![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You asked what FT2 was talking about. Perhaps he was referring to this awarding of cupcakes vs your more recent opinion? Just a guess, I don't know for sure. Chillum 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I often find myself in need of things being pointed out to me. Chillum 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You posted at RFAR today (summarized to make the comparison more blunt):
"An admin who[se]... friends come before policy... she should not have Wikipedia's trust... An admin who knowingly aids and abets... a sock account... is also grossly guilty of violating the community's trust. [Such a user should not] have the admin tools, having proven they are untrustworthy and place personal friendship over the community, the project, and policy."
[1] In three ways worse: Geogre was an admin, not merely applying to be one; he was actively stacking and abusing, whereas the undertow had behaved well for months; and the stacking directly benefited the concealing party, whereas the_undertow's did not.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Asking a question that is directly relevant to a matter of admin misconduct and admin ethics, can in no way be described as "harassment". You throw such terms round very loosly. I asked a question related to your stance in a dispute and RFAR matter. "Yes", "No" or "I don't want to answer that" would be valid answers. "You're harassing me by asking!" isn't. The question stands. FT2 ( Talk | email) 03:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
KC, your comment on this page pretty well sums up what I was curious about - the specfic differences between that situation and this one. I read FT2's post as "Holy crap, they did the same thing, add'em as parties", then re-read and struck, as you note. I ask for clarification mainly because others may have read what I did, and it might be useful for Jehochman to clarify the differences between his position then and now - read in vacuum, without context, FT2's comments sound quite serious. I think that any clarification from Jehochman will ultimately strengthen his point, not weaken it. And a solid trout-slapping to me for feeding the ZOMG drama. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You previously warned Ed Poor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about inappropriate behavior on the topic of Unification Church/ Sun Myung Moon. You cited Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Ed_Poor_placed_on_Probation, and your most recent warning was [3]. He acknowledged he saw the above comments from you at his page [4]. Ed Poor has a self-admitted conflict of interest on the topic ( I'm secretary to a major Unification Church leader and I am staunchly pro-Moon.). He has since gone again to make a change in article-space based on his own assertions of what he believes to be true, based on his COI, rather than secondary sources [5]. Might be time for some other action to be taken. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to add any more unsourced information.
When I wrote Let's not delete the references I meant:
Okay? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
KC, is this an acceptable edit? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the congrats and the lighthearted humor! I'm currently taking a WikiBreak, but I'll definitely keep your name in mind if I need advice. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For using the journalist Robert Parry as a source in a dustup with a supporter of Rev. Moon. Parry is one of the best American journalists around, and I support those who use him for sourcing Wikipedia. Great work! Jusda fax 02:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hey KC, sorry I didn't get this to you last night, when I moved it out to main space, I moved it to the wrong name, and then there was some scurrying around to fix it - anyway: Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I just saw your message that you aren't feeling well and just want to say get well soon. :) Thanks for the messages to me too. Hurry and get well, I hope it's just a bug that grabbed you and a 24 hour one at that. Get well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 10:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(I originally posted this to User talk:SB Johnny, since you were away, but then I saw your post on AN/I.)
Would you *please* come to Talk:Sarah Palin and do the uninvolved admin thing; we have an editor who is acting in an extraordinarily disruptive fashion, and since you and SBJohnny are the go-to admins on this topic, I'd appreciate you stepping in and doing something. My next step is going to be requesting a topic ban at WP:AN; let's see if you can talk him off the ledge.
I don't understand why you fully protected that article for so long, when there were 1RR and 0RR restrictions that attempted to resolve the issue (you didn't even comment on either of them). The article hadn't been edited for 19 hours. The article keeps getting protected in hopes that it will resolve an edit war (though in this case, there wasn't even an edit war going on) and it accomplishes nothing. Could you please undo the protection and instead participate in enforcing the editing restrictions? Scribner has been approached by several users, myself included, and simply removed the warnings from his talk page. If other editors need to be warned, then that should be done. But please reconsider the protection of that article. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
[7]. Can you now please leave me alone? I made a mistake even involving myself here. I admit I fucked up, please stop rubbing it in. Majorly talk 13:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Some say a picture is worth a thousand words. [8]. I found this in the shredder. It seemed like evidence tampering to me. Hidden agendas and the like. If not, I apologize. If so, for what its worth. -- Buster7 ( talk) 14:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
What happened? I thought you and another editor or two were going to save this FA? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, it's just that I turned my attention away from it because I thought that several editors had committed to fixing the article so it wouldn't be delisted. Cla68 ( talk) 00:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope you feel better. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thanks much, I am drinking fluids and napping much.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice
19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
... but just know that your talk page stalkers are wishing you well (soon, no rush, but sweetly soon), dear puppy. Proofreader77 ( talk) 08:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
'parantly, User:Born Gay was somekind of sock/meat puppet. ( Although, I think it's wrong to besmearch the Meatpuppets, one of the finest American rock bands, ever IMO!)
Just in case you didn't already know all of this stuff.... Best regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
Further information about the "first citizen journalist" claim has become available, and I am not satisfied it is a valid claim. Because of that, and as I mentioned in the comments below my 'vote', I've changed my opinion to 'delete' on that AfD. Since you cited me in your 'keep vote', I wanted to inform you of my change in position. Cheers! Prodego talk 03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." Nitpyck ( talk) 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the birthday note. The years seem to go by faster and faster, don't they? Cla68 ( talk) 07:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You posted a comment in the first attempt to delete the BLP of Ray Joseph Cormier It is nominated for deletion again. Would you please take another look? DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
... please do! It's a wiki after all! My writing can really suck when I'm scribbling drafts. Thanks! :) Antandrus (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Love this dif. :) (Feel free to edit topic title. lol) Proofreader77 ( talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I noticed you finally took down your not feeling well banner. I hope you are feeling better now and that you stay that way. I'd like to see you back to your happy puppy self again. :) Take care of yourself. All's going well with me. Recovery is moving along greatly. I finally lost both the walker and the cane. Now we are working on getting my left arm back in action. Take care sweetie, -- CrohnieGal Talk 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thanks, I see no need to feed that particular fire. I appreciate the heads up, however. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 05:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, Killer. I see you are on the Mediation Committee. I wonder if you could check out the current situation on the Karl Rove page? It's not serious yet, this is atm a mere heads-up.
