User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions with User:KillerChihuahua. 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.

Evolution article

I don't want to (or like to) make a big deal out of virtually nothing, but doesnt the evolution article deal specifically with biological evolution? Of course there are such things as evolution of ideas and evolution of languages and evolution of cars but you wont find those in that article because it deals specifically with "change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals" which is biological evolution, is it not? Once again, its really no big deal, thats just what i was thinking when i edited that. Cadiomals (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it deals specifically with biological, as opposed to other uses of the word, evolution. That's why I reverted your removal of the verbiage which made that clear. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

Thanks for your comments in the Tree shaping dispute on my talk page. In the circumstances I do not think I can do much about the effectiveness of the ban on some editors until some new infringement arises. In the meantime, your opinion on the subject in dispute would be welcome at the RfM. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks but I only offered an opinion as an uninvolved admin. I am not interested in becoming involved. Good luck. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Myth

not to my knowledge! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Darnit, my fuzzy little brain is making that grinding noise it makes when I can't remember something. I was sure there was something. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Loose usage of the term "personal attack"

I note your deletion of a post from User:Dessources from the Talk:Pregnancy page where that user defended his words as not being a personal attack. While I agree it was time for some silence on the thread (hence my walking away at that stage), and the thread is a happier, healthier place without that post, I agree with the words Dessources wrote.

That thread on Talk:Pregnancy has been verbally dominated by User:Ludwigs2. He has been very rude about other editors on many occasions. (I laughed when I read his "I can't help it" announcement on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him?) He has frequently accused other editors of personal attacks, which were nothing of the kind. They were realistic but blunt (sometimes brutal) criticisms of things he had said.

As Dessources said, a personal attack is when negative comments are made about someone's person or personality, not just an aggressive criticism of a post. I don't think I've attacked Ludwig (I try extremely hard not to) and I don't think Dessources did in the post you deleted.

A true personal attack is a very bad thing and totally unacceptable. We must avoid labelling posts personal attacks when they are not, or it weakens our rules and their application.

Anyway, I don't want this post to end up reading like a criticism of you. It's definitely not. You're doing a job you will rarely be thanked for. These comments of mine on personal attacks are really, I would hope, universally applicable, so I guess I'm just using your Talk page to get my thoughts together. Sorry about that.

I'd be interested in your thoughts, or you can choose to totally ignore me :-)

Good luck. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right; I used the term loosely; however if you check policy I applied the correct policy. My interest is in getting people Back On Track; no one should be discussing other editors in that fashion on the article talk page unless their objective is to create a hostile editing environment. We work on consensus, not bullying; any comments on the other editors which denigrate them in such a fashion should not be part of the arsenal, so to speak, of collaborative editing. Please recall WP:NPA's nutshell version, which informs us that we should "Comment on content, not on the contributor"; we are reminded again on WP:TPG#YES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." I'm not at this point terribly interested in reading the whole history of the recent disputes to determine who said what when. I don't much care; I do care that the inappropriate comments cease as of now. and btw, thanks much for the comment about the thankless job. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

FC Steaua București in Europe

Hello!
I have a request for unprotection this article, FC Steaua București in Europe. What is the procedure? Mortifervm (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFPP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Mortifervm (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I have quoted you

Here I hope you don't mind. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, this courtesy is appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

An "aww... cute!" for you

Hopefully I'm not the 539th person to mention this to you off-en.wp--Shirt58 (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ha!!! No, I had not seen that one, thanks for thinking of me and posting it here! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Essay on AE

I just wrote a very rough draft of what is intended as some advice on how to make one's case at AE. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. T. Canens (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take a look, and make my comments there. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Re butane

I have modified the butane comment per your statement, which I have removed as my understanding is AE does not approve of threaded discussion. If my filing was "an excellent example of how to file an AE request," why has it taken two days to evaluate? Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

thank you, and yes you acted completely appropriately removing my comment, which I did intend you to remove when seen. I could not have commented yesterday or the day before at all due to time constraints, but probably would not have anyway, waiting on Ludwigs response. There is also a good deal to read through and evaluate. I cannot speak for anyone else, of course. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2

Shame you weren’t able to be a bit more judicious with your ‘powers’. Your suggestion that the editor receive an extra 5-month topic ban, just for speaking sincerely about the situation as he sees it, and in his own defence, has given that enforcement request all the credibility of the Galileo trials. Doesn't stand up well to the advice article you link to beside your user name either. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you were accurate about what I'm actually doing, your point would have considerably more merit, and I might agree with you. As you are in error, your conclusion is also erroneous. No one is ever "punished" for speaking sincerely. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What, you don't think he was speaking sincerely? I do (and I'm being sincere too; having seen the problems he talks about first hand). I don't think he should be restrained from expressing sincere opinions, I think he should be listened to. Fine, if you don't agree, you can ignore his arguments or state that you don't accept they apply. But to say suggest that his comment has moved you from recommending a 1-month ban to a 6-month ban is tantamount to saying "speak again, and I'll make sure that you cannot speak again". Not a wise move where his complaint involves "continual bias" from those who "do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it". -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think he was completely sincere. I have no idea why on earth you've thought I might not have thought that. His comments show a continued battle ground mentality and a tendency to blame everyone else, but did not address any of his own actions, which is what he needs to do; address and correct his NPA violations and battleground mentality. Please read WP:IDHT, which I mentioned in my earlier reply to you above. Its not that he said something honestly, its that what he honestly said is "I don't have a problem! THEY have the problem!" when it is clear that he has repeated violations. If he's not going to correct his behavior, he needs more time to read policy and re-examine his actions. I did stop short of suggesting an indef topic ban, which is a common sanction for combative editors whose only response is to blame and attack everyone else for their own actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the term for people who ignore their own advice to other people (or for themselves)? "Uncivil users may be looking for a response when they behave uncivilly. Deny them this. Block them, and you just fuel the fire; ignore them, and you deprive the fire of fuel." I believe you are advocating this. I also believe that you are ignoring your own advice. Moreover, it would seem that the action against Ludwigs2 was started by... Hipocrite? SLP (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

point of order, please

If you're going to lambaste me, please don't misrepresent me. I said nothing about a 'cabal', nor did I say it was everyone else's fault. I'm perfectly happy to believe that skeptical editors are all independent actors with a shared understanding of the world; it's just that it's a biased understanding of the world (which, granted, they probably don't realize is biased).

I'll add, if you are waiting for me to say I was wrong in anything except poor word choice, you're going to have to show me that I was wrong in something other than word choice. I do freely admit that my word choice is often poor, and despite some of your suggestions I do work on it, but I see no evidence that I am wrong in my assessments. If you think I'm not as neutral as I claim, demonstrate it; if you think I am making some incorrect judgment about a topic or about wikipedia culture, show me. If you cannot show me that, then please don't assert it as truth.

Thanks. --Ludwigs2 18:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I stated it was a paraphrase; I prefaced that with the caveat that it was "boiled down"; ie, a summary of meaning, not intended to be a verbatim quote or precise transcription. The part of your post I was criticizing was "a half-dozen editors descend on the page to revert all changes, ignore the talk page or turn it into a quagmire of circular reasoning, and accuse me of policy violations for any trivial thing they can think of." Your entire post was outward facing; you criticized everyone else and your only (very small) acknowledgement that you might have room for improvement was "I don't [like]my attitude sometimes either - but my attitude is a product of trying to reason with people who do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it." in which you say your attitude may have a fault, but then turn around and blame that on the other editors, who "do not want to be reasonable". In short, your only statement which acknowledges any wrong whatsoever blames others for your actions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I do admit my failings, and have done so frequently, in multiple places. I know that I'm temperamental, I know that I speak out of turn, I know that I am incredible strong-willed (to use a polite euphemism) about certain things. none of that is actually in question, and none of that makes what I said wrong. What you quoted above is precisely my experience on multiple fringe-related articles - I can walk you through several hundred diffs of it if you like - and none of my own problems cause or change those facts. All I can say about my bad attitude is that I'm coping with it as best I can and getting better at that all the time; If there's some more concrete promise you need, let me know what it is. It would make my coping task easier if I didn't have to deal with that kind of aggressive behavior, mind you, but I do recognize that the 'coping' is my job to do, and that I fail at it a bit too often.

If you want to bust me for having a sour, jaded attitude, I really can't argue with that. It's true. What irks me is the fact that you refuse to address that I was doing the correct thing on the page, just doing it in an unpleasantly sour, jaded, grumpy way. I'd be OK with you saying I was not doing the correct thing (then we could discuss what I was doing wrong content-wise, and maybe I could readjust my goals on project), but by simply ignoring the fact that I was standing up for NPOV and proper sourcing against misguided science editors you effectively cast me as a different kind of editor than I actually am, and implicitly endorse violations of the project's core principles. Is that what you mean to do? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Violating NPOV is not what you're at AE about. The report mentions Poisoning the well (with NPA attacks), NPA, and Edit warring. Your only interest, on that page (AE) should be to address the charges. Your repeated insistence that you're following NPOV does not address the charges. Your blaming of the other editors does not address the charges. You seem to think it is germane to the discussion whether you've followed NPOV. Unless "Violates NPOV" is one of the sections added by the reporting party, then no, its not germane at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I assumed you would say that, and all I can do is reassert the fact that by narrowly focusing your view in this way you are implicitly endorsing violations of the project's core principles. I find it astonishing, actually: back when Sandstein tried to block me for seeking help with QuackGuru, it seemed to be incredibly important how the 'good work' QG did offset his well-known tendentiousness; and before that Ronz (when he blew up at me over that dentistry article), was saved from strong sanctions because everyone was concerned about his 'good work' and wanted to downplay his behavior. and ScienceApologist - sockpuppeting, baiting, outing, a history of tendentiousness that probably required a server of its own for data storage - he was loudly praised as one of the project's best editors for the longest time.

