now and happy editing - whenever possible - in 2013. MarnetteD | Talk 21:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I graciously accepted. What a thoughtful way to gift. ツ All the best to you this season and for the next year. Fylbecatulous talk 21:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both, I am so happy you like it! KillerChihuahua 01:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
May all your paths lead to the Golden Road of Unlimited Devotion. We ain't even begun. Thanks again:) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops. Forgot this part: Track 3 — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Hah, too awesome! Thnx AM. KillerChihuahua 13:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A seasonal hello..

"OK, who brought the Christmas Tree?"

Winter solstice greetings!

-- dave souza, talk 14:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC) {thanks to KC for the frame)


Thief, thief, Baggins, we hates it forever! I mean.. Thank you so much for the thoughtful holiday greetings! KillerChihuahua 14:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, since the photie was taken in May it's more like summer holiday greetings, but snow always looks seasonal. Thanks awfully for your kind thoughts and for the formatting which I shamelessly pinched, dave souza, talk 15:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
You are more than welcome... but mightn't you want to change the colours a bit at least? 15:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Is all a bit technical for me, so have spread a simpler message elsewhere. All the best for Xmas and the New Year, . dave souza, talk 15:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Eh, I'd be happy to do it for you if you wish. KillerChihuahua 16:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Sheepish season's greetings!
Thanks, that's very good of you, have a bit of a cold and am not at my brightest. Do please change it as you think best, and I'll treasure the new template. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Ack, I spent the day with family and coming down with a cold. :-( Next year, ping me earlier in Dec and I'll make whatever template you like. Meanwhile,plaster this on whatever user talk page you like, with my blessings. KillerChihuahua 04:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the very helpful offer. Good news about family, sorry to distract you from these priorities, bad news about the cold and hope you soon overcome it. Mines has dragged on and off for a couple of weeks, isn't too bad but am self indulgent and tend to laze about pretending to recuperate. Much more importantly, have a Merry Holiday and best wishes for the New Year, dave souza, talk 12:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Desoto10

Could you please warn this editor for using the article of medical uses of silver for not a constructive discussion in order to improve the article? He posts there personal inquiries, his views and not connected material. Also could that material be please removed from the talk page? I'm refering to his reply of some disclaimer in the section of congressional testimony. Ryanspir (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

Provide diffs of the behavior, please. KillerChihuahua 04:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Happy Holidays!
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Conversion therapy

Hi there. I was wondering if you'd care to elaborate on your revert at Conversion therapy. Not that I mind being reverted - but there's an edit war brewing, and I was hoping to head it off with some sort of compromise; if you think my choice of compromise was ineffective, I understand, but would you be willing to help me think of another one before things get any uglier? Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you folks come up with, it needs to be policy-compliant. The current version is not. Belchfire-TALK 03:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
And this entire discussion needs to be on the article talk page. I am sure you both read bullet point #3 on my editnotice: Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. KillerChihuahua 11:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

Hello, I was wondering if you could assist me with my question. How can I edit the Ashkenazi Jews article? I wasn't a part at the dispute and I want to add some references to the article. Thank you! Guitar hero on the roof (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is protected, use the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page; but ensure you have gained consensus for the edit first. KillerChihuahua 02:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request Evolution

My reply was not answered on the talk page of evolution and I was hoping you would. Do you care to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talk • contribs) 22:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming many people, like me, have been busy and or traveling for the holidays. KillerChihuahua 02:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello KillerChihuahua: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Thank you! Happy New Year to you, too! KillerChihuahua 02:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for talk page stalking and protecting my user page! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are quite welcome! I have about 5k pages on my watchlist. I should probably clean that out a bit. :-/ KillerChihuahua 17:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews protection

I am of the opinion that this article should be permanently protected. Leaving it open will just create further edit warring, so it's best that people be required to obtain consensus before implementing their edits from now on. I have no idea why the protection was removed.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking me to re-protect the page? KillerChihuahua 19:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes.Evildoer187 (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll take a look, and if there is enough recent edit warring and/or vandalism I'll re-protect; if not, I won't. In the future, I suggest you request protection at WP:RFPP. KillerChihuahua 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I would have preferred a permanent lock, as there will just be more edit wars once it's opened up again. Thanks for taking a look, at least.Evildoer187 (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
We don't ever do permanent protection, and indefinite protection is almost always for templates and such. If an edit war breaks out again, go to RFPP and mention the page just had 2 weeks followed by 3 weeks and request a longer period. KillerChihuahua 13:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thy user page