To be extremely brief, there are 2 editors there I am in substantial disagreement with (one of whom has been warned about edit-warring on the page previously and has reported me for incivility with no action taken, and the other new to the page.) Both have revealing edit histories, in my view, given the subject matter. I am reluctant to react further to what I see as WP:BAIT. Prior to starting the possibly time-consuming process with the MC, which I have never previously done and am reluctant to do, I thought I'd get an uninvolved admin to take a look. Thanks for any time you can spare to this matter. Best, Jusda fax 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. My memory isn't always great... I see I awarded you a Barnstar; now I remember that I liked your work. I'm hoping despite this, that you will look into my issue. Should you feel the barnstar makes my request a COI, could you please hand this matter off to someone you know to be reasonable? I am not asking for a POV from left or right, but mere reason. Thanks, and best wishes to you always. Standing by. Jusda fax 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
When all is said and done, I felt you were a decent AUSC candidate. I am confident you'll get in and do a good job. Cheers. Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Postlethwaite claims you were involved [9] in an alleged investigation of Sunray's mediation. In light of this reply [10], I am asking you for a detailed, on-wiki report describing the duration and extent of the alleged investigation, with a summary of all evidence considered in this case, including a clear answer on whether or not Sunray was contacted or involved in the alleged investigation and to what extent. Furthermore, I will need your view on the exact moment that Sunray ceased to be a mediator in this case. Your prompt reply is requested. Gimmetrow 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
...and wondered if some info I came across should be added. Jason Nodler and Tamarie Cooper have a new theatre company in Houston called The Catastrophic Theatre. It doesn't have a WP page as yet, and I considered adding a line on the IBP page about the new company, but wasn't feeling bold enough, being only a lowly wikisloth. Please let me know what you think. I'll look for your answer here. Thanks! ~ zerodark | talk 06:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
...but not that way ;-).
(Dunno if you're following that particular drama, so thought you should know why your ears are burning). -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:KillerChihuahua has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I essentially restored to my previous edit of Ayers, but added a citation. AFAIK there has been no discussion on the talk page regarding this since my last post, and I missed that someone removed my edit. I think my version should stand as factually accurate, cited, and npov, but I posted at talk in any case. Best, Kaisershatner ( talk) 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I willingly dropped the issue officially here: old ver [11], diff: [12].
Only message after this was to Alexh19740110 [13] to tell him I didn't share his views about AGW until Connolley marginalised the third party interventions (following diff) and then re-opened the conversation without further prompting from me [14]. Look at the succeeding edits and diffs to see who was driving the conversation. Dduff442 ( talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking any. I had one, "why are you here" and your answer is "to answer your questions" - this is circular. Looks like we have nothing to discuss. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 21:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Not my place here to offer anything but apology with dirt/soap option. :-) Let me know (I think some are taking bets:-) Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Proofreader, you are amazing. No soap no dirt just thanks for being who you be. :-) KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You had previously given Ed Poor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this warning: Ed, I'm not going to play your games. You've been warned; watch your step on Moon and Unification related articles. I will not hesitate to block if you continue to disrupt. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done.
Ed Poor has continued to engage in disruption at articles directly in his conflict of interest; namely attempting to remove info linking related organizations and front groups to the Unification Church and Sun Myung Moon, removing sourced information, and making disruptive page moves against consensus. Please see [15] and [16] for two recent examples. Enough warnings have been given at this point. Thoughts? Cirt ( talk) 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Your protection expired, and the vandals have already started in on it. I'm involved; can you reprotect it for a longer spell? Horologium (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on Matt Crypto ( talk · contribs) edits to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. He's repeatedly deleting references to the material being stolen, for obvious POV reasons. I've warned him already but I suspect he may need a firmer reminder if he persists. -- ChrisO ( talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret account 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
And it's back... Guettarda ( talk) 18:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the history of List of Unificationists ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? There was a bit of reverting going on, and if asked I will gladly self revert something if need be - but I thought that per WP:BLP, any unsourced, controversial information about BLPs should be removed forthwith. In any event, post the conflict, I moved all unsourced info on WP:BLPs to the article's talk page. Look good, for now? Cirt ( talk) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hrm, looks like some of these are sourced in their main articles. I'm looking at Bo Hi Pak right now. IMO you might want to make a list of the names you removed and go through them, slowly, verifying the sourcing on the main articles and re-adding to the List if indicated - including the source on the list, if you wish. I'm not sure where the rules are on that these days. I realize its a lot of work, but I think its worth doing. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Update: Now sourced and added back the (notable) entries, at List of Unificationists. Cirt ( talk) 12:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider refactoring your comments on AN/I — or at least toning it down a bit in future reports? A lot of them seem to be in rather poor taste. Calling another editor a 'bigot' is quite beyond the pale, unless you're prepared to back that up with some really damning diffs. As well, referring to Ed Poor's four-year-previous ArbCom run seems to be a way to attack and embarrass Ed, rather than to address any problems he might have in his (current) editing. Moreover, it's a weak argument, first because several of the supporting votes (which you chose not to copy into the thread) endorsed Ed as a strong supporter of NPOV, and also because as at least four of the opposing voters have sinced been banned outright for their socking and trolling.
From your signature, I gather that you brook little interest in being civil, polite, and courteous for their own sakes', but please try to bear in mind that you'll be a much more effective advocate for your arguments if you present your requests a tad more dispassionately. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Adding: As the issue is now resolved, I fail to see what would be gained by adding links which could only harm Ed's standing, such as it is, even further. I don't understand your insistence that I continue to add to the pile of what's stacked against him after he's been topic banned. If you're curious, I suggest you check out RationalWiki's page on Ed. It has a lot of the links you are probably looking for, and he actually was awarded an award for bigotry there. Its not the most egregious content I am aware of, but seriously, dude, its about as controversial as saying the sky is blue. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 21:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've read your first sentence and stopped there. NO, it was NOT. I'm really sorry if it looks that way but I took EVERY SINGLE oppose from that nom, in order to be thorough and not cherry pick, and only to establish that these concerns are of long standing. You might want to try to AGF a teeny tiny damn bit and not be so sure I have such foul motivations. I'm offline for a bit. I've had about enough of getting shit on by you and accused of motives I don't have, because of one bigoted troll who has been sanctioned several times by ArbCom and who apparently has enough nostalgia factor to get some sort of weird sympathy for the hole he dug himself. You have voiced your view; I have disagreed. Now be done with that and cease informing me, incorrectly, of my motives and thought process. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately JettaMann ( talk · contribs) has totally ignored the warning you gave him earlier. Please see WP:ANI#Persistent personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:JettaMann, where I've requested that he be blocked and/or topic-banned. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Bahahahahaha! I needed a laugh today, thanks a lot! KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 16:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
One last note for the holidays :-) ... I don't read everything on user pages ... but I finally read that Abraham Lincoln "tail." I like Abraham Lincoln. (lol) I did not know that one. But that quote is PERFECT for all kinds of (stupid) rhetorical occasions. Amen. (I now return puppy to her regularly scheduled episode of dramatic non-tv.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right, of course. I took one look at his userspace and jumped way too early. Thank you for the reality check, so to speak. Yours, @Kate (parlez) 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Killer, I was surprised to get a warning from you on my Talk page ( see diff here). I acknowledge your concern and will endeavour not to counter-revert WP:BLP reversions in the future. Madman ( talk) 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
KC, can I trouble you for an explanation of why you consider my analogy a "false analogy". As you pointed out I should not have insinuated that you did not have a rationale when you made the comment, but I have since apologized and I have stricken that insinuation. Perhaps you did not notice this, or the fact that I have asked for such an explanation. Thanks. PelleSmith ( talk) 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi puppy, I just came across this editor and before things get out of control well you'll see, that is if you are curious. :) never mind user name is spam, editor's user page is spam. The editor has already been final warning for spamming their site to the IBS article. I figure maybe nipping this one quickly will prevent a lot work along with preventing a lot of agrevations. If not interested, I'll wait and watch but I hate going to AN/I for obvious reasons. Be well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 20:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I struck my comment on the RS/N that made reference to the previous dispute. It was unnecessary and unproductive. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Pug Barnstar | |