I'm an ass at times, yes, but I'm merely on a par with Ronz and don't hold a candle to QG and SA, and yet 'my' correct behavior is somehow "not what's being talked about". does that strike you as proper? --Ludwigs2 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

SA was valuable. You should be able to defend yourself without denigrating others William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying he wasn't, I'm just pointing out the differential treatment. I can only defend myself within the context of a fair system. If I am to be a second-class citizen on the project, then I should at least be informed of that fact so that I can give up on the concept of equitable treatment.

I'll add, just for information's sake, that that last sentence was not meant to be challenging. I don't really care if it is the project's intention to treat me as a second-class citizen - I can adapt to that role easily enough, and work well within its boundaries. I merely need to know if that's the case so that I can begin adapting. A lot of the things I say that people on-project find challenging are really just me being honest and pragmatic. strange worldview, I know... --Ludwigs2 20:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My advice, for the little it is worth, is to defend yourself as yourself, not by comparison to others. If you don't like it as a moral principle, just treat it as a practical one. You make a number of other arguments that would be best unmade William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

AE closure

excuse me - I'm not sure what's going on here. I offered what I thought was a perfectly valid resolution to the problem, which should have addressed all concerns adequately. You did not comment on it and went straight to sanctions. can you explain that please? I am assuming you simply missed it and will reconsider, which will save us a whole mess of an appeals process. --Ludwigs2 13:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

P.s. diff of offer --Ludwigs2 13:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I read it. Your "offer" was basically "I'll try really hard to follow policy, but I reserve the right to categorize editors as a group, like an ethnic or religious group" - this is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start. You're haggling over sanctions, rather than pledging to do better. You're reserving the right to group editors together - do you know how many editors have been blocked or banned for doing that? "The Serbian editors" or "the Jew editors" or "the anti-Christian editors" - its wrong, simply wrong. Your "offer" merely underlined how problematic your approach in this area is. I'm at a loss as to how to communicate this to you, as clearly everyone on AE and the Talk:Astrology page who has tried has met with the same utter failure I am now facing. Try to re-read the posts made, and the comments made, and look at it from a fresh perspective. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, my offer was that I would stop the problematic behavior while still allowing necessary talk page discussion. Fringe pages already habitually refer to groups proponents of fringe topics as to 'advocates', 'apologists', 'true-believers', and other epithets - both with respect to other editors and with populations in the real world - and no one seems to object to that. allowing one cultural group to be so labeled while prohibiting it for another cultural group is a gross and inappropriate bias. Would you prefer that I open AE sanctions cases against every editor who makes disparaging remark about fringe advocates? AE would be swamped in a matter of days.

The goal of sanctions on wikipedia is to stop problematic behavior, not to enforce worldviews or adjust attitudes. I gave you an option which would stop the problematic behavior without the need of sanctions. I do not see why you reached for sanctions regardless. I am not all that attached to editing astrology: I went on that page because I saw a newb being abused and stayed to try to create a more neutral article, but there are many other articles on wikipedia where I can work. I'm not all that concerned about the topic ban itself, but the principle in play here is very important. I have a great deal of respect for you, and I would really prefer if we could resolve this amicably and easily. --Ludwigs2 14:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate your voicing your respect for me, and hope I will continue to earn that respect, the decision has been made and nothing you have said here or on the AE page has changed my mind that you not editing the Astrology articles for a time is in Wikipedia's best interests, and in your best interests as well. If you believe that the sanction is not warranted you may appeal it to WP:Arbitration enforcement using the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} template or to Arbcom directly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, see you at appeals. Hopefully that will be the end of it. --Ludwigs2 14:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no rule, and no reason, not to refer to groups of editors on Wikipedia, and sometimes they will be for or anti. But you do so in a civil manner. Sanctioning Ludwigs for merely referring to such grouping is wrong, while sanctioning him for doing so in an uncivil manner is a different story, and part of the overall incivility. But please don't base anything on references to the the mere fact that editors on WP tend to group. B^e——C_ritical 20:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I thought it was clear from context that the issue is incivility. Hence my examples of people eventually being indef blocked, largely for categorizing editors of an opposing view as "Jew editors or anti-Christian editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between that and categorizing them as fringe advocates and or science advocates or skeptics or whatever. Anyway, I thought your sanction was harsh, and should have been two-step, ban for a time and then re-ban if uncivil. I'd be glad to take some role in that if you and Ludwigs agree, because I'm not sure he knows some of the stuff he says is uncivil. I could redact his stuff or something. Although having time to read his tracts might be a problem for me right now, lol. B^e——C_ritical 20:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I think he was already making a big effort to be civil, he toned it down hugely from the Pregnancy page. I think he knew this was coming, because I warned him. He's an editor worth saving. B^e——C_ritical 21:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

AE appeal

notice of appeal. --Ludwigs2 17:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Was 6 months ban too harsh given the context?

I understand that it may have been hard to follow the heavy exchange on this highly controversial page with time constraints. However, there was much heated banter involving all parties, which is not uncommon on this page. In context, Ludwigs2 could not be singled out. His views deviated from many on the page, myself included, but his approach though at times like others robust was never unreasonable. Of the 12 editors commenting, only 2, Hippocrite and Boris Harvester clearly supported a penalty. It's hard not to sense that this has been a set-up to stifle debate by those who oppose his attempts to bring neutrality and debate onto the Talk page. I had expected that an admin would dismiss this or give a 24 hour cooling off ban. Your 6 month topic ban seems unjustifiably harsh. I ask that you reconsider. If your decision is final, can other involved editors appeal against this? Robert Currey talk 06:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for not seeing this earlier; please in the future be sure to place a new section at the END of the talk page or I might miss it and not respond.

Ludwigs2's approach was problematic, for reasons explained on AE, both in the case where he was reported, as well as in the Admins comments in his appeal, as well as above on this page. AE is never a popular vote. If all other editors had supported giving him a pass, it would still not have made that appropriate. He has been down this road before several times (see his block log and talk page history) and was cautioned directly by ArbCom to avoid using "drama-creating rhetoric" and to use better judgment in how he interacts in discussions; he knows better. If this was a set-up, then it was done by Ludwigs2; no one else has set him up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen that your suggestion to move from a one-month ban to a six month ban (because he answered you as he saw fit, not unpolitely and not without reason) was taken up, and the appeal has just closed. I would have liked to have commented but it seems that boat has sailed. I doubt you are interested but would like to let you know that nothing you said demonstrated to me that this was handled reasonably. If you felt a one month ban was sensible in the first place, then there is no justifiable reason to extend that to six-months because of the one response he made after yours. You agreed it was a sincerely expressed comment, so the net result is that speaking sincerely resulted in a topic-ban six times longer than you originally proposed. Of course he should have known better though - it seems to me that for some topics on WP, the more your eyes are open, the more necessary it is to keep your mouth shut. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you sincerely pledge to continue what got you in trouble, your sincerity hurts and does not help your case. He stated, very sincerely I am sure, that he planned to continue a wrong approach. If he was there for vandalism, and had stated, very sincerely, that he planned to continue vandalizing then I would have probably made it a longer sanction as well. Why is this so hard for you to understand? "Sincere" only helps if it is "Sincerely promises to do better" along with "recognizes what he did wrong". I got neither; so no, I didn't take him up on his offer to continue the bad behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider that the problem in understanding is mine. Sorry. I have considered your responses but I have been involved in the problems he spoke out against, saw the comments in their full context, and saw that the editor bent over backwards to try to redress your criticisms, even though it was clearly going against the grain of his sincerely held beliefs regarding problems that really do exist. That's all I have to say. If you don't agree then you have no need to respond to me, because you will know in your heart that you acted appropriately - just as I know, in my heart, the reason why this is one of several recent events that has led me to lose a lot of respect for Wikipedia and the processes that go on here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Older sanction update

Hey there. You might like to take a look at a preliminary assessment of what needs to be updated and offer comments on the talk page there? Feel free to point out if I've forgotten anything. — Coren ^(talk) 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Palin probation

There was a recent thread at AN about lifting the Sarah Palin-related probation. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Proposed lifting of Sarah Palin community probation. Kelly proposed it and I endorsed it. There was little opposition and some support. However I didn't see any comment from you, even though you created Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation and have been active in enforcing the probation. Is it correct to assume that you were aware of the proposal and are acquiescing to it? Will Beback talk 20:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not see the proposal, and no one informed me of it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Kelly posted a notice on the Palin talk page, and I posted a notice on the probation page, where there was already a discussion about it going back to January. If you have concerns could you write to Kelly about them? She's taken the lead on this. Will Beback talk 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I was fairly inactive for some time due to r/l; I didn't see the posts on my watchlist. I'm guessing they had scrolled away when I checked in. I have no concerns at all about lifting the probation; the Palin article has been reasonably well behaved for some time now, and if Palin becomes a hot article again it can always be reinstated. Slightly off topic, isn't Kelly a he? Or am I confused again? And thanks for contacting me about this, Will. The courtesy is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I'll mark the probation page as inactive and remove the probation notices from the talk pages.