I'm sorry, but this just irks me a bit. I noticed the usage of the proverb 'thine' in thy user page, but I saw you used it in the plural second person possessive while it was once used only for the singular. - Rex (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The entire section is a self-mocking mashup, and has been on my userpage since 2005. You're right, of course, and I've fixed it. :-) It wasn't supposed to be entirely sensible, though. KillerChihuahua 18:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Hello KC. Sensible or not :-) I enjoy reading and rereading your userpage. Indeed, when things get too crazy or melodramatic around here your userpage ranks right up there with User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior in being able to put things back into perspective. Cheers MarnetteD | Talk 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so very much!!! I am glad if it helps in any way. And the comparison is high praise, indeed. I love the Observations. KillerChihuahua 22:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Burden of WP:V and blue

THANK YOU for your comment! I thought I was the only one who felt this way. We definitely need to work on changing the wording of WP:V, WP:BURDEN and related pages. Nightscream (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the burden has always been on the one wishing to add content to source it. I am unaware of anyone who disagrees with this core concept. I'm glad if my input helps in any way. It is a pity Elonka is being so hostile and defensive about this; she really has no ground to stand on in this instance. KillerChihuahua 06:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thanks for trying to help. --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish it had worked. :-( Last time I was on Elonka's talk page was to deter a bad case of IDHT from someone who would not leave her alone, and she thanked me for helping. But she is blind to the fact that I am trying to help now, when I try to discuss her knee-jerk hostility to disagreement or any kind of constructive criticism. You saw what happened - lashing out with personal attacks and accusations, serious ABF... I don't know how to reach her and help her to see how wrong that is. Thank you btw for your very cheerful and humorous attempt at pouring oil on the waters. Pity that didn't help either. We can only try to help, though... she has to be able to accept help and she's not open to that. KillerChihuahua 19:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Cease and desist

KillerChihuahua, it is my opinion that you are harassing me. I have a long list of antagonistic communications from you towards me, both on- and off-wiki. Accordingly, I have asked you in email, and am following up here, that you please cease all communication with me. Please remove my talkpage from your watchlist. Please stop talking about me, in any venue on the project. Please do not send me any further emails. I will do my best to abide by the same restrictions from my end. If you continue with the attacks, I will be forced to bring ArbCom into the loop, but I would really rather avoid that. So please, can you just stop? Thanks, --Elonka 17:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You're joking, right? You spam me to death with emails, each one with a different line, and now you tell me to stop bugging you? And you never answered the question I asked; Why, AFTER being informed it was insulting and rude, did you AGAIN remove psts from well-meaning editors with the SAME insulting edit summary, unless it was your express intention to be as rude as you possibly could without breaking any civility rules? And finally, don't ask for my phone number and then threaten me with ArbCom when I refuse to give it to you, that's just bizarre. What is your case going to be, I emailed KillerChihuahua and asked for her phone number, make it stop? KillerChihuahua 17:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe they want a doggie date?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what the freak she wants. She emailed me and said she wanted my phone number. I said I wanted to keep it text, and I'd prefer on Wikipedia for transparency, but ok if she wanted to keep it emails, and asked about her edit summary. Then she emails me back, with "You think I'm an ogre" (no, didn't make that up) and ignored the question. I said, no, I really, really don't think that, and asked the question about the summary again, different phrasing. She's like, you are harassing me! I say, Wtf? You want my number so we can work it out, and when I say no, you are like "Bitch get off my page"? And then she threatens me with ArbCom, because of.. I have no idea why. But it's one of the weirder exchanges I've ever had. KillerChihuahua 17:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Exact phrase she used was "you see me as some sort of evil ogre". KillerChihuahua 17:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds unstable. Probably best to ignore all communication.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I am always willing to try to work things out with other editors, so when she emailed me I didn't see this coming. Just too weird. I don't think it was a setup, either, I think she really doesn't realize how Jeckyll-and-Hyde it looks from this side of the screen. You're right, though, I have no intention of going down that rabbit hole again. KillerChihuahua 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinion

Hello, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the following discussion on my Talk page and offer an opinion.