Hey buddy, this is just to say thank you for putting the list of films featuring pugs into my userspace. You're a champ. I was telling my wife about it as we were making dinner and we are now going to start watching them all. I'll let you know how we get on. See ya around, Hands of gorse, heart of steel ( talk) 22:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
I've left a note about your block threats and edit warring here:
I do not find this behavior appropriate but I am not about to get myself blocked because you're goading me on. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I remember for some reason I used to be mad at your editing, but these days, I forget why. I seem to be in the position of agreeing with you on quite a lot of things (such as AGF not being a suicide pact, the Civility Police, and the Censorship Criers). Weird. Maybe it's because we're becoming part of the "old crowd" that have been here for over half Wikipedia's life? Sceptre ( talk) 01:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
put them in whichever orifice will give you the most pleasure. ;-) ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
What the-- it didn't work? Dangit. I was so hoping to get a really wicked buzz off of that autoblocking mechanism. Guess its time has not yet come. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't confuse maintaining a civil and goal-directed working environment with "censorship". If you showed up at a town council meeting, grabbed the microphone, and started ranting about all the things and people that you don't like, would it be "censorship" if someone turned off your mike?
Oh darn. Now I'm a bully. Its been a while since I've been accused of being an ABUSIVE ADMIN. I was beginning to think I wasn't doing my job. What a relief to know I'm still working that mop. Kindof a pity it didn't actually, you know, involve any Admin actions. But, we settle for what we get. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey! I have noticed your work in templates and was wondering if you could do me a favor. Would you create a template that says something like you have made a lot of good pages and you should request to be an autoreviewer? One more thing. Can you nominate someone to be an autoreviewer? Thank you. Btilm 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of WQA isbased on the stuff at the top of the page and a two month stint editing about a year ago before a long wikibreak. It's that neutral editors could sometimes intervene using persuasion and peer pressure to either tell a reporter they were overreacting or a reported user they were being uncool. Idea being to solve disputes without loading down administrators and in a more congenial manner than blocks. Ideally both editors walk away happy. Yes, that usually doesn't work, but it does sometimes and it's really cool when it does. Frequently one or the other (eventually) gets the idea their position doesn't have a lot of traction and goes away unhappy. And sometimes it's just beyond when can be accepted by the community and needs attention by folks with enforcement power; at this point the idea is to refer to AN/I.
If WQA is a place to be monitored by admins, it seems to me it's kinda just another AN/I, which isn't the vision as I understand it. Gerardw ( talk) 15:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you cannot block Peter Lee right away and have to give him a final warning. I am already happy with that, I feel I am now understood, so thanks! You seem reasonable and I trust you do take appropriate action if Peter Lee again calls my edits "vandalism", insults me or accuses me falsly... By the way, there are several typos in your message on his talk page, like the template: shouldn't that be {{uw-npa4}} i.s.o. {{tl|uw-npa4}}??? That doesn't do much... MarioR 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
What happened with the autosig code? I actually created the first one (okay, it probably already existed, but I thought of it). Btilm 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi KillerChihuahua! When handing out holiday cheer, my mom taught me never to forget the puppy. I would like to wish you the very best, and hope this holiday season brings you much joy. Zaereth ( talk) 01:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
... that dirt and soap eating would solve? :-)
PS One night right before I logged off, I noticed in the watchlist you said in an edit summary that you "liked" your talk page watchers, stalkers, etc ... And I know you've said things like that before ... but I didn't remember seeing it in the watchlist ... Anyway, the point is that it made me smile when I read it, and I turned off the computer for bed with a nice warm feeling. (I know, too much attention to the watchlist, but true. lol)
Bless the rest of your holidays and beyond. Proofreader77 ( talk) 10:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's lovely!!! I hope your holidays were wonderful! KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 14:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't investigated that software, but I saw your posts on Miami's talk page. You may have luck reopening the AfD. I had with OggConvert; sources were just ignored there. See background. Pcap ping 20:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi KC, you commented a few weeks ago on a speculative interpretation of a private e-mail, which you said was a violation of BLP (see Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 9#Removed per BLP). The issue has been raised again at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Two MMs. If you have any additional comments on the issue, please feel free to chip in. -- ChrisO ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
He's been making repeated, heated, personal attacks against me at the new chronology page. I left a warning on his talk page, my second suggestion that he adhere to WP:CIVIL (the first time he replied with more personal attacks) and noted that you had previously warned him quite strenuously not to make personal attacks on that particular talk page. Just a heads up. :) Simonm223 ( talk) 17:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, KillerChihuahua. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 September 2009
19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sent you an e-mail. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda ( talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear KillerChihuahua/Archive 17: Hello, my name is The Wordsmith; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, The Wordsmith Communicate 21:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Saw your run-in with this fellow on jadefalcon's review page. His comment to this review was his twelth edit. This account has my alarm bells ringing. Reading the User page, and his note here (second edit) just screams masked retread. This new account is obviously a BATTLEGROUND account. So what can we do? Auntie E. ( talk) 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Back in 2006, you commented on the last deletion review for this article here. The article has since been recreated and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fringe Theory Ground Rules 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,-- Swood100 ( talk) 15:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, very descent of you. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi KC, how are you doing? Listen there has been an ongoing problem with an editor vs. a lot of others that needs resolving. There were two administrators that tried to help out but have gotten frustrated and so now I'm involved and trying to get the needed help. If you are interested and available to at least guide me I'd really appreciate the help. I've never had a problem which required this kind of help before so I'm kind of lost. If you have the time with any of this or are at least curious let me know so that i can send you an email about it. I think this needs to go off to email for the time being. Look forward to hearing from you, -- CrohnieGal Talk 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please provide your view, as you asked if a source was found for it to be discussed on talk. TransUtopian ( talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Good morning, if you have time can you check out this? Unfortunately things are getting weird and I'd like to put a stop to it before it gets any worse. Thanks, I hope you have time to check on this, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am getting pounded by about 4 or 5 editors in the discussion. three who have just recently appeared on the page, with no prior input to it. Usual stuff - "you are in the minority here", forgetting what has been discussed etc. Maybe it is a dead horse I am flogging, I am not sure, but those editors sure think they have me against the wall. I'll admit my tone has been uncivil at times. It hard to keep cool, with how this page is being edited. I'll say nothing more to influence you either way. I am considering taking this to either mediation or arbitration. Not sure which. Have asked for editor assistance, but has not arrived yet. Would appreciate you to look in even if you chew me out. DMSBel ( talk) 11:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've got someone at the Prayer article who seems to think that describing points of view is the same as promoting them. Because I openly state my Christian faith I don't think this person is willing to listen to me when I say he just doesn't have a case. He even accused me of article ownership, and comments he made after his initial edit do not seem to be relevant to the edit itself. However, he might be willing to listen to others. Although no user warnings have been issued by either side so far (and I don't see that one is warranted - yet), hearing other opinions on this matter would be appreciated, especially from those who have stated POV's that are contrary to my own. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 04:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I monitor over 7600 articles now, after trimming back from 9400 recently. I sometimes spot something I'd like to work on, such as Lest Darkness Fall, but don't have the time. Please don't snark at me in your edit summaries. (I met Sprague during my honeymoon; and Harry and I were Guests of Honor at a convention together; I'd rather talk about that stuff than work on POV in the politics of Andhra Pradesh or correct vandalism to the article on West Bend, Wisconsin.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that there are a lot under "reconfirmation".
Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)
If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 18:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I happened across this today and remembered a note you'd sent me a while back.
A poem
There's way too much red tape on wiki Sometimes that tape is rather sticky You wouldn't be wrong, not by a particle, To say we each should write an article Instead of having to engage In drafting one more policy page Which (we lose sight of this) is very Clearly something ancillary Can't we all straddle this wide fence With just a bit of common sense? —(excerpted from a longer piece by Newyorkbrad)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR
The note was,
Please stop referring to Wikipedia as "wiki". "Wiki" is either a Hawaiian word meaning "quick" or a type of software. Wikipedia is a wiki. It would be like me referring to you, randomly, as "editor" and expecting everyone to know I meant you, specifically. Its nonsense. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems there's a bit of leeway there. Out of respect for you and unknown editors who may object to the apocope "Wiki," I have since made a point of using "WP." However, you may want to consider that many people quite innocuously say "Wiki." Regards, Yopienso ( talk) 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You are experienced enough to know you are warring on the Martin article, I have reverted to the version that has been stable for three months, I have also asked you more than once that if you want to change the article that you would please ask for a RFC and get some community opinion, also please stop calling my good faith NPOV edits about a man that I have no personal opinion about at all as a whitewash. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Your username is awesome. It's one of the best! Sounds ferocious. I like it. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 19:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely one of the all-time best names. My purpose, however, is to provide you with this link about Andy Martin, which I also included in the eponymous talk page. Flatterworld ( talk) 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
To KillerChihuahua & MastCell,
1) I'm a little concerned that the AE concerning Supreme, Verx, and myself are merging w/ the one concerning Gatoclass. I'm worried some of us might miss your Supreme or Verx might miss the fact that you are commenting about them on a different AE.
2) Following your comments, I hope it will be noted that I've already apologized for the "Zionist Lobby" comment.
P.S. I got confused and posted this to your "advice" link :-( NickCT ( talk) 20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
viz. <3 Heyitspeter ( talk) 09:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
[28] When there are no admin RFCs having these visible just bloats the header of the pages this thing is transcluded upon. – xeno talk 15:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP violation against and identifiable living person Blatant Vandalism
I am under i 1r restriction, is it ok to break this if an article is vandalized like it is in that diff? I am also unable to bring an RFE against WMC so am stuck for what to do here mark nutley ( talk) 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) No one, that's why I phrased it that way. Your post here [30] could have been phrased in a more collegiate way. That is all. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 21:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This edit is greatly appreciated. -- TS 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The API can limit page histories to a particular user using the &rvuser= parameter. For example, all of my edits to Main Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&titles=Main+Page&rvprop=user%7Ccomment&rvuser=MZMcBride&format=jsonfm
I don't think the API supports including the user edit count field with this type of query. A Toolserver tool could be created; I don't know of any tools that exist currently that do what you're after. If you can write a clear description of what you're trying to do, someone could probably make a report or a tool pretty easily. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You should be aware that the only difference between this and this are the identify of the account making the edit. You appear to have ruled the MN is banned from making the edit he made. Is not ZP5's edit a violation of WP:BAN - "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them?" Hipocrite ( talk) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi KC,
Sorry to bring up an old subject, but I had to calm down for a few days before further discussing the issue. I was most surprised by your comment there, calling for my topic ban under those circumstances. Having not interacted with you or noticed you at AE before, your entrance there piqued my interest. Then I noticed that Gatoclass's very first edit at Wikipedia was to concur with your RFC position. [31] While that inofitself is somewhat suspicious for a first edit, I am more concerned that there is some sort of off-wiki relationship between you and Gatoclass. If there is such a relationship or there was some off-wiki canvassing leading up to the AE comment, I would like you to disclose as much. Respectfully, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
And here's the wikistalk:
However, he's been far busier than I, no wonder I've seen him around! He has 45329 edits to my 25645. We have edited eight of the same articles, total. You and I overlap on over 30 articles [32] KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 13:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. apologies if it seems I haven't been listening - be assured that I have. Of course I reserve the right not to follow it William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you were arguing to ban me indefinitely, and I have never thought I will come here to thank you, but I would like to thank you for this. I do not know this user, but I know how I felt, when was blocked for 48 hours for this, and it felt so unfair. So, thank you for your kindness, and for warning versus blocking of that unknown to me user. BTW about my indefinite topic ban. I really do not mind. I am not going to edit those articles anymore, but I am desperately afraid to get trapped as it was with my edit in question. It was the only reason of my own appeal-- Mbz1 ( talk) 13:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not an RFE, I am not forum shopping, i do want to point out this however [33] Might i ask you, what am i to do when crap like this occurs? mark nutley ( talk) 21:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) and I see that is exactly what has happened. You are placing cites; others are pitching in, and the article is becoming much better. You see? No nasty fight, no appearance on some sanctions board. Stick to it. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 12:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
You asked what FT2 was talking about. Perhaps he was referring to this awarding of cupcakes vs your more recent opinion? Just a guess, I don't know for sure. Chillum 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I often find myself in need of things being pointed out to me. Chillum 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You posted at RFAR today (summarized to make the comparison more blunt):
"An admin who[se]... friends come before policy... she should not have Wikipedia's trust... An admin who knowingly aids and abets... a sock account... is also grossly guilty of violating the community's trust. [Such a user should not] have the admin tools, having proven they are untrustworthy and place personal friendship over the community, the project, and policy."