I'm not sure of Kelly's gender - it's one of those ambiguous names. The software allows one to specify a gender, but I don't know where it shows up if it's marked. No offense intended to anyone if I got it wrong. Will Beback talk 23:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the gender indication is not displayed anywhere, actually. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

that AE page

When I was writing my last post there, it wasn't closed. I didn't see that until I'd saved my post. Hopefully he'll leave Shackleton alone, like he said on my talk, as well as whatever other articles are at issue. Please understand that he's been a huge waste of time; I spent a whole afternoon going through the history of that page over the last year. It's called opportunity cost. One Ton Depot (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I would think you would have met with an edit conflict; assuming for some weird reason you didn't, Jonchapple clearly stated, politely, in his edit summary that the case had been closed. Had you looked, you would have seen that. Instead, you edit warred to restore the content and used a snarky edit summary to Jonchapple. While I appreciate your frustration, I suggest you try to approach this with a little less haste and hostility, and not continue to stir the pot. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get an edit conflict and the close didn't show in my preview. I was editing a subsection of the page, not the top. I restored my post just once, as he is, as I said, not the appropriate person to police it. I now see that you've linked to specific revs of the page, which would be why you need to lock it down at the decision point. I'm stunned that you're critical of me, when I simply helped bring attention to another page he was editing poorly on. I've not edited any of the Troubles articles, and have only encountered JonC on Shackleton and Tom Crean (one of Shackleton's team members). I just had the misfortune to walk into a huge time suck. This whole day was wasted. One Ton Depot (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you saying you got there via the link in the notice on Jonchapple's talk page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Got to the AE page? I saw it on his talk, yes; in the history, as I believe he'd removed. I'd gone looking at what he's been up to re British/Irish and that's when I noticed the Crean edit. Mostly I was involved in Shackleton, which is where I first encountered him: removing Anglo-Irish and making the infobox not match the article prose. One Ton Depot (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by what you mean by "you need to lock it down at the decision point" - would you clarify, please? The section has been hatted and closed, and was when you made your post. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to you posting links to specific states of the page; i.e. the point you closed it; that I understand why you removed my reply there, to JonC. I did NOT see that it was closed when I made the post: it went in without an edit conflict, and I believe this is normal for section editing; you were editing a higher level section but not the one I was, so no edit conflict. One Ton Depot (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, when sanctions are logged or an editor is advised they are now under sanctions due to an AE discussion, the case is closed - it is always closed before such logs and notices are posted. If you see such a notice, it means the case has already been closed and a decision reached. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

KC, just a quick question about how wide-ranging you interpret my topic ban as being – I just got involved at Talk:Belfast and realised it's got a bloody great Troubles banner across the top, even though I'm only discussing its name in Scots. Do you think I should self-revert? This is going to be hard... JonC ^Talk 15:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Without even looking, yes self-revert. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to avoid any article which has anything to do with the Troubles. If you see a Troubles banner, go elsewhere. I suggest you avoid any articles which have anything to do with Britain, Ireland, their flags (of any era), and find something completely non-Troubles and non-Ireland related to edit. Belfast counts as Irish, as does Peat, probably. Seriously - take a complete break from anything remotely related for the 3 months. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the honest advice. I've removed my contributions. JonC ^Talk 16:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm glad you asked. If I were you I'd also stop editing Ballycastle, County Antrim and similar articles, as well. They are borderline; they have the potential for crossing the line, as you saw with the flags. You joked about bird articles in the AE case; I tell you now, if you change a category on a bird article from Birds of England to Birds of Ireland, I'm not at all sure it wouldn't be covered. You need to edit something that has nothing to do with Ireland or the Troubles in any conceivable way. Try going to Wikipedia:Community portal and selecting from the Project pages seeking contributors, or try finding something under the heading "Fix-up projects". Hit the Random Article button until you find an article needing help. These are just suggestions, mind you - but they will help you establish a track record of editing productively, and avoid your topic ban. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to be doing some serious pruning of my watchlist. :) I figure I'll start editing motorsport articles more; my contributions on here have always been two-fold - the British Isles and motorsport (mainly Formula 1) – so I suppose that's the route I'll go down for now. I'll check out the community portal too, though. Just one more question: are talk pages covered too? JonC ^Talk 16:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages were not specified either way, as far as I can find, which was our fault; we should have specified. You can either avoid them, or file a request for clarification/permission at AE. I suggest avoiding them for the short term at least; your name has been too frequent on that page in recent months and a month of trouble-free editing (sorry about the pun) would help considerably to convince admins there that you can be trusted not to disrupt on talk pages. If you *do* edit talk pages, take care you do not disrupt; be especially careful to follow TPG on any potentially related article's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Message from you

If it was not already clear, I do not wish to be contacted by any of the editors or admins involved in the Men's Rights debacle, including yourself, due to their poor, disrespectful behaviour. Do not contact me again even if policy requires it. Hermiod (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If policy requires it, I will follow policy and not your demands. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding: if you do not wish to be contacted by any admins enforcing community probation at the Men's rights article, you can always simply not edit that article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in excuses here. You've been asked not to contact me again now do not do so. I will not be making any contributions to Men's rights thanks to the obvious systemic bias that has been demonstrated over the last few days and as such you have no reason to do so.Hermiod (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That is probably a good choice on your part. Be aware; if you choose to edit the article you will be "dealing with" admins who are watching and babysitting that article, enforcing policy and community sanctions. No amount of requests will prevent that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Probation notification

Do you intend to notify more then the select 4 on the probation of the article, and can a regular user notify, or is this something that a Admin generally should do? TickTock2 (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going thru contribs, and notifying as I feel necessary. If Hipocrite and Ludwigs were newer editors, I would have notified them, but the notice on the talk page is sufficient for editors as experienced as they are. I will notify other new editors as I see them editing. Any editor may notify other editors of the probation; if you do so be sure that you follow the format given and log the notification correctly on Talk:Men's rights/Article probation; do not notify editors who participated in the ANI discussion nor editors who have edited the talk page section NOTICE_of_community_article_probation, which currently includes Hipocrite. Do not notify editors who have already been notified. Use discretion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have acknowledged my awareness of the probation on the notification page in the hopes of heading of needless, fruitless bickering about notification protocols and if notification is a stick, and whatever. Let's talk about the history section now, please? Hipocrite (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is the reaction you'll get from most experienced editors. They saw the notice; they understand probation. They want to move forward with productive editing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

mens rights?

Hi KC - I was wondering what you thought of putting an editnotice on men's rights mentioning the sanctions now in place? It seems like it would be useful so that people who edit the page but have not looked at the talk page are aware. (I could do it myself, but given how involved I am and how unfamiliar I am with editnotice protocol, I figured I better ask someone else, heh.)Kevin (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to; I'll add one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

When you get the chance, please look at 70.114.203.30 (talk · contribs)'s contributions to the ANI thread. I'm trying to avoid refactoring other people's comments given that I am heavily involved in the content dispute, but think that his are probably worth refactoring. Thanks for your efforts, Kevin (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO, that thread should have already been closed, but I'm not going to be the one to do it. As for the IP's thoughts, I suggest you ignore them - and the thread. The situation has been resolved with the probation. Ignore the ANI soapboxers. I'd say in this instance Do not feed the trolls applies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

On that note, KC, I wanted to say thanks for being a neutral intercessor over at the Men's rights talk page. You are doing a bang up job. mordicai. (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am trying. Please let me know if you feel I have erred, or have misunderstood or applied policy wrongly. constructive feedback is always appreciated. (barnstars also appreciated if you really think I'm doing well /shameless begging from a puppy) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh. Banana cookies.

Something about this doesn't feel right. Would you mind taking a peeky-pooh and advising? So this baby seal walks into a club... ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my. Well, Virago250 has put a good bit of work into this... um... Into this. I suggest you a) tidy the references so it doesn't look like a ton more than it is and b) see if it can be salvaged. Its apparently an article about an archive, with no assertion of why this is a notable archive; but the Max Planck Society is notable. You might want to Afd once you tidy it enough to see what you have, or suggest a merge with Max Planck Society. Good luck with that. If I had more time I'd help, but I'm trying to do too much at once as it is, sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KillerChihuahua. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
Message added 14:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redaction

I suppose that your edit was helpful, but the admonition was perhaps less so. I expressed in civil terms an admitted exasperation with an unending circular discussion. One cannot cut the Gordian knot with a damp sponge. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read a plea as an admonition, I don't know where to proceed from that point, as we have a fundamentally different perspective on the meaning and intent of my edit summary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

My error, then. Thank you for clearing it up. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, sorry my phrasing led you to that impression. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Men's rights ANI, editors

Not sure if I should add this here? Or if I'm adding nothing new, but.. I came across the ANI discussion. Took a look at the talk page, the top of it, before trouble started. Three editors working in harmony mainly deleting for not sourced, not applicable, no section to put it in.., .. Then an IP asking wtf happened to the article. I compared old (march) and new versions, not checked details, but first impression was that the old article looked good, the new one was an empty shell. I see the deletes are still going on diff
Checked the edit history and the most prolific editors:

Kgorman-ucb first edit of Men's rights (in sept, didn't check previous months) was september 20.
LikaTika, new user sept 21 it seems (post hist) first edit on any wikipedia namespace was september 21 19:50 the Men's rights article; 8 minutes after a welcome message on his talk page from Kgorman-ucb: Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia :) Kevin (talk) 19:42
Summary of the second edit he makes is: "changed "identity" to "genitals" as identity is not effected by circumcision, but anatomy and psychology", I didn't bother to look at the content, but sounds like a change that could influence the meaning a bit.
TickTock2 arrives 7 days later, first edit on wikipedia was september 28: also the Men's rights article.
Both users have only edited that article and maybe the related men's right organisations(?).

