![]() | 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. |
Darwinfish, concerned, hands KillerChihuahua a box of Kleenex.] Here you are, Killah. darwin fish 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC).
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)
Hi KC - your input here would be helpful to the Arbs in this appeal-- Cailil talk 15:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
Please see this nableezy - 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,
Noetica Tea? 03:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
Now available for everyone (purge page for new insult):
Thou paunchy rude-growing ratsbane
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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 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)
Thought you might want to chime in on this. Cheers! Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 01:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Activism 1234 04:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've appealed the restrictions on that article. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
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! |
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)
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)
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)
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)
*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
I've striken the above - Steven has resolved this as only he can--
Cailil
talk
01:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
ptah. After edit conflict (yes I know some of this makes no sense now):
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)
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)
Actually, that one's fairly funny. -- Puppy ( talk) 14:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Spatchcock your turkey.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
20:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem, just let me know which vandalizing act you refer to? Hima78 ( talk) 00:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
Happy Thanksgiving |
A big thank you from me to you.
little green rosetta
(talk) central scrutinizer 05:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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. ⁓ Hello 71 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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, Bencherlite Talk 13:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
I've added one to the main Men's rights movement article. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
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/?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/?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/?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/?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)
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/?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)
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)
[30]. Ucucha ( talk) 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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
Please specify if you meant that all the suggestions were accepted or not? Refering to WP:evolution Quacod ( talk) 10:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Have a most excellent chrimbling-yule. Message ends. Guy ( Help!) 10:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
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!!! Killer Chihuahua 13:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
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 - Killer Chihuahua 21:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() "OK, who brought the Christmas Tree?" Winter solstice greetings!
|
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
Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (
talk)
15:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays! |
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
Thanks for talk page stalking and protecting my user page! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for trying to help. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
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, -- El on ka 17:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
(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. Killer Chihuahua 16:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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, Adrian Adrian ( talk) 22:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
Viriditas is wishing you Happy Holidays! | |
Enjoy your cookies and have a great 2013! |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Add The Signpost to the main menu
The Transhumanist 13:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
... for this correction. Refactoring another editor's talk page post was clearly justified this time. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
![]() | 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. |
Darwinfish, concerned, hands KillerChihuahua a box of Kleenex.] Here you are, Killah. darwin fish 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC).
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)
Hi KC - your input here would be helpful to the Arbs in this appeal-- Cailil talk 15:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
Please see this nableezy - 19:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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,
Noetica Tea? 03:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
Now available for everyone (purge page for new insult):
Thou paunchy rude-growing ratsbane
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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 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)
Thought you might want to chime in on this. Cheers! Evanh2008 ( talk| contribs) 01:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Activism 1234 04:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've appealed the restrictions on that article. Tijfo098 ( talk) 19:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
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! |
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)
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)
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)
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)
*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
I've striken the above - Steven has resolved this as only he can--
Cailil
talk
01:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
ptah. After edit conflict (yes I know some of this makes no sense now):
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)
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)
Actually, that one's fairly funny. -- Puppy ( talk) 14:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Spatchcock your turkey.
little green rosetta
(talk)
central scrutinizer
20:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem, just let me know which vandalizing act you refer to? Hima78 ( talk) 00:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
Happy Thanksgiving |
A big thank you from me to you.
little green rosetta
(talk) central scrutinizer 05:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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. ⁓ Hello 71 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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, Bencherlite Talk 13:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
I've added one to the main Men's rights movement article. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
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/?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/?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/?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/?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)
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/?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)
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)
[30]. Ucucha ( talk) 20:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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
Please specify if you meant that all the suggestions were accepted or not? Refering to WP:evolution Quacod ( talk) 10:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Have a most excellent chrimbling-yule. Message ends. Guy ( Help!) 10:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
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!!! Killer Chihuahua 13:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
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 - Killer Chihuahua 21:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() "OK, who brought the Christmas Tree?" Winter solstice greetings!
|
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
Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (
talk)
15:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays! |
From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
Thanks for talk page stalking and protecting my user page! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for trying to help. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
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, -- El on ka 17:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
(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. Killer Chihuahua 16:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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, Adrian Adrian ( talk) 22:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
Viriditas is wishing you Happy Holidays! | |
Enjoy your cookies and have a great 2013! |
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Add The Signpost to the main menu
The Transhumanist 13:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
... for this correction. Refactoring another editor's talk page post was clearly justified this time. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)