[1] In three ways worse: Geogre was an admin, not merely applying to be one; he was actively stacking and abusing, whereas the undertow had behaved well for months; and the stacking directly benefited the concealing party, whereas the_undertow's did not.
FT2 ( Talk | email) 00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Asking a question that is directly relevant to a matter of admin misconduct and admin ethics, can in no way be described as "harassment". You throw such terms round very loosly. I asked a question related to your stance in a dispute and RFAR matter. "Yes", "No" or "I don't want to answer that" would be valid answers. "You're harassing me by asking!" isn't. The question stands. FT2 ( Talk | email) 03:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
KC, your comment on this page pretty well sums up what I was curious about - the specfic differences between that situation and this one. I read FT2's post as "Holy crap, they did the same thing, add'em as parties", then re-read and struck, as you note. I ask for clarification mainly because others may have read what I did, and it might be useful for Jehochman to clarify the differences between his position then and now - read in vacuum, without context, FT2's comments sound quite serious. I think that any clarification from Jehochman will ultimately strengthen his point, not weaken it. And a solid trout-slapping to me for feeding the ZOMG drama. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You previously warned Ed Poor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about inappropriate behavior on the topic of Unification Church/ Sun Myung Moon. You cited Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Ed_Poor_placed_on_Probation, and your most recent warning was [3]. He acknowledged he saw the above comments from you at his page [4]. Ed Poor has a self-admitted conflict of interest on the topic ( I'm secretary to a major Unification Church leader and I am staunchly pro-Moon.). He has since gone again to make a change in article-space based on his own assertions of what he believes to be true, based on his COI, rather than secondary sources [5]. Might be time for some other action to be taken. Thanks, Cirt ( talk) 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to add any more unsourced information.
When I wrote Let's not delete the references I meant:
Okay? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
KC, is this an acceptable edit? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the congrats and the lighthearted humor! I'm currently taking a WikiBreak, but I'll definitely keep your name in mind if I need advice. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 00:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For using the journalist Robert Parry as a source in a dustup with a supporter of Rev. Moon. Parry is one of the best American journalists around, and I support those who use him for sourcing Wikipedia. Great work! Jusda fax 02:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC) |
Hey KC, sorry I didn't get this to you last night, when I moved it out to main space, I moved it to the wrong name, and then there was some scurrying around to fix it - anyway: Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched : ? 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I just saw your message that you aren't feeling well and just want to say get well soon. :) Thanks for the messages to me too. Hurry and get well, I hope it's just a bug that grabbed you and a 24 hour one at that. Get well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 10:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(I originally posted this to User talk:SB Johnny, since you were away, but then I saw your post on AN/I.)
Would you *please* come to Talk:Sarah Palin and do the uninvolved admin thing; we have an editor who is acting in an extraordinarily disruptive fashion, and since you and SBJohnny are the go-to admins on this topic, I'd appreciate you stepping in and doing something. My next step is going to be requesting a topic ban at WP:AN; let's see if you can talk him off the ledge.
I don't understand why you fully protected that article for so long, when there were 1RR and 0RR restrictions that attempted to resolve the issue (you didn't even comment on either of them). The article hadn't been edited for 19 hours. The article keeps getting protected in hopes that it will resolve an edit war (though in this case, there wasn't even an edit war going on) and it accomplishes nothing. Could you please undo the protection and instead participate in enforcing the editing restrictions? Scribner has been approached by several users, myself included, and simply removed the warnings from his talk page. If other editors need to be warned, then that should be done. But please reconsider the protection of that article. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
[7]. Can you now please leave me alone? I made a mistake even involving myself here. I admit I fucked up, please stop rubbing it in. Majorly talk 13:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Some say a picture is worth a thousand words. [8]. I found this in the shredder. It seemed like evidence tampering to me. Hidden agendas and the like. If not, I apologize. If so, for what its worth. -- Buster7 ( talk) 14:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
What happened? I thought you and another editor or two were going to save this FA? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, it's just that I turned my attention away from it because I thought that several editors had committed to fixing the article so it wouldn't be delisted. Cla68 ( talk) 00:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I hope you feel better. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thanks much, I am drinking fluids and napping much.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice
19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
... but just know that your talk page stalkers are wishing you well (soon, no rush, but sweetly soon), dear puppy. Proofreader77 ( talk) 08:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
'parantly, User:Born Gay was somekind of sock/meat puppet. ( Although, I think it's wrong to besmearch the Meatpuppets, one of the finest American rock bands, ever IMO!)
Just in case you didn't already know all of this stuff.... Best regards, Hamster Sandwich ( talk) 23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
Further information about the "first citizen journalist" claim has become available, and I am not satisfied it is a valid claim. Because of that, and as I mentioned in the comments below my 'vote', I've changed my opinion to 'delete' on that AfD. Since you cited me in your 'keep vote', I wanted to inform you of my change in position. Cheers! Prodego talk 03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." Nitpyck ( talk) 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the birthday note. The years seem to go by faster and faster, don't they? Cla68 ( talk) 07:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You posted a comment in the first attempt to delete the BLP of Ray Joseph Cormier It is nominated for deletion again. Would you please take another look? DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
... please do! It's a wiki after all! My writing can really suck when I'm scribbling drafts. Thanks! :) Antandrus (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Love this dif. :) (Feel free to edit topic title. lol) Proofreader77 ( talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I noticed you finally took down your not feeling well banner. I hope you are feeling better now and that you stay that way. I'd like to see you back to your happy puppy self again. :) Take care of yourself. All's going well with me. Recovery is moving along greatly. I finally lost both the walker and the cane. Now we are working on getting my left arm back in action. Take care sweetie, -- CrohnieGal Talk 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thanks, I see no need to feed that particular fire. I appreciate the heads up, however. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 05:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, Killer. I see you are on the Mediation Committee. I wonder if you could check out the current situation on the Karl Rove page? It's not serious yet, this is atm a mere heads-up.