Isn't there a rule against working in team? And voting in the ANI? Should

As a side note: september 26 User:SarahStierch posts a message on Likatika's talk page, encouraging him/her to join the WikiProject Feminism: "Hi LikaTika! I just wanted to say "Hi!" and welcome to you Wikipedia. Great edits on the Men's rights article - it sure can use the work. I look forward to following your further edits, and if I can be of any help, please let me know. I also encourage you to sign up for WP:XX if it interests you =) " DS Belgium (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your concerns here. I wouldn't worry unduly. Remember that editors who agree often give the superficial appearance of editing as a cabal. It may help to remember the mildly humorous adage: "Two or more people who agree with you constitute a consensus. Two or more people who disagree with you constitute a cabal.". IOW, please don't go chasing conspiracies. Edit the article based upon the rules, discuss content on the article talk page, follow the terms of probation, and it will all work out. As this article was mentioned in the media and in several Reddit threads, we will be seeing some new editors; try to be welcoming and not bite - they may end up becoming very useful contributors!! KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not an article I'm interested in. Only wanted to know if this was against the rules or not. I didn't see Kevin mention that he knew LikaTika from before he/she registered, or did I miss that? DS Belgium (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if they know each other. Its not germane. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not know Lika before she registered, and you are not reading the timestamps correctly. I did not welcome her before she made her first mainspace edit, I welcomed her after she was incorrectly warned for vandalism at men's rights, a page on which I had been actively editing. I make a habit out of friendly-ly welcoming new editors, especially those whose first interactions with other editors were things that could offput them. I also suspect that you haven't looked at Ticktock's edits too closely. He has been a productive editor trying to comply with our policies, but a quick glance at his edit history or the history of that talk page make it perfectly clear the three of us don't exactly agree with each other on many things. Before making inflammatory posts - especially with an article under community sanctions that has already been as heated as this one has - please take more than a cursory glance at the situation. You should also read the community sanctions recently put in place if you haven't already done so. Kevin (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems I compared two different time codes, you're right.

19:50, 21 September 2011 (diff | hist) Men's rights ‎ (The last sentence is cited, but the citation does not show what is the author reports.) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 21:42, 21 September 2011‎ Kgorman-ucb (talk | contribs)‎ (1,584 bytes) (welcome) (undo)

There is no evidence you invited those two, my mistake. DS Belgium (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It is really, sincerely appreciated. Kevin (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Block Query

Hi There. A user has been blocked from an article Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jonchapple, but can they still contribute on the talk page? I ask because there might be a mediation dispute on Talk:Kingsmill_massacre#Names_of_victims and Jonchapple is one of those involved. Thanks. --Flexdream (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. He asked me about talkpages, and I told him we at AE had not specified one way or the other. Technically I suppose he is allowed to edit talk pages, since we didn't specifically add talk pages; but I advised him to avoid even the talk pages. A mediation dispute is somewhat different. I suggest you open this to a broader group of admins familiar with this case, and open a Request for clarification on the AE page. Let me know if you have trouble or questions setting that up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Any mediation would certainly be handicapped if he couldn't contribute, but I think there's an option where he can be 'represented' if it's an issue. --Flexdream (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

My view is that he should be allowed to contribute to a mediation directly, so long as he remains civil. I don't want to make that decision unilaterally, however, and would prefer it be seen and reflected upon by others. But that is my current view. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Relating to Mirza on Mujaddid

Hi, sorry to disturb as I know you must be extremely busy with other things.
But when you get a moment, could you possibly review my comment on User talk:Doc Tropics?
And before replying, could you please review the history of the Mujaddid page? Specifically look at the number of people who visit the page and remove Mirza Ghulam Ahmad after which it's added back again by User:Doc Tropics. Also take a quick look at the Mujaddid talk page - can you see a pattern?

i.e. the number of people against this person being listed on that page, and as I stated in my edit comment that it appears User:Doc Tropics is trying to push his own agenda and not a neutral point - by consensus of the majority of Muslims (Sunni + Shia) who form almost 100%; Mirza is not a Muslim by consensus of majority of Muslims and worse, his cult (Ahmediyya) has been banned in several countries and they've also been banned from entering Islam's holy cities (Makkah & Medina).

As an admin, I also appeal to you to be fair and just and without bias, and I hope I can also be the same - i.e. if I'm in the wrong, I'll accept.
Many Thanks for your time, and Kind Regards - Qadri fan (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Before I go and look, I should tell you that as a general rule, I respect Doc Tropics' understanding of an application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have never, to the best of my recollection, seen him act in any way which would lead me to believe that he is not following NPOV to the best of his ability. As a more general observation, I have seen a number of instances where multiple editors wished to include an item, but there were insufficient sources; or wished to omit content, but omission violated UNDUE or NPOV. There are also additional reasons why several editors might want to include or omit content which is not supported by policy. Merely that multiple editors have removed content does not mean that removal of that content is appropriate. There are several avenues for you to take other than asking for me to do an in depth research on this which may yield more fruitful results. You can take this to the NPOV noticeboard if you think it is an NPOV issue. You can take this to Article RFC for wider input. If you still want me to examine the situation in depth, I will do so, but it will take some time for me to fit this in. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for your view, particularly on Doc Tropics. If you don't have time, I guess I'll just take the matter back to the talk page. And possibly just accept this as I don't have much energy to fight this without support, even though I strongly believe in taking the view of the majority over the very tiny minority who it appears have more power to push their view.

Thank you again. - Qadri fan (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I didn't have time, or wouldn't look. I said it would take a while.
I have already suggested three possible venues besides the talk page, which you have dismissed out of hand
Your statement " taking the view of the majority over the very tiny minority who it appears have more power to push their view." is accusing those who disagree with you of POV pushing, an assumption of bad faith
Are you saying Yes, please look, or No, I withdraw the request? because it reads like you are withdrawing your request. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and apologies, I should have been a little more clear - I'll withdraw the request and explore other avenues, and if that fails, I may come back here.. if you don't mind :)

With regards to your 3rd point - sorry, the reason I said that is because... Muslims are basically of 2 main groups who believe fundamentally on the same things (theology) - the Sunni's and Shia - and they make up about 99% of Muslims. There is however the 1% or even less called the 'Ahmediyya' who are fundamentally different in theology and thus Muslims reject them as being Muslims altogether. And it is only this cult which pushes for the view that's occurred in the article. - Qadri fan (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh excellent, things are now much clearer! First of all please don't refer to any minority sect of a religion as a "cult", that's an insult. I am actually quite familiar with this thinking and approach on Christianity articles, where many Christians consider Mormons a "cult" and edit war to remove Mormons and their beliefs and leaders from any Christian article. They are in the wrong, and so are you. You (and the other editors seeking to remove this info) are unfortunately guilty of what you accuse Doc of - you're pushing your POV that the (admittedly small) subsect of Islam called Ahmediyya are not Muslim. They are. They simply aren't your version of Muslim. You don't get to decide that because they are a minority and you don't agree with them, that they are a cult and don't get included in Muslim articles. Please do let me know if you understand this, don't understand this, or have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, particularly with regards to mormons. But you see the problem is this - those aren't my views, that's the view of almost all Muslims in the world - and thus the reason why the Saudi government has banned the Ahmediyya cult (not my words) from entering the two holy places for Muslim's - Makkah and Medina. And furthermore, they've also been banned from spreading or practicing their religion in other countries - like Indonesia, Belarus, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.

Btw, just to let you know, the founder of Ahmediyya (mirza) claimed he was Jesus(peace be upon him) re-incarnated, and also believed he was the promised Imam Mehdi.

So you see, it's not my view. - Qadri fan (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

and I see where you're coming from, but you're missing a key point - this is a secular, not a religious, encyclopedia. Its also not a popular vote. The view of "most of the Muslims in the world" is completely trumped by reliable sources. And it really doesn't matter if the founder claimed he was Bob the Builder - the founder of the Mormons said he'd been visited by Angels and given special information written on golden plates (which no one but he ever saw) which he translated with a magic rock (which no one but he ever saw work) and so on. Really, many Christians think its a bunch of made up stuff by a scam artist, but you know what? Their opinion is not a reliable source from an expert, so that's not what we have in the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

“

And it really doesn't matter if the founder claimed he was Bob the Builder - the founder of the Mormons said he'd been visited by Angels and given special information written on golden plates (which no one but he ever saw) which he translated with a magic rock (which no one but he ever saw work) and so on.

”

— KillerChihuahua

hahaha, fair enough, now I completely understand what you mean. It's funny, Mirza belived the same sort of thing.

Also what about sources - is it sufficient if it points back to his own website? - Qadri fan (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, now that's a bit of a different issue. A notable person's own website, or published works, are legitimate reliable sources for his or her views and for quotes. Not much else. We generally allow them for bits like date of birth, and so on, unless this is a matter of public record and much coverage where the person's account of their d.o.b. differs from the public record, and that is reported widely on reliable sources. I can't think of an example of that right now, but I don't think one is really needed to understand the instances where that would matter. If the person is notable as an expert, their site or other works is also a reliable source, for their area of expertise.

However, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has been deceased for some time now, so I'm guessing you are speaking of something other than a blog. Who publishes and maintains the site is of considerable weight in whether the site meets WP:RS. Let us assume that it is a well-maintained site, owned by the Ahmediyya. The site is quite usable as a reliable source then, for his works, statements, etc. Some discretion is necessary of course. In this case, let's say he issued a fatwa about socks, and it is published on the site. It cannot go in the socks article. It may or may not go in Islam and clothing, but should probably be differentiated, as in "according to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, founder of the Ahmediyya sect, Muslims should never wear pinks socks [ref]" or perhaps "Mirza Ghulam Ahmad issued a fatwa in 1300 advising Muslims that wearing pinks socks is displeasing to Allah[ref]" sort of thing. Or you can simply say he said it, or its the Ahmediyya position, and the ref or linked article will make clear the rest of it without specifying - this second way is preferable if he's used as an expert more than once, because you really don't want to spam the page with qualifiers. It can go in his article or the Ahmediyya article, if deemed important enough. Please let me know if this does not answer your question. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability

I am concerned about the way the RfC at Verifiability was closed.

Tryptofish and Sarek seem to be treating it like an AfD or an RfC in a personal conflict/problem user, when an uninvolved admin voices some kind of conclusion.

I do not see anything in policy that suggests that an RfC concerning a proposed change to content on a policy is anything more than a request for comments. I do not see any basis for treating it as a kind of conflict that can be closed only by an "uninvolved admin." And I don't see any basis for treating it as a vote.