User_talk:Ubikwit#interaction_ban_violation.3F

Both of these more senior editors would seem to have not read the IBAN parameters, with the comments by Mathsci becoming somewhat harassing.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to respond to him, you know. You can simply ignore his posts. Or remove them - but do so politely, with a neutral edit summary such as "seen and read". KillerChihuahua 11:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll leave the insulting statements made by that individual up for the time being, as I'm not sure that I won't be filing an AN/I report regarding them.
The reason for that is partially that I am under a topic ban that applies to articles and the respective article talk pages, by not my User space (and other user's User spaces to my understanding), and am considering posting some draft proposals and the like related to the lead sentence of the Jerusalem article once the RfC has progressed.
I've been stalked by user Shrike, who attempted this report User_talk:Deskana#Thank_you, and then there are the two recent comments, which lead me to believe that there is in fact a group of editors whose affinity based association tends to predispose them to targeting me due to content disputes. Please see this discussion User_talk:FiachraByrne#Religious_modernism.
If there is such affinity group-based behavior by the editors involved, then I should document it before appealing the topic ban, is part of my take on this situation.--Ubikwit (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I really, really think it would be an incredibly bad idea for you to write draft content in your userspace. I am not at all sure I would not consider that a violation of your topic ban, should I be asked my opinion. The only possible use for such content is in the article, and it is really not an appreciable difference between writing in your uSpace and copying/moving to the article, from writing it in mainspace (an article) to begin with. Do not do this. Write in another area. Choose something from Category:Articles needing cleanup, or help out with Category:Articles lacking sources, or hit Random until you find an article which needs expanding, or sourcing, or cleanup. Do not try to slide around your topic ban by writing mainspace content in your uSpace. Puppy has spoken; heed her words. KillerChihuahua 16:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I am listening intently to what you are saying, but it raises the question as to the scope of the ban, which I have attempted to confirm with the imposing admin and receive a non-answer response User_talk:Deskana#When_you_have_a_chance.
I would assume that the topic ban was imposed in relation to perceived disruptiveness on my part, which would obviously not apply to anything I post in my uSpace. Am I missing something here?--Ubikwit (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're missing something here, which is why you have the ban in the first place, and whether writing content in your userspace will violate that intent. You need to edit other topics, not wiki-lawyer your way around the fine print. That's about as clear as I can make it. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want to try to be "blunt", you might want to find the guts to say what it is you think I'm missing. There is not fine print involved, it's black and white. Do you understand that? I don't particularly care for being accused of "Wikilawyering". It seems like administrators like you think that be being vague they can entrap people.
I'll be up front, now that you've got my attention, I will file an AN/I report about the harassment by Mathsci to clear these issues up.
Cheers.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought I was being clear. You (this is anyone, not you personally) are given a topic ban to keep you away from the topic, in the hopes that working in other areas, where you are not so invested, you will be able to contribute without drama. If you are unclear on anything, ask. No admin that I know of ever tries to "entrap" anyone, ever. If we're unclear, ask for clarification. KillerChihuahua 17:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Ubikwit, somebody like you who has already used up a lot of time from admins and on noticeboards should be using caution at this point. It is not out of the question that you can be indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Prove to us that you have good intentions, and stop stirring up a ruckus wherever you go. If you start making pages in your user space related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, that would serve as an invitation for any admin to formally extend your ban, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA, to cover all namespaces. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Ed, I'm not trying to "stir up a ruckus", and I don't believe that I've demonstrated anything other than "good intentions". It seems to me that there are some double standards around here.
In the following AN/I discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#topic-ban.3F, for example, relating to a user that has proven to be a sockpuppet, there was also discussion relating to the scope of the topic ban for that user, such as this diff.
I have not stated that I intend to "start making pages" in my user space, just post some potential versions of sentences for the lead of an article I'd been working on for some time and which is in no way connected to the IBAN. So what exactly is your meaning of "disruptive"? If the ban does not apply to "all namespaces", then why am I being threatened and hounded? Mathsci has accused me of violating "the spirit" of the IBAN, for example, and Wikilawyering, and he is not even an admin. KC is an admin and has also mentioned Wikilawyering regarding "the fine print".
The parameters of the IBAN are defined, but those are being questioned by a non-admin user who perhaps doesn't agree with my POV on pages he is also involved in discussions. The scope of the topic ban has been defined--apparently--but no one seems to think that the scope is really that which has been defined, and are seeking to arbitrarily extend it in a defacto manner through issuing veiled threats. I have asked for clarification of that scope and received an evasive answer, which was the equivalent of a non-response, as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps there is a need for clarification relating to these issues, and these discussions are a preliminary probing of that question. --Ubikwit (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Ubikwit you are displaying a bad case of WP:IDHT. Here in this section, I have told you to edit other topics, Ed has told you that if you "start making pages in your user space related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, that would serve as an invitation for any admin to formally extend your ban, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA" - Let me boil that down for you - any editing of the subject could be construed as starting. So your response should be "oh ok, thank you for letting me know! I'll go edit articles about cows or something" - but instead you have the argumentative post above, where you quibble that you're not going to start writing pages, you're just going to be writing sentences that would go into existing articles (that would be a great example of you wikilawyering, by the way) and you fail utterly to get the point. Stop. Writing. About. The. Arab. Israeli. Conflict. AND related subjects. Now, go do that. Stop bitching about how unclear everyone is being, because if that isn't clear enough for you then I really cannot help you. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 16:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Hello,