To be extremely brief, there are 2 editors there I am in substantial disagreement with (one of whom has been warned about edit-warring on the page previously and has reported me for incivility with no action taken, and the other new to the page.) Both have revealing edit histories, in my view, given the subject matter. I am reluctant to react further to what I see as WP:BAIT. Prior to starting the possibly time-consuming process with the MC, which I have never previously done and am reluctant to do, I thought I'd get an uninvolved admin to take a look. Thanks for any time you can spare to this matter. Best, Jusda fax 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. My memory isn't always great... I see I awarded you a Barnstar; now I remember that I liked your work. I'm hoping despite this, that you will look into my issue. Should you feel the barnstar makes my request a COI, could you please hand this matter off to someone you know to be reasonable? I am not asking for a POV from left or right, but mere reason. Thanks, and best wishes to you always. Standing by. Jusda fax 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
When all is said and done, I felt you were a decent AUSC candidate. I am confident you'll get in and do a good job. Cheers. Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Postlethwaite claims you were involved [9] in an alleged investigation of Sunray's mediation. In light of this reply [10], I am asking you for a detailed, on-wiki report describing the duration and extent of the alleged investigation, with a summary of all evidence considered in this case, including a clear answer on whether or not Sunray was contacted or involved in the alleged investigation and to what extent. Furthermore, I will need your view on the exact moment that Sunray ceased to be a mediator in this case. Your prompt reply is requested. Gimmetrow 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
...and wondered if some info I came across should be added. Jason Nodler and Tamarie Cooper have a new theatre company in Houston called The Catastrophic Theatre. It doesn't have a WP page as yet, and I considered adding a line on the IBP page about the new company, but wasn't feeling bold enough, being only a lowly wikisloth. Please let me know what you think. I'll look for your answer here. Thanks! ~ zerodark | talk 06:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
...but not that way ;-).
(Dunno if you're following that particular drama, so thought you should know why your ears are burning). -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
User:KillerChihuahua has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I essentially restored to my previous edit of Ayers, but added a citation. AFAIK there has been no discussion on the talk page regarding this since my last post, and I missed that someone removed my edit. I think my version should stand as factually accurate, cited, and npov, but I posted at talk in any case. Best, Kaisershatner ( talk) 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I willingly dropped the issue officially here: old ver [11], diff: [12].
Only message after this was to Alexh19740110 [13] to tell him I didn't share his views about AGW until Connolley marginalised the third party interventions (following diff) and then re-opened the conversation without further prompting from me [14]. Look at the succeeding edits and diffs to see who was driving the conversation. Dduff442 ( talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking any. I had one, "why are you here" and your answer is "to answer your questions" - this is circular. Looks like we have nothing to discuss. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 21:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Not my place here to offer anything but apology with dirt/soap option. :-) Let me know (I think some are taking bets:-) Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Proofreader, you are amazing. No soap no dirt just thanks for being who you be. :-) KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You had previously given Ed Poor ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this warning: Ed, I'm not going to play your games. You've been warned; watch your step on Moon and Unification related articles. I will not hesitate to block if you continue to disrupt. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done.
Ed Poor has continued to engage in disruption at articles directly in his conflict of interest; namely attempting to remove info linking related organizations and front groups to the Unification Church and Sun Myung Moon, removing sourced information, and making disruptive page moves against consensus. Please see [15] and [16] for two recent examples. Enough warnings have been given at this point. Thoughts? Cirt ( talk) 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Cirt ( talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Your protection expired, and the vandals have already started in on it. I'm involved; can you reprotect it for a longer spell? Horologium (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please keep an eye on Matt Crypto ( talk · contribs) edits to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. He's repeatedly deleting references to the material being stolen, for obvious POV reasons. I've warned him already but I suspect he may need a firmer reminder if he persists. -- ChrisO ( talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret account 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
And it's back... Guettarda ( talk) 18:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the history of List of Unificationists ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? There was a bit of reverting going on, and if asked I will gladly self revert something if need be - but I thought that per WP:BLP, any unsourced, controversial information about BLPs should be removed forthwith. In any event, post the conflict, I moved all unsourced info on WP:BLPs to the article's talk page. Look good, for now? Cirt ( talk) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hrm, looks like some of these are sourced in their main articles. I'm looking at Bo Hi Pak right now. IMO you might want to make a list of the names you removed and go through them, slowly, verifying the sourcing on the main articles and re-adding to the List if indicated - including the source on the list, if you wish. I'm not sure where the rules are on that these days. I realize its a lot of work, but I think its worth doing. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Update: Now sourced and added back the (notable) entries, at List of Unificationists. Cirt ( talk) 12:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you consider refactoring your comments on AN/I — or at least toning it down a bit in future reports? A lot of them seem to be in rather poor taste. Calling another editor a 'bigot' is quite beyond the pale, unless you're prepared to back that up with some really damning diffs. As well, referring to Ed Poor's four-year-previous ArbCom run seems to be a way to attack and embarrass Ed, rather than to address any problems he might have in his (current) editing. Moreover, it's a weak argument, first because several of the supporting votes (which you chose not to copy into the thread) endorsed Ed as a strong supporter of NPOV, and also because as at least four of the opposing voters have sinced been banned outright for their socking and trolling.
From your signature, I gather that you brook little interest in being civil, polite, and courteous for their own sakes', but please try to bear in mind that you'll be a much more effective advocate for your arguments if you present your requests a tad more dispassionately. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Adding: As the issue is now resolved, I fail to see what would be gained by adding links which could only harm Ed's standing, such as it is, even further. I don't understand your insistence that I continue to add to the pile of what's stacked against him after he's been topic banned. If you're curious, I suggest you check out RationalWiki's page on Ed. It has a lot of the links you are probably looking for, and he actually was awarded an award for bigotry there. Its not the most egregious content I am aware of, but seriously, dude, its about as controversial as saying the sky is blue. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 21:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've read your first sentence and stopped there. NO, it was NOT. I'm really sorry if it looks that way but I took EVERY SINGLE oppose from that nom, in order to be thorough and not cherry pick, and only to establish that these concerns are of long standing. You might want to try to AGF a teeny tiny damn bit and not be so sure I have such foul motivations. I'm offline for a bit. I've had about enough of getting shit on by you and accused of motives I don't have, because of one bigoted troll who has been sanctioned several times by ArbCom and who apparently has enough nostalgia factor to get some sort of weird sympathy for the hole he dug himself. You have voiced your view; I have disagreed. Now be done with that and cease informing me, incorrectly, of my motives and thought process. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately JettaMann ( talk · contribs) has totally ignored the warning you gave him earlier. Please see WP:ANI#Persistent personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:JettaMann, where I've requested that he be blocked and/or topic-banned. -- ChrisO ( talk) 21:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Bahahahahaha! I needed a laugh today, thanks a lot! KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 16:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
One last note for the holidays :-) ... I don't read everything on user pages ... but I finally read that Abraham Lincoln "tail." I like Abraham Lincoln. (lol) I did not know that one. But that quote is PERFECT for all kinds of (stupid) rhetorical occasions. Amen. (I now return puppy to her regularly scheduled episode of dramatic non-tv.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
You're quite right, of course. I took one look at his userspace and jumped way too early. Thank you for the reality check, so to speak. Yours, @Kate (parlez) 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Killer, I was surprised to get a warning from you on my Talk page ( see diff here). I acknowledge your concern and will endeavour not to counter-revert WP:BLP reversions in the future. Madman ( talk) 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
KC, can I trouble you for an explanation of why you consider my analogy a "false analogy". As you pointed out I should not have insinuated that you did not have a rationale when you made the comment, but I have since apologized and I have stricken that insinuation. Perhaps you did not notice this, or the fact that I have asked for such an explanation. Thanks. PelleSmith ( talk) 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi puppy, I just came across this editor and before things get out of control well you'll see, that is if you are curious. :) never mind user name is spam, editor's user page is spam. The editor has already been final warning for spamming their site to the IBS article. I figure maybe nipping this one quickly will prevent a lot work along with preventing a lot of agrevations. If not interested, I'll wait and watch but I hate going to AN/I for obvious reasons. Be well, -- CrohnieGal Talk 20:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I struck my comment on the RS/N that made reference to the previous dispute. It was unnecessary and unproductive. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Pug Barnstar | |