You have a good grasp of policy and a lot of experience so I appreciate your views on this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm unaware that I was doing anything of the sort, or even that I would have the "power" to do so. I was also unaware that I was being discussed here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein: Without reading through this thoroughly (I am sorry, I am very pressed for time and will look more carefully when I have time) an Rfc is little more than a straw poll or general comments on the talk page, especially for a policy. Any significant change in policy must have wide input - given (for an indication of the size of the community) that we have about 1500 admins currently, a small number of editors commenting simply isn't sufficient. No Rfc must be "closed by an uninvolved admin" unless the Rfc itself is causing strife in which case an admin might close it as disruptive and not helpful. Anyone, admin or not, can close a talk page Rfc; it is important that the consensus is that it is time to close it, and that involved parties not war over closing. If consensus is not clear, it can be helpful to leave the Rfc open; sometimes however an Rfc gets bogged down and no clear consensus is formed and the Rfc is closed as some variation of "too long, no consensus, poorly phrased" etc. In no case is an Rfc to be treated as though it were a definitive ruling, especially if the result supports a change and not a reaffirming of the status quo; altho of course CCC and so on apply. I don't know if that addresses your question directly or not; please let me know if it does not and again, I will look again when I have more time.

Trypofish: Have you a purpose in that post? I am not certain why you posted here; please clarify, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Cybermud

Given your warning to Cybermud about his style of commentry at Talk:men's rights[1] I just wanted to point you to these talk page posts[2][3] (note the continued 'us and them' attitude) and this one on his user talk page[4].
BTW this is not the first time that Cybermud has been cautioned for his attitude to others[5] or been reminded of policy wrt his use of the talk space as a forum[6]. This has been a longer term issue with cybermud's use of talk pages it seems he's not getting the point. Also it worth noting that he was canvassed by jayhammers about the recent changes to men's rights[7]--Cailil ^talk 13:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic banned for one week, to include talk pages and related pages. Please post on ANI if he transgresses, thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Jonchapple

Hello KC. You left Jonchapple a notice of his topic ban here on October 20. Did you intend that he can still edit the talk pages of these articles? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't specify, I am so sorry. I'm inclined to let him edit the talk pages, but of course if he is disruptive we should extend the topic ban to include those as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Is an editor about to get their second block for breaching your topic ban evidence enough of disruption? Mo ainm~Talk 21:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Despite another block, I find this type of edit disruptive, and this edit dose not mitigate the abuse. This can only be described as a very personal attack, accusing an editor of being a terrorist sympathiser.--Domer48_'fenian' 17:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Men's Rights

Hi KC! Just wanted to share this new edit with you as someone who has been moderating (when you can) the discussion at men's rights. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just butting in - I notified User:Men's Tribune of the probation myself just now. However there is a serious (and obvious) COI issue ()which this user was already warned about but is choosing to ignore--Cailil ^talk 10:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for letting me know, and thanks for notifying him, Callil - I see no further activity since the notification, so no action is needed at this time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bugging you KC but certain issues are persisting. There's been more commentry from User:Kratch in the vein of those he was previously warned for[8][9]; there's also been a couple of comments by user:extransit (formerly an admin[10] aka user:icewedge[11], aka user:akirn[12]) where he accuses SLP1 of lying[13] and making arguments that are "obtuse in the extreme"[14].
Other than these behavioural issues we have an issue with User:DipWhip, who was notified of the probation yesterday after inserting OR (3 times)[15][16][17] repeating that behaviour[18]--Cailil ^talk 12:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
DipWhip is still adding further OR[19]--Cailil ^talk 20:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Flood

In a seperate but related issue I just want to draw your attention to this[20]. The topic probation obviously extends to that article wrt men's rights edits but there is also WP:BLP issue with that talk posting. This could do with some eyes on it--Cailil ^talk 02:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit by the user who was contacted is also ... interesting[21]--Cailil ^talk 02:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KillerChihuahua. You have new messages at Shakehandsman's talk page.
Message added 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shakehandsman (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That discussion seems to have been summarily closed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, KillerChihuahua. You have new messages at Shakehandsman's talk page.
Message added 02:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shakehandsman (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:
Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Article probation

The topic probation for Men's rights seems to extend to Fathers' rights movement; could you please take a look at the comments by User:Rogerfgay on Talk:Fathers' rights movement [22] [23] [24]? AGF and NPA seem to be the problem and I am not the only one who things that: [25]. Thanks! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Timbouctou

You've been mentioned on an ANI thread I posted [26], hope you don't mind. It concerns User:Timbouctou. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Timbouctou but feel free to change it how you see fit. I only did it because you havent been available and the behavior was continuing despite the ANI thread.--v/r - T P 01:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Many thanks for your work here at WikiP and have a stupendous 2012. MarnetteD | Talk 22:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re Timbouctou take two

There's another thread up concerning User:Timbouctou [27], you've been involved in this before [28] so I thought you may want to know. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 05:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary day

Wishing KillerChihuahua/Archive 19 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Ramesh Ramaiah^talk 10:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wishing KillerChihuahua/Archive 19 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CJ ^{Drop me a line! • Contribs} 12:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear KillerChihuahua,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 03:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification

Hey KillerChihuahua. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I have no strong opinion on the matter but will watch with interest. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello KillerChihuahua. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 11:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Michael Stevens (producer-writer-director)

Thank you for reinstating the article. I was bewildered by its speedy deletion - as I had tried exceptionally hard to start with more than a stub. And had done several hours of work to find all the reliable sources I cited in the article.

BTW I'm more accustomed to the style of citation that I used than the protocol of in-line references. I had understood (perhaps wrongly) that both formats are acceptable. Is that no longer the case now? Thanks Davidpatrick (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The style of citation that you used is called inline references. I suggest you use formatted cites. Officially, they both are acceptable, but the references section and formatted cites are preferred, and I believe it is possible that the admin who deleted your page scrolled to the end, saw no "references" section, and (completely missing all the numbered inline links in the article) decided there were no references. I could be in error; I don't know why he deleted it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Your recommendation noted. Davidpatrick (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you back!

I hope you will have some time to spend here. :) -- Donald Albury 12:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! It is nice to be welcomed back. I probably needed a break, but didn't take the last one on purpose. My pc died. :-( I'm on a netbook now, still trying to get things working right. Its bizarre editing on this little screen. I know there are people who do it with no issues, but I have things overlapping on the screen. I'm still trying to get email set up too. :-/ I don't know how active I'll be but I am back. :-) -- KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried using a notebook (that my son gave me when he upgraded), but the battery was shot, and I ended up getting a regular laptop. Apparently there are people editing WP from smart phones, but I have trouble just reading WP on one. :) -- Donald Albury 21:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a delight to see KC woofling about again! Similarly, my laptop's battery seemed to by dying so indulged in the thinking woman's iPad, a sort of netbook. Screen is ok as I peer at it closely through my rather short focus specs. Have trouble working an mobile phone (or do you say cellphone) let alone a smartphone. Anyway, good to see you all around, have tried to give up that over-activity stuff myself so relax and enjoy it. . . dave souza, talk 22:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also delighted to see you. Ps. Laptop with human sized screen. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much, Dave, Artifex - Um, you gonna buy me that for my birthday (Jul 7) Artifex? Thank you! I accept. :-D KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about you

here. MBisanz ^talk 18:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, the courtesy of notifying me is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for the congratulations and the good advice. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. Please let me know if at any time I can be of assistance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hi KC, just as you had dealt with issues about Shakehandsman's talk page before - you might be interested in the ongoing discussion of it with BlackKite[29][30]. I raised this seeing that I was now added to a list of editors banned from this user's page with remarks claiming there is proof of improper conduct on my part[31] towards Shakehandsman but without any evidence of it, or in fact any direct interaction with him for years.
I believe this user has strayed far beyond the acceptable bounds of User (talk) page usage - especially in that they are asking that "others be aware" of the conduct of listed editors towards him as improper (ie attempting to poison the well for anyone investigating this).
Just in case you're interested or had anything to add beyond BK's points. Also btw, Shakehandsman seems to have interpreted your points to him previously "as mistaken" clearly he is not getting the message--Cailil ^talk 16:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected the error in his understanding. As for the rest, I believe Black Kite to be an intelligent and responsible editor, and will wait and see. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

your comment on my talk page

Just saw them[32][33] and I agree. It helps to have my perceptions validated by another editor. I saw somewhere that saying someone was "pouting" was a sexist remark! I think this is Esperanza revisited and the same fate will befall; it seems to me like all the signs are there. Unfortunately, as the questions being answered so promptly is good, for those questions that are good ones, and not "why does my self-promoting article keep getting rejected" ones! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we share the same concerns regarding the project. Regarding Sarah, I should inform you that I have used your name in a discussion on her page, section titled "Suggestions, and a hope you will step back and rethink this" but she blew off my concerns and her talk page watchers have apparently decided to shoot the messenger, so I don't think I was able to do any good there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

woof ...