I am contacting you regarding some advice.

We have a new map that is somewhat controversial, the discussion developed and because it was based on 1 obscure source, I thought that is a case of WP:Fringe. After that the author of the map added 2 more sources , academic books, published and genuine but can`t be checked online.

Since I am really in doubt that this additional sources does not support this map(especially since they were added after the creation of the map) I am asking for advice what is the practice in this situations where we have sources that can`t be verified online on a somewhat controversial subject?

Thank you in advance, AdrianAdrian (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We do not require that references be online. You might want to check with your local library to see if they have either of the books used. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Even if the subject is controversial? No verification is needed? I have already checked in my local library, those books are not available. Adrian (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, perhaps I was unclear. I did not say, nor did I mean to imply in any way, no verification was needed. I said it doesn't need to be online. Books and magazines, if they meet WP:RS, are as acceptable as online sources, and may preferable. KillerChihuahua 18:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You are quite welcome! KillerChihuahua 19:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Why undo my edit and call it minor? The sentence I deleted is irrelevant now that the Supreme Court has scheduled argument for a specific date and we have noted that date a little further down in the article. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I rolled it back because you removed a reference, leaving the content in place. KillerChihuahua 22:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cookies for you!






Viriditas is wishing you Happy Holidays!    
Enjoy your cookies and have a great 2013!
Just realized I never thanked you for this! Thank you so much; I hope the year to come will be all that you could hope. KillerChihuahua 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There are replies at...

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Add The Signpost to the main menu

The Transhumanist 13:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

TTH, it appears you are canvassing. I advise you to either notify everyone who had an opinion, or notify none. KillerChihuahua 17:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding and Undoing Changes?

It's disappointing that you follow me to a page you have never edited and instead of discussing with me a valid addition I made, you just undo the entry. I feel this is the exact same hostile approach which I protested in the past to deaf ears. I believe your contributions to Wikipedia are contaminated with this kind of behavior. Allisgod (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you miss the post I made on the talk page and/or my edit summaries? KillerChihuahua 18:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, you mean what you wrote after undoing my well sourced entry without any evidence to back up your claims? Allisgod (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
No, I mean my post explaining why I think Carl Sagan does not fit the criteria for the list, regardless of how many sources describe his views as pantheistic, or sympathetic to pantheism. You seem to misunderstand how WP:BURDEN works: I don't need a source to prove a negative; you need sources to include content. And your sources do not make a strong enough case for Sagan being an influential or evangelical pantheist. KillerChihuahua 18:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
No case will be strong enough for someone whose primary objective is to follow around another contributor who publicly complained in the past about that admin and looks to undo his edits. You need some Wikicounseling. Allisgod (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Since that's not what I'm doing, I will ignore your suggestion. KillerChihuahua 19:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