Hey buddy, this is just to say thank you for putting the list of films featuring pugs into my userspace. You're a champ. I was telling my wife about it as we were making dinner and we are now going to start watching them all. I'll let you know how we get on. See ya around, Hands of gorse, heart of steel ( talk) 22:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
I've left a note about your block threats and edit warring here:
I do not find this behavior appropriate but I am not about to get myself blocked because you're goading me on. Regards. PelleSmith ( talk) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I remember for some reason I used to be mad at your editing, but these days, I forget why. I seem to be in the position of agreeing with you on quite a lot of things (such as AGF not being a suicide pact, the Civility Police, and the Censorship Criers). Weird. Maybe it's because we're becoming part of the "old crowd" that have been here for over half Wikipedia's life? Sceptre ( talk) 01:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
put them in whichever orifice will give you the most pleasure. ;-) ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
What the-- it didn't work? Dangit. I was so hoping to get a really wicked buzz off of that autoblocking mechanism. Guess its time has not yet come. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't confuse maintaining a civil and goal-directed working environment with "censorship". If you showed up at a town council meeting, grabbed the microphone, and started ranting about all the things and people that you don't like, would it be "censorship" if someone turned off your mike?
Oh darn. Now I'm a bully. Its been a while since I've been accused of being an ABUSIVE ADMIN. I was beginning to think I wasn't doing my job. What a relief to know I'm still working that mop. Kindof a pity it didn't actually, you know, involve any Admin actions. But, we settle for what we get. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey! I have noticed your work in templates and was wondering if you could do me a favor. Would you create a template that says something like you have made a lot of good pages and you should request to be an autoreviewer? One more thing. Can you nominate someone to be an autoreviewer? Thank you. Btilm 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of WQA isbased on the stuff at the top of the page and a two month stint editing about a year ago before a long wikibreak. It's that neutral editors could sometimes intervene using persuasion and peer pressure to either tell a reporter they were overreacting or a reported user they were being uncool. Idea being to solve disputes without loading down administrators and in a more congenial manner than blocks. Ideally both editors walk away happy. Yes, that usually doesn't work, but it does sometimes and it's really cool when it does. Frequently one or the other (eventually) gets the idea their position doesn't have a lot of traction and goes away unhappy. And sometimes it's just beyond when can be accepted by the community and needs attention by folks with enforcement power; at this point the idea is to refer to AN/I.
If WQA is a place to be monitored by admins, it seems to me it's kinda just another AN/I, which isn't the vision as I understand it. Gerardw ( talk) 15:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand that you cannot block Peter Lee right away and have to give him a final warning. I am already happy with that, I feel I am now understood, so thanks! You seem reasonable and I trust you do take appropriate action if Peter Lee again calls my edits "vandalism", insults me or accuses me falsly... By the way, there are several typos in your message on his talk page, like the template: shouldn't that be {{uw-npa4}} i.s.o. {{tl|uw-npa4}}??? That doesn't do much... MarioR 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
What happened with the autosig code? I actually created the first one (okay, it probably already existed, but I thought of it). Btilm 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi KillerChihuahua! When handing out holiday cheer, my mom taught me never to forget the puppy. I would like to wish you the very best, and hope this holiday season brings you much joy. Zaereth ( talk) 01:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
... that dirt and soap eating would solve? :-)
PS One night right before I logged off, I noticed in the watchlist you said in an edit summary that you "liked" your talk page watchers, stalkers, etc ... And I know you've said things like that before ... but I didn't remember seeing it in the watchlist ... Anyway, the point is that it made me smile when I read it, and I turned off the computer for bed with a nice warm feeling. (I know, too much attention to the watchlist, but true. lol)
Bless the rest of your holidays and beyond. Proofreader77 ( talk) 10:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's lovely!!! I hope your holidays were wonderful! KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 14:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't investigated that software, but I saw your posts on Miami's talk page. You may have luck reopening the AfD. I had with OggConvert; sources were just ignored there. See background. Pcap ping 20:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi KC, you commented a few weeks ago on a speculative interpretation of a private e-mail, which you said was a violation of BLP (see Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 9#Removed per BLP). The issue has been raised again at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Two MMs. If you have any additional comments on the issue, please feel free to chip in. -- ChrisO ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
He's been making repeated, heated, personal attacks against me at the new chronology page. I left a warning on his talk page, my second suggestion that he adhere to WP:CIVIL (the first time he replied with more personal attacks) and noted that you had previously warned him quite strenuously not to make personal attacks on that particular talk page. Just a heads up. :) Simonm223 ( talk) 17:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, KillerChihuahua. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 September 2009
19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Sent you an e-mail. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda ( talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear KillerChihuahua/Archive 17: Hello, my name is The Wordsmith; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:
I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, The Wordsmith Communicate 21:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Saw your run-in with this fellow on jadefalcon's review page. His comment to this review was his twelth edit. This account has my alarm bells ringing. Reading the User page, and his note here (second edit) just screams masked retread. This new account is obviously a BATTLEGROUND account. So what can we do? Auntie E. ( talk) 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Back in 2006, you commented on the last deletion review for this article here. The article has since been recreated and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish ( talk) 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fringe Theory Ground Rules 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,-- Swood100 ( talk) 15:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, very descent of you. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi KC, how are you doing? Listen there has been an ongoing problem with an editor vs. a lot of others that needs resolving. There were two administrators that tried to help out but have gotten frustrated and so now I'm involved and trying to get the needed help. If you are interested and available to at least guide me I'd really appreciate the help. I've never had a problem which required this kind of help before so I'm kind of lost. If you have the time with any of this or are at least curious let me know so that i can send you an email about it. I think this needs to go off to email for the time being. Look forward to hearing from you, -- CrohnieGal Talk 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Please provide your view, as you asked if a source was found for it to be discussed on talk. TransUtopian ( talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Good morning, if you have time can you check out this? Unfortunately things are getting weird and I'd like to put a stop to it before it gets any worse. Thanks, I hope you have time to check on this, -- CrohnieGal Talk 12:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am getting pounded by about 4 or 5 editors in the discussion. three who have just recently appeared on the page, with no prior input to it. Usual stuff - "you are in the minority here", forgetting what has been discussed etc. Maybe it is a dead horse I am flogging, I am not sure, but those editors sure think they have me against the wall. I'll admit my tone has been uncivil at times. It hard to keep cool, with how this page is being edited. I'll say nothing more to influence you either way. I am considering taking this to either mediation or arbitration. Not sure which. Have asked for editor assistance, but has not arrived yet. Would appreciate you to look in even if you chew me out. DMSBel ( talk) 11:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I've got someone at the Prayer article who seems to think that describing points of view is the same as promoting them. Because I openly state my Christian faith I don't think this person is willing to listen to me when I say he just doesn't have a case. He even accused me of article ownership, and comments he made after his initial edit do not seem to be relevant to the edit itself. However, he might be willing to listen to others. Although no user warnings have been issued by either side so far (and I don't see that one is warranted - yet), hearing other opinions on this matter would be appreciated, especially from those who have stated POV's that are contrary to my own. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 04:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I monitor over 7600 articles now, after trimming back from 9400 recently. I sometimes spot something I'd like to work on, such as Lest Darkness Fall, but don't have the time. Please don't snark at me in your edit summaries. (I met Sprague during my honeymoon; and Harry and I were Guests of Honor at a convention together; I'd rather talk about that stuff than work on POV in the politics of Andhra Pradesh or correct vandalism to the article on West Bend, Wisconsin.) -- Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that there are a lot under "reconfirmation".
Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)
If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 18:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I happened across this today and remembered a note you'd sent me a while back.
A poem
There's way too much red tape on wiki Sometimes that tape is rather sticky You wouldn't be wrong, not by a particle, To say we each should write an article Instead of having to engage In drafting one more policy page Which (we lose sight of this) is very Clearly something ancillary Can't we all straddle this wide fence With just a bit of common sense? —(excerpted from a longer piece by Newyorkbrad)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR
The note was,
Please stop referring to Wikipedia as "wiki". "Wiki" is either a Hawaiian word meaning "quick" or a type of software. Wikipedia is a wiki. It would be like me referring to you, randomly, as "editor" and expecting everyone to know I meant you, specifically. Its nonsense. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems there's a bit of leeway there. Out of respect for you and unknown editors who may object to the apocope "Wiki," I have since made a point of using "WP." However, you may want to consider that many people quite innocuously say "Wiki." Regards, Yopienso ( talk) 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You are experienced enough to know you are warring on the Martin article, I have reverted to the version that has been stable for three months, I have also asked you more than once that if you want to change the article that you would please ask for a RFC and get some community opinion, also please stop calling my good faith NPOV edits about a man that I have no personal opinion about at all as a whitewash. Off2riorob ( talk) 13:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Your username is awesome. It's one of the best! Sounds ferocious. I like it. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 19:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely one of the all-time best names. My purpose, however, is to provide you with this link about Andy Martin, which I also included in the eponymous talk page. Flatterworld ( talk) 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
To KillerChihuahua & MastCell,
1) I'm a little concerned that the AE concerning Supreme, Verx, and myself are merging w/ the one concerning Gatoclass. I'm worried some of us might miss your Supreme or Verx might miss the fact that you are commenting about them on a different AE.
2) Following your comments, I hope it will be noted that I've already apologized for the "Zionist Lobby" comment.
P.S. I got confused and posted this to your "advice" link :-( NickCT ( talk) 20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
viz. <3 Heyitspeter ( talk) 09:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
[28] When there are no admin RFCs having these visible just bloats the header of the pages this thing is transcluded upon. – xeno talk 15:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP violation against and identifiable living person Blatant Vandalism
I am under i 1r restriction, is it ok to break this if an article is vandalized like it is in that diff? I am also unable to bring an RFE against WMC so am stuck for what to do here mark nutley ( talk) 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) No one, that's why I phrased it that way. Your post here [30] could have been phrased in a more collegiate way. That is all. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 21:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This edit is greatly appreciated. -- TS 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
The API can limit page histories to a particular user using the &rvuser= parameter. For example, all of my edits to Main Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&titles=Main+Page&rvprop=user%7Ccomment&rvuser=MZMcBride&format=jsonfm
I don't think the API supports including the user edit count field with this type of query. A Toolserver tool could be created; I don't know of any tools that exist currently that do what you're after. If you can write a clear description of what you're trying to do, someone could probably make a report or a tool pretty easily. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
You should be aware that the only difference between this and this are the identify of the account making the edit. You appear to have ruled the MN is banned from making the edit he made. Is not ZP5's edit a violation of WP:BAN - "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them?" Hipocrite ( talk) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi KC,
Sorry to bring up an old subject, but I had to calm down for a few days before further discussing the issue. I was most surprised by your comment there, calling for my topic ban under those circumstances. Having not interacted with you or noticed you at AE before, your entrance there piqued my interest. Then I noticed that Gatoclass's very first edit at Wikipedia was to concur with your RFC position. [31] While that inofitself is somewhat suspicious for a first edit, I am more concerned that there is some sort of off-wiki relationship between you and Gatoclass. If there is such a relationship or there was some off-wiki canvassing leading up to the AE comment, I would like you to disclose as much. Respectfully, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
And here's the wikistalk:
However, he's been far busier than I, no wonder I've seen him around! He has 45329 edits to my 25645. We have edited eight of the same articles, total. You and I overlap on over 30 articles [32] KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 13:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. apologies if it seems I haven't been listening - be assured that I have. Of course I reserve the right not to follow it William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you were arguing to ban me indefinitely, and I have never thought I will come here to thank you, but I would like to thank you for this. I do not know this user, but I know how I felt, when was blocked for 48 hours for this, and it felt so unfair. So, thank you for your kindness, and for warning versus blocking of that unknown to me user. BTW about my indefinite topic ban. I really do not mind. I am not going to edit those articles anymore, but I am desperately afraid to get trapped as it was with my edit in question. It was the only reason of my own appeal-- Mbz1 ( talk) 13:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not an RFE, I am not forum shopping, i do want to point out this however [33] Might i ask you, what am i to do when crap like this occurs? mark nutley ( talk) 21:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) and I see that is exactly what has happened. You are placing cites; others are pitching in, and the article is becoming much better. You see? No nasty fight, no appearance on some sanctions board. Stick to it. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 12:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)