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks to a fellow "puppy" for the cleanup on the missed users list ... much appreciated. Hope life is treating you and yours well. — Ched : ? 02:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It occurred to me that others might wish to use those notes as well and so the cite template might be a good idea. I'm glad you found it helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Theft

I've stolen "WP:AFG is not a death pact." from you. If you ever want to see it again do not call the police... just check my contribs:) So this baby seal walks into a club... —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad you found an application for it, but the meme did not originate with me. See WP:PACT. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as a rationale for suspending habeas corpus, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is rather more elegant than "If we give them due process, the terrorists win." MastCell ^Talk 18:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Or "Abide by the Constitution!? Are you out of your mind!? If we did that we wouldn't be able to torture and dehumanize them." —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Pandora

Thanks for the help. And thus a Pandora's box was finally open, ..fortunately to WP work on it. All best, KenneBar81 (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit

Regarding this edit, i think it mischaracterises Russian Americans as being primarily religious, even though many are not. Dont you think it makes sense to indicate some are irreligious? Pass a Method talk 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that point is best made in the text, and if you find support for this in the infobox, to have None precede the listed religions; however, placing Atheism and Agnosticism under the heading of religions is inaccurate. Remember a sweeping statement that "most Russian-Americans are not religious" or anything similar must be sourced. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiknic Miami event June 23

If St Augustine is too far for you, then you can check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami/Wiknic/2012!--Pharos (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are going to St Augustine, which is great!--Pharos (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Special report: Reforming the education programs: lessons from Cairo

News and notes: Russian Wikipedia blackout; WMF tools; Wikitravel proposal revisited

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Football

Featured content: Keeps on chuggin'

Arbitration report: Three requests for arbitration

Technology report: Optimism over LastModified and MoodBar, but change in clock time causes downtime

Nomination of John R. Adler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John R. Adler is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Adler until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Activism AE

Hello KC. I was not, and am not, asking for a sanction. I'm just asking for the user to be notified of the discretionary sanctions, something that frankly should be done by a bot whenever a user edits a covered page. Are you saying that a user can place patent nonsense in to an encyclopedia article covered by discretionary sanctions, and that is not enough to even notify them of the discretionary sanctions? Nearly the exact same thing took place yesterday at Hamas, what exactly would be necessary to have the user notified of the case? nableezy - 15:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, he is certainly aware now, if he was not before. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

But he still has not been notified, and such a notification has not been logged to the case page. That, literally, is the only thing I have been asking for, but I either am unable to articulate why copying material from a right wing blog and placing it word-for-word in an encyclopedia article and claiming that the actual source is a page in another language that doesn't back up, even a little bit, the material cited to it is a bad thing, or such an action does not merit so much as a notification of the discretionary sanctions. If lying about the source of material, and placing pure propaganda into an encyclopedia article, isn't enough then I really need to find a new hobby. I won't argue the point further, thanks anyway. nableezy - 15:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting. I was warned purely as a matter of logistics because of this A/E thread. -asad (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't understand why you bring that here, or what your point or argument is. Please clarify? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I had been editing in the topic area for well over a year. In that time span, I was involved in discussions relating to WP:ARBPIA both in A/E and outside of it. So it is was clear that I knew about what ARBPIA entails, yet I was "officially" warned, though it was acknowledged that I was not being disruptive. Now my point is, if I was able to be "officially" warned as a matter of pure logisitics for doing absolutely nothing, surely the editor in question here should for, as you said, making edits, "...that did not improve the article." Or at least, at a minimum, for the same reason I was warned. -asad (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) tagged this on to the end of my notification: "This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.—I'm sure you are aware of the sanctions, but this is formal notification, since your conduct in the area has been called into question. This is not an assumption of guilt, merely something you should be aware of." -asad (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but why are you here? Do you have a request? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To clear up what appears to be a misinterpretation of what it means to be "notified" under ARBPIA -- as that was the only basis of the A/E thread to begin with. -asad (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Still missing your point. Merely because you received boilerplate warning about one case in no way obligates me to notify everyone Nableezy feels should be templated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

When did I say its your obligation? You can do whatever you want. But if I may, I would like to ask what is your criteria for an editor to be formally notified of WP:ARBPIA? -asad (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) It is a judgment call, which varies from situation to situation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sri Muralidhara Swamiji

Hi there, I saw you deleted the page Sri Muralidhara Swamiji in 2008. I've recreated and believe the original notability issues have been fixed. Would you please take a look at the new one? I believe it is much more to wikipedia's standards than the original, but since it will be under the same name, I would really appreciate it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fliderman11/Sri_Muralidhara_Swamiji Thank you!

Fliderman11 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The original article was unsourced and made no clear claims of notability, IIRC. I speedy deleted the recreation of that article, under the GD4 criteria. Your article is not the same, and would not be subject to deletion under that rule. It looks like you did a good job with it - but remember it will still be subject to possible nomination for deletion under normal Afd. Do you want me to move it to mainspace for you, or do you want to add an infobox or other details? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just between us pooches, the article is still effectively unsourced. It's got a few citations, but they are blogs, a disciples website, a TV schedule grid which says nothing about the programs shown (though it's not obvious if the subject even appears on the grid). So no RS to establish N. I left a note on his talkpage. LeadSongDog come howl! 12:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

First off thanks for responding. I would appreciate you moving it to the mainspace, thank you. Currently going through source material and adding to the article, including more concrete sources, but we can continue that conversation on the talk page for the article. Thanks again. Fliderman11 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Given the concerns LSD mentioned above, perhaps it would be best if you beefed up the article sourcing a bit prior to mainspacing it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Hey There, finally got around to usurpation request. thanks for the guidence Joedabear1 (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Joedabear1

You're welcome. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Carnival Sensation

Hi KillerChihuahua! I'm 5115heath. First, Cool profile!!! And 2nd, i was wondering if you could change the picture on the Carnival Sensation page. I would but i cant figure out how to do it. If you do, please change it to a good,recent photo of the ship. THANK YOU!!! -5115heath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5115heath (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you uploaded the picture yet? If not, you need to do so. First, make sure you have the legal rights to do so - if you took the image, then you definitely have the rights, otherwise you will have to make sure the picture is free for our use. See WP:UPI. Then you will need to edit the page, and replace the name of the image there with the name of the new image. There are helpful links in the welcome message on your talk page which will explain how to get help if you get stuck. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh okay! Yeah i found an image i like and asked the photographer for permission so im waiting for a reply now. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!! :)

5115heath (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)5115heath

You're welcome. Forward the email to [email protected] (for articles or English Wikipedia uploads) or [email protected] (for Wikimedia uploads) so we have a record. If you can, have the owner of the image use the form shown at WP:CONSENT; but that exact phrasing is not necessary as long as all the necessary info is in the email. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and emotions; digitization vs. copyright; WikiProject field notes; quality of medical articles; role of readers; Best Wiki Paper Award

News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget – staffing, engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's cheap shot at WP

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Horse Racing

Featured content: One of a kind

Technology report: Talking performance with CT Woo and Green Semantic MediaWiki with Nischay Nahata

Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

A kitten for you!

Now that some time has passed, I wanted to say that I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said and I hope we can put it behind us.

v/r - T P 13:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! I am sorry I had not gotten back to you yet... my r/l has been eating all my time! Would much prefer to cuddle cute kitten and hug and make up, thank you!!! Happy puppy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, great, thanks.--v/r - T P 00:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Darwinbish has taught your kitten to bite you shrewdly on the ass. Hopefully that has made your day better. Kittens are cute and have very sharp teeth! Spread the goodness of kittens by giving someone else a bitey kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. little ankle biter.

Um... ok... I hope you get your issues all worked out very soon. Meanwhile, have a cupcake! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

[The good twin Darwinfish is a little offended on his sister's behalf. Stuttering slightly : ] She doesn't have issues! She's just mean, that's all! darwin^fish 13:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

News and notes: FDC portal launched

Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

Featured content: Casliber's words take root

Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

AE appeal

Given numerous contributions you have made regarding the subject of 9/11 ([34], [35], [36], [37], [38]) and your past involvement in strongly supporting MONGO who was a major fixture in the circumstances of this case ([39], [40], [41]}, I do not think you could reasonably describe yourself as being uninvolved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on a couple of Afds in 2006, restoring removed content which was possibly page-blanking vandalism, and supporting an administrator whom I (along with many others) feel was hounded and harassed excessively, all of which occurred at most recent two years ago? Nope, not involved. All of which begs the question, why are you here? What do you hope to accomplish by this allegation? The case is closed. I cannot recuse myself even should I agree (which I do not) that I am even peripherally involved. Had I considered myself involved, I would have never expressed an opinion on your AE case in the first place - and that opinion was supporting the decision of another admin, and advising you to cease contentious behavior. Your sour grapes and attempt to frame me as "involved" ex post facto do not raise my hopes that you have taken the advice offered by Seraphimblade to heart at all. Advise you cease such quibbling. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Did I give you the impression that I had only that? Indeed, this is a little more compelling: [42]. John's history with MONGO was a direct factor in the case as John filed the case against MONGO that was used to push for my topic ban. You are so many different kinds of involved it is an obvious issue for you to put yourself off as uninvolved, even if the WP:INVOLVED problem were not magnified by an admin who was clearly and unequivocally involved closing the case after your comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia 8 years, 1 month and 14 days as of this writing. It is hard to find anyone with any time here with whom I have not interacted, both pro and con, and often both. I ask again: What is your intent here? What is your goal? What do you hope to accomplish? So far you have accused me of being involved. Do you expect me to agree? and if so, what do you think that will accomplish? What, in short, do you want? KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Tis very odd that a few votes in concert with mine 6 years ago would somehow be construed as involved. The oddest thing is that anyone whose supposed editing history is more recent than those Afd comments would know about them. I can't see how edits made 6 years ago could have been dug up in the 1.5 hours which lapsed between when you made your comment at AE and when The Devil's Advocate commented here. But good to hear from you ferocious puppy!--MONGO 06:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That you "interacted" with someone is not really the issue. I doubt your interactions with other editors are all of this nature. Your message to MONGO on his talk page is not particularly helpful, I might add.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll try again: What.... Do...... You....... Want? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like you to declare yourself involved, though I don't particularly care what reason you give for declaring yourself involved. Your past interactions with John, who filed the case against MONGO that led to my topic ban, would seem a reasonable basis given additional evidence here: [43], [44]. Then I would like it if you would re-open the case so an uninvolved admin can review it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Declined, as I made clear above. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

KC, this wouldn't be the first time that The Devil's Advocate found a noticeboard discussion inadequate. He often winds up continuing his appeal on talk pages of the admins involved. If one admin will not reply to his satisfaction, he goes to another. I don't know whether calling this 'pestering' would be too strong. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the gist of TDA's argument is the six month ban was either excessive or unjustified. However, there are only two months remaining in the current topic ban so TDA will be able to resume edits by early October. It needs to be noted that TDA was also banned for 30 days from this topic at the end of 2011...and was blocked for evading the ban during that period. This subject is a hotbed area, and most editors have a low pain threshold for those whose primary efforts in that topic are to promote a more fringe view, even if it is done by mere insinuation. I had hoped that the article may someday be rated as a Good Article again. That may be impossible if so much time is wasted dealing with endless and petty AE complaints filed by those that have a history of promoting a more fringe twist in an effort to silence those that disagree with them.--MONGO 16:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ed, agreed. This is sour grapes, which could be characterized as mild harassment/forum shopping by way of "IDHT"; the case is closed and yet he's pursuing it after the fact on multiple pages.