Are the editors who blanked the sections new editors? Why am I receiving a message, as if I had done something wrong?--R2016 (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read the edit summary for the edit you reverted, and you will find there were reasons given for the removal of the section. You received a message because you called the edit you reverted vandalism when it was not. Don't do that, especially if the editor you're reverting is new; but don't do it, regardless. Read WP:BITE and WP:VAN#NOT. KillerChihuahua 21:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

interesting editor

User:Rhode Island Red is extremely active on Frank L. VanderSloot (by far the most active editor thereof). I fear he might be a teensy bit overactive on it. He has accused me of backing socks, of having a COI, of tagteaming and collusion etc. on a regular basis, and seems a touch unable to accept that some people might deign to disagree with his opinions about BLPs <g> Had you run across him in hte past or might you take a look before I actually lose my temper about him? At this point, I think he might give "SPA" a bad name. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I have not been onWiki for a few days. I will take a look now. KillerChihuahua 02:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have looked, and I can't say that I can see a clear BLP violation. If you're speaking of his company being a MRM, it appears to be a valid issue, and debate is lively and ongoing, and RIR is not the only editor to think it should be in the lead; regarding the aspersions on your character, it appears he has slowed on that front, and I hate to come in a few days later to say something if it appears the behavior is already coming to an end; I'd hate to stir it up when it's on the downslide. I've added the article to my watchlist; but feel there is nothing really actionable at this time. I will try to keep an eye on things, but cannot promise my online time; my r/l is simply too busy right now to guarantee I'll be on very often. If the situation devolves, I suggest you try to enlist other input into the situation. KillerChihuahua 02:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Typo, then server overload

Thanks for correcting that really embarrassing typo. I saw it after save, then suddenly the servers all stopped somehow. Must be the new data center or something. Anyway, I should always preview. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I have a slow connection and almost never preview... I typo all the freaking time, I feel your pain. Please feel free to correct any obvious typos you might ever see me make, especially of keys next to one another which lead to such unfortunate typographical mishaps as was the one I corrected for you. I am glad I was able to (hopefully) save you any embarrassment, and that you did not mind my intrusion in correcting your typo and took it in the kindly spirit it was meant. KillerChihuahua 21:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The coincidence was the servers suddenly slowing down. In any case, just another day on Wikipedia. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for this correction. Refactoring another editor's talk page post was clearly justified this time. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, and thank you for understanding why I did it. I generally avoid editing others' comments, even when it looks like a clear typo, but in this case, since the editor is already so confused I thought it best to try to ensure she didn't get even more muddled. KillerChihuahua 15:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Abraham

You're accusing me of introducing a Christian bias to Abraham? That's a new one for me, I'm usually seen as a godless atheist :) PiCo (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, then, you Christian-biased-godless-atheist, what have you to say for why you aren't also an Anitsemitic-Jewish-Islamaphobic-Muslim-apologist like me??? Huh? KillerChihuahua 21:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

IPv6

Hi, you recently blocked 2602:306:ced4:270:488a:159:ef1a:8710 indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. However, since this is actually an IPv6 IP address, not a user account, and thus will likely be shared among multiple users, I have shortened the block to 31 hours. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that, thanks. KillerChihuahua 03:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edit on my Talk page

Please tell me that what you put on my Talk page is a hard-coded template, because otherwise you came across as extremely condescending. RNealK (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's part of the speedy deletion admin helper, which I thought was a part of twinkle but now I'm not sure. I can try to dig out where the actual verbiage is if you want to go bitch at the right party. KillerChihuahua 06:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Based on your edit summary it looks like you were using Ale jrb's CSDHelper. Legoktm (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Could not remember which tool it was. Didn't even think to look at the edit summary. KillerChihuahua 06:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The actual wording is right here in your userspace, KillerChihuahua – you are evidently using an outdated version of CSD Helper... — This, that and the other (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, fine, fine, make fun of the senile puppy.... Is it really out of date? Why don't they send notices when new versions come out? If Adbobe is one second out of date, I get nag messages. KillerChihuahua 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, now that you are using importScript, you will automatically get the updates, so you can relax now :) — This, that and the other (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
No, now that I'm using import, it isn't working at all, which is the problem I had before. KillerChihuahua 02:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
That's weird. Does your debug console show any errors? Legoktm (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Scripting here not really being my thing, I will go ahead and humiliate myself and display my ignorance to ask, "debug console???" KillerChihuahua 03:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