Mongo: He seems to think if I declare myself, who didn't offer the solution but merely supported it, as "involved" that it will make some kind of difference in the ban. It won't, of course, and I'm not, so fail on two fronts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I told Tim that he shouldn't close an appeal that directly seeks to lift a sanction he supported. That is just common sense. While I cannot say that declaring your involvement would prevent the same outcome, the reverse is also true. For instance, maybe another admin would have actually commented on the elephant in the room that I was clearly and repeatedly pointing out rather than consistently dodging the question.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate, I don't think you're going to make any more progress this way. It's clear that KillerChihuahua is not going to undo her comments, nor do I think Tim will undo his close. They disagree with you about the propriety of their actions, and rehashing the point isn't going to change anyone's mind. If you think you've been treated wrongly, I think your time would be better spent going to the committee itself to appeal, and including your concerns that those who handled your appeal were involved. Note that I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your claims, as I have not read the threads in any real detail, just saying this conversation is going nowhere. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) And you were wrong both times. You were told your "elephant" was irrelevant to your appeal.[45] You seem to have a really bad case of WP:IDHT. Be done, already. I have declined three times now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

adding: Heimstern is quite correct. Your appeal was closed, you are beating a dead horse. You cannot gain anything by harassing me and TimC. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Hi, I wonder if you would be willing to close out the move proposal RFC at the Men's Rights page.[46] You have given some admin support at that article in the past, and I think it would be good for an uninvolved admin to close it out. I don't think it is a very big job, but if you don't have time, that's fine and we can find somebody else. Slp1 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can do it; it may take a bit for me to read through it; I wasn't even aware there was an Rfc there. :-/ So I'm not up to date on it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That was not a proper RM according to settled provisions at WP:RM. Was it even an advertised RFC? I have posted on the serious impropriety of your closure, Killer; and on your closing comments. See this new section on the talkpage. I hope it will not be necessary to take the matter to WP:ANI.
☺
Noetica^Tea? 02:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite serious; please take this to ANI or withdraw your procedural complaint. You are holding the move hostage until you do one or the other; or until another admin steps in. Over a month of discussion and clear consensus for a move, but you want to threaten me with procedural wonkery? Seriously, I wonder at your rationale, but if you feel it necessary, please follow through. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

Featured content: On the road again

Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

Thanks!

Thanks, good to have a friendly ferocious guard puppy watching :) Vsmith (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You are more than welcome; glad I was available and noticed. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Men's rights

Thanks for your message on my talk page and for your quick correction. Neotarf (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I trust you do not have the same objection to the current edit, then? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Action at WP:ANI

Hi Killer. Please note this action at WP:ANI, in which you have been named.

Best wishes,

Noetica^Tea? 12:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

title redacted as bad faith attack

This is not a good sign that you take the role of admin seriously. Tony (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've about had it with your ABF. I changed it after the ani was closed, to reflect actual accepted practice as demonstrated by the ani; so others would not be confused and misled as Noetica was. This was clear from the timing of the change and my edit summary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's start with the premise that we're all valuable editors. There seems to be a lot of anger in the air. Tony (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tony, thanks for the heads-up. All editors are valuable, some especially so as they take on tedious admin work, and they should not be hassled for making good faith edits, or lectured unnecessarily on supposed requirements to set an example.

KC, perhaps you could advise. I incautiously looked at one of the 151 articles categorised as needing RM attention, Talk:Great Nonprofits. The proposed move seems completely uncontroversial, but if I'm reading the instructions I'm supposed to wait 7 days before making the move. Seems silly, is that right? . . dave souza, talk 19:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember if you were around back when RM was started, but it was originally supposed to be for technical moves only - do you remember when you wanted to make a move, but there was something at the destination, and you had to go to find an admin? Well that's what RM was created to deal with. However, it has morphed into the bureaucracy you're recounting there. I don't mind that so much; but recently some editors are saying all moves other than typos and obvious errors must go through RM. That's against established practice - heck, look at Tony1's hyphen moves earlier today - those would have to wait 7 days each, and there would be an enormous backlog, and for why? But I'm mostly concerned about the wear and tear on editors who don't even know RM is being promoted to be like Afd. Afd has built in control; only admins can delete. But anyone can move, so saying moves MUST go through RM really seems like entrapment to me. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I appreciate you weighing in on the Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the sensible points you make, didn't know if was for anything other than when tools were needed. Too lazy for this stuff, someone has been quick to revert my change so my impulse to help reduce the RM backlog has been stifled. Back to WikiSloth, dave souza, talk 20:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI comment.

On ANI, you wrote:

Does Collect look a little silly and hysterical? Maybe. Is he overusing the word "blatant"? Most definitely. Was he lumped in with a group of "buddies" to be tarred and feathered for something he wasn't involved in? Looks like a big yes to me. I've been on the receiving end of this sort of "guilt by association" myself, and I can tell you, there is no merit to this kind of approach. If and when Collect errs (and he does) feel free to bring that up. But do not lump him in with others merely because he belongs to the same Wikiproject, or has the same POV. You've done two things wrong with that; you've not only inappropriately added him to a complaint about which he had nothing to do, you have now weakened your own case by distracting from your real complaint. Puppy's heartfelt advice; don't do this. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't respond there, since it's closed, but I can respond here.

Briefly, I didn't exclude him because he doesn't exclude himself. He's happy to take his turn in the revert tag-team, to urge admins to block me and to interfere with content discussions with mocking and deceptive comments. He's one of them and I'm not unfairly lumping him in. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I am giving you truly excellent advice here: if you don't have a dif of him actually doing something wrong, then don't bring up his name. End of story. Doing anything else places you in the wrong and him as the wronged party. If for no other reason, do it out of self interest. Because now, if you do have a dif of him doing something wrong, it is quite possible that sympathy will be with him and you either won't get justice, you'll get "less" justice, or you'll get justice but also get sanctioned (blocked or whatever) for being part of the problem. I assure you, you are not building a case against him, you are harming yourself. I strongly urge you to try to consider all the other editors here as colleagues, with whom you should strive to get along and work, rather than as adversaries. Or at least act as though you did. Your time here will be smoother and more productive. And should you ever err, every admin in the place won't be thinking "Oh yeah, that guy who is always at 3RR and always bitching and complaining on ANI": - which they will if that's what you do, and some of them may be less inclined to help you or give credence to your account of things. You can shake that rep if you act now, but keep at it and you'll be considered a problem child. That isn't to say don't go to ANI; if necessary of course do so. But be less hasty to go there, don't act like it is a threat to go there (can't speak for other admins but one thing that burns my biscuits is "I'll take you to ANI" as a threat - it's just stupid), and once there, request assistance dealing with problem behavior of others, do not seek sanctions for others. Speak of actions of those you mention, not motives nor emotions, neither of which are you privy to. Do not speak of alliances unless there is a post on someone's page (or history) which says "Hey let's form an alliance against Still" - or unless you can document that for a period of months, two editors have tag teamed you and followed you to new articles - and even that may be simply because they share interests. Always AGF. As the old joke goes, Two or more people who oppose me constitute a cabal. Two or more people who agree with me constitute consensus. They probably just disagree with you. And absent strong proof to the contrary, they do just disagree with you. Well this has been a long post but I hope helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus diff?

KC, Can you point me to the consensus for this diff? I couldnt find it in the archives. I'm asking here instead of the talk page so as to not reopen the discussion unnecessarily. Enough drama on there already. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going more by history and established content rather than a specific single item in the talk archives. Most consensus is implied rather than specified. I started digging, but there's a lot of history here and I'm not sure if it will end up being worth the time and effort, since I don't know your rationale for the change, and WP:CCC. I'm thinking the change (on such a contentious subject) should be discussed prior to making the edit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not supporting either version at the moment, nor do I want you to waste your time cobbling together a bunch of diffs. I'll think about this for a while. Thx. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

thanks, let me know if you change your mind, or wish to engage in discussion on the talk page (preferably after this shooting has settled and reached a more stable version. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother. FRC is against gay adoption in addition to gay marriage, so the current version is fine with me. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nods, I think that's why that particular verbiage/link has been used so far, and you're right, it is more comprehensive of what they oppose. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback

Hi KC! I wanted to thank you for your feedback about the WikiWomen's Collaborative. It really means a lot! Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, it looks like a great project, and I hope it does well and accomplishes its goals. As you are aware, I have been active in speaking out about women on Wikipedia since at least 2006, and am always happy to see someone taking steps and doing hard work to try to address that.

As long as you're here I wish to clarify something about which I think you may have a misunderstanding about. I think the Teahouse is an excellent idea, and I delighted to see that it has become, as I hoped it would, a solid resource for new editors. My only objection to adding it to the templates was that a) it was done while the project was still in the development and testing phase, and 2) insufficient community input. I saw that the idea had been raised of adding it to the sidebar; is that the approach you decided to go with instead of seeking community support for adding it to the welcome templates? I think if you opened an Rfc today you would easily gain support for adding the Teahouse to the standard welcome template. I could be wrong, though; I didn't think there'd be any serious objection to my current Rfc and not only have just three people weighed in, they're all oppose. :-/ So my crystal ball might be broke. But I strongly suspect I'm right about this; and urge you to request community consensus at this time now that the Teahouse is established. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding, you said earlier you weren't sure how to set up an Rfc. I can do that, if you like. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I totally understand your concerns about the template additions with the Teahouse! I'm happy to say we're out of the pilot and that the pilot was a proven success - we figure (the team who created the Teahouse) that if the community seeks to place it on templates, they can engage in creating that conversation now! In regards to the sidebar - it was User:Kumioko who mentioned he had did it (without proposing it to the Teahouse volunteers and WMF folks) on the Teahouse talk page. So that was entirely community driven, and was a surprise for us. Same with the templates now, it's up to the community (and while I am part of the community, my COI with the Teahouse counts me out in starting the conversation, so to say) to take the lead on that RfC. I'd love to see it happen, but, my fingers are crossed hoping someone else will be bold and make it happen. (People keep talking about it, but no one is diving in...so who knows!) Ah, the complexities of the world of Wikipedia :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Who's tendentious?

I find this highly ironic:

WP:Tendentious editing: One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources

And then there is this:

bunch of text from the essay

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Accusing others of tendentious editing

Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly.

Your edit summary does not seem helpful towards achieving the consensus you are seeking. Now I'll ask you as nicely as I can not to repeat that spurious accusation. Belchfire-TALK 05:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring during an ongoing discussion on the talk page to insert contested material sourced by BLOGS? I'd say that's a big yes for TE, yes indeedy. Please seek (and obtain) consensus on the talk page for your edits, do not war to insert them during an ongoing debate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Look again. 100% of the material I added, which you reverted on the grounds it was poorly sourced, was from major, recognized news sources or from published authors. Carol Swain is a former member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. And I have not edit-warred. Nor have I edited tendentiously. Please be more careful that your accusations are factual. And please be careful not to edit tendentiously yourself. Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 19:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Take content discussion to the talk page of that article, not here, as my edit notice clearly states. There is an ongoing and lively discussion there where it is appropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

FRC RFC FTW!

You started an RFC at FRC days ago. I'm wondering if it's time to declare the winner and move on. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have several misconceptions with respect to how wikipedia operates. But for brevity, I'll confine my remarks to RfC.

30 days is the norm for RfC, though not the default unless a clear consensus is formed,
As the initiator of this RfC (even at someone else's behest) I doubt KC would close this with a 10 ft pole.
There are no winners or losers in an RfC, just an outcome. This is indicative of a battleground mentality.

little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 14:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

bunch of text pasted from the RFC page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

From WP:RFC:

RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically de-listed by the RfC bot after 30 days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template). Thirty days is the default length, but there is no required minimum or maximum length. If consensus has been reached before 30 days, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run.

In other words, we can remove the tag and end the RfC anytime we want. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

LGR is completely accurate in every detail, except that I could have added the tag and also closed if I were not involved (I am very involved) - if I were acting in the capacity of moderator for the Rfc - sometimes editors ask an uninvovled admin to "ride herd" on an Rfc, especially where the subject is contentious and/or the page is under probation. I wish you'd just linked to the RFC page instead of citing it at length. We're trying to get input and comments and come to a consensus here, not fight to get "our" version in. (See how I linked that instead of pasting half the page?) And no, do NOT remove the tag and end the Rfc unless virtually everyone is in strong agreement on what to include and how to phrase it; I do not see that happening any time soon. And last, Still, YOU should not remove it or declare the decision at all, now that you've shown lack understanding of the process and were trying to use an Rfc to "win" anything you do will be suspect, unless there is 100% agreement on the page - and if that is the case, then someone ELSE can close it, preferably someone uninvolved. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to politely ask you to look at what I actually said and compare it to what you thinkI said. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Spoon feed me, please. I have a bad cold. What did I misread? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion stems from my use of the idiom "declare a winner". This phrase is used to refer to ending a contest or discussion with some sort of conclusion. It is unfortunate that you picked up on the word "win" and took it to imply WP:BATTLE, but that inference is incorrect.

Mostly, I think you were annoyed about the fact that I posted a quote from WP:RFC, but it was entirely unfair of you to suggest that four lines is "half the page". It's shorter than LGR's bullet-pointed summary, and much, much shorter than the RFC article. This sort of hyperbole can run towards incivility, although I'm sure you didn't intend it that way. It does reveal your state of mind, however, which may explain the false inference you drew.

In any case, the problem with the default of 30 days is that it guarantees a month in which we do not follow our own rules. To use another common phrase, justice delayed is justice denied. I would suggest that, based on the parallel of Ku Klux Klan, this RFC should never have even been created, since the issue is a no-brainer. But that's just my suggestion. By giving this 30 days, you've provided the FRC with a month of WP:NPOV violation. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my state of mind (do not indulge yourself in the fantasy that you know how I think or feel), and it has everything to do with your choice of words. It is a pity you chose to use the word "win" to refer to an Rfc outcome. I strongly advise you, if you dislike having BATTLE linked in responses to you, to avoid that word in that context in the future. I hope this helps you in your future interactions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to note that you didn't address the fact that you overreacted to the small copy and paste from WP:RFC. I'm also going to note that you didn't address what I said about the delay being harmful. Instead, you reiterated that you're playing gotcha with the word "win" rather than accepting that you misunderstood. This has not been a productive response on your part. I think we're done here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised you're being so argumentative about all this, as it serves zero purpose that I can see to antagonize someone for perceived flaws in casual phrasing, but if you must:

I disagree I overreacted. I have eight years on Wikipedia, and over 6 as an admin. Not only do I know the policies, I helped write most of them. I don't need their content pasted on my page. If I hat them so I don't have to scan through them to be able to read the actual post, that's my choice.
"half a page" is hyperbole, a very loose characterization, comparable to "I have a ton of paperwork to read" or "I must have done that a million times" - it was casual phrasing and not intended to be taken as a literal calculation. My desk could not even support a ton of paperwork, but that doesn't matter because it is not actually a ton, rather it is a phrase meaning "a lot" just as my phrase of "half the page" only meant "more than needed." Further, it was addressing my edit, in which I could have or could have not pasted content in any amount, but I chose not to do so.
Wikipedia is not on a timeline. We are following, not ignoring as you state, by trying to work with other editors, some of whom have views very different from our own, to achieve consensus.

It is regrettable that you have chosen to argue with me over my choice of phrasing and understanding of Wikipedia culture and policy rather than attempting to works towards that consensus. Go. Have fun. Write well. But stop bickering about minor phrasing in User talk page posts. I'm human and I have a cold, and I am not interested in the outrage that I don't use phrasing which is to your particular narrow preference. Let me know if I can be of any assistance, but cease demand for explanation of my every word. And yes, there was a ton of hyperbole in there, just like "half a page" I don't mean literally "every word" (nor was it even "a ton" of hyperbole.) People often use hyperbole, and if you continue taking it as verbatim, you'll end up misunderstanding people a lot more than if you accept that fact. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, people often use hyperbole and we shouldn't take it as verbatim. The same applies to idioms, like "declare a winner".

Why are we fighting? What do we actually disagree about here? Anything?! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the salient point that if you use the word win and refer to an Rfc in the same communication, you will be hearing about BATTLE and it will cast doubt upon your approach to Rfcs. Don't do it; it is shooting yourself in the foot, whatever your personal views. We are not privy to your internal thought process; we must go by your words. Some are open to interpretation. Here on Wikipedia, others are not, as a general rule. Don't mention lawsuit, or lawyer, or sue, or anything like that or you'll be indef'd in a heartbeat. It is a waste of time to discuss how it was meant, in either case. It is simply a fact. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"You said 'tavern'. I'm going to Moe's!" StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, kindof, except we have an actual policy whereby any legal threat, however lame and unlikely, gets indeff'd automatically upon sight. Our approach is more or less "block, then let the guy explain if he's serious or not." Srsly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, this is probably due to the fact that lawyers have access to thermonuclear weapons, yet cannot evade a block. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Evolution article

Tree shaping

Myth

Loose usage of the term "personal attack"

FC Steaua București in Europe

I have quoted you

An "aww... cute!" for you

Essay on AE

Re butane

Ludwigs2

point of order, please

AE closure

AE appeal

Was 6 months ban too harsh given the context?

Older sanction update

Palin probation

that AE page

Message from you

Probation notification

mens rights?

Uh. Banana cookies.

Talkback

Redaction

Men's rights ANI, editors

Block Query

Recent comment on article that's on probation

Relating to Mirza on Mujaddid

Verifiability

Cybermud

User:Jonchapple

Men's Rights

Michael Flood

Talkback

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward

Talkback

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Article probation

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

Re Timbouctou

Tis the season

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Abortion amendment request

Re Timbouctou take two

Happy Adminship Anniversary day

MSU Interview

Abortion article titles notification

Dispute resolution survey

Michael Stevens (producer-writer-director)

Good to see you back!

I was talking about you

Thanks

FYI

your comment on my talk page

woof ...

Theft

Pandora

Edit

Wiknic Miami event June 23

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Nomination of John R. Adler for deletion

Activism AE

Sri Muralidhara Swamiji

Hey

Carnival Sensation

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

A kitten for you!

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

AE appeal

RFC

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

Thanks!

Men's rights

Action at WP:ANI

title redacted as bad faith attack

ANI comment.

Consensus diff?

Thank you for your feedback

Who's tendentious?