More fun

Would you mind having a look at this and advise? I'm also not sure if the editor's user name is within policy. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've usernameblocked, that's clearly the name of the school, and that's not allowed. I'll go look at the edits now. KillerChihuahua 12:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
And I've left some advice and links. Btw, you did an astonishingly good job breaking down what was wrong with the edits to R&I - that was a lot of work, and I thank you. I was dreading that when I got back today. KillerChihuahua 13:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been trying to stay away from that nightmare (primarily because almost every sentence of every article in that topic space needs several hours vetting before you dare touch it). But after you mentioned the good Dr. Rubenstein I really could do nothing else. Hope I got it right. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You have no idea how guilty I've felt about that. I feel like I betrayed him, and he was so nice. He emailed me not long before he died, asking me to help keep an eye on it. Please do stay on and help there, I cannot do it on my own. You "hope you got it right"? Hah, you did far better than I was doing. KillerChihuahua 13:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sent you an email about the source you were looking for. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Lovely, thank you - I'll take a look. Not sure how much time I'll have for this over the weekend, but I'll do what I can and get back on it Monday for sure. KillerChihuahua 13:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Already mentioned

Taron has already got a Wikipedia article about her and is already mentioned by name in the article on Swartz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.5.186 (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Great, then source and link, and be prepared to discuss whether the detail you added should be included in the article on Swartz, or whether it is just too much detail. KillerChihuahua 16:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Socialism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Socialism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

KC, thanks for your strong expression of support during my recent RfA. It meant a lot coming from an established editor like yourself. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome; be sure to read the Nuetral and Oppose views carefully, and learn from them. Whether you decide to try again in the future or not, improving oneself is always a good thing. KillerChihuahua 20:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to note about Abortion and Mental Health

Hi, My edits were made after reading the actual statements made by the Associations in question. I was not attempting to convey my own opinions,within the article, but merely repeated what the APA actually said. The statements of the APA, the same words I referred to when making my edits, were not according to my own beliefs on the matter, (which I do not care to discuss on Wilkipedia) and I made the edits with a view to increasing factual detail and accuracy. These are the actual words of the 2008 Executive Summary of the APA's findings "In considering the psychological implications of abortion, the TFMHA recognized that abortion encompasses a diversity of experiences. Women obtain abortions for different reasons; at different times of gestation; via differing medical procedures; and within different personal, social, economic, and cultural contexts. All of these may lead to variability in women’s psychological reactions following abortion. Consequently, global statements about the psychological impact of abortion on women can be misleading." retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/executive-summary.pdf

I do appreciate your message, and your request for discussion and know we have a shared goal of keeping Wilkepedia accurate.Rivka3 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't leave you a message, unless you are a sock of User:Ste11aeres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). KillerChihuahua 22:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

R&I article

As you note the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, you should consider your own conduct in this matter. You have made just as many reverts as Black, but have contributed much less to the talk page discussion. Many of these reverts have involved extensive deletions. In addition, you have contributed to the excessive personalization of the dispute in several ways. Try to keep the discussion on the content. You should also avoid further reverts and deletions without discussion since it makes it difficult to discuss every change when you are making them so rapidly.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're counting correctly. I'm certain I'm considering my edits. I'm not sure why you are posting on my page about keeping the discussion on content, as it was Guettarda who began the discussion about behavior. KillerChihuahua 02:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Here: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. It does seem you have not made as many reverts. Black's recent revert means he now has one more revert than you. However, I wouldn't consider five massive reverts instead of six to be any big mark in your favor. Particularly when some of your reverts involve multiple deletions over several edits. As to why I am not leaving a comment on Guettarda's page, you have made several edits and comments beyond just that talk page section that are of concern. Plus, it is not explicitly forbidden to create talk page sections to discuss the conduct of other editors rather than content, though I would say it is generally frowned upon.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm not interested in taking a straw poll to determine what percentage of editors think such discussions should be frowned upon, prohibited, or ok under certain circumstances, or ok under all circumstances. I seriously doubt it would be worth the trouble. That said, it still puzzles me why you're talking to me about it, since I didn't start it. I don't think you should bother anyone about it, actually, but as long as you are, I don't see why you chose to post here instead of on the usertalk page of the person who actually did start that section. You already know from my talk page comments that I don't see any serious issue with it, so you can hardly be expecting me to go talk to him about it. Your approach is confusing to me, and seems rather pointless. Regarding the edits, they were not all reverts, although BH's were. Now, I think we've said about all that can be usefully said on the subject. KillerChihuahua 03:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive_20&oldid=1148840423"