Misplaced Pages

Human Edit ... Participate...

Sorry I forgot to leave my four tildes on the discussion of my proposed change to add "participate" into the sentence since I'm still not convinced that Religion can be bottled up by "explain" - although this is much better than "manipulate". I don't think that people who are participating in many sorts of religous ceremonies would at all agree that they are much learning like in school... of course sure at the Unitarian Universalist, but would a Sufi or some mystic (mystics I hope are allowable) that is "participating" in some sort of communion with "higher beings" say that he's getting an education ?! - this seems somewhat absurd, to me.

thanks for your kinds considerations. Phillip 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

pl.

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

Arf!

Arf arf! Very nice to see you editing again! Bishonen | talk 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the welcome back. I was beginning to wonder if I'd wandered off for so long that I'd been forgotten. :) KillerChihuahua 15:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You returned too discreetly, that's all — everybody missed the yapping! Bishonen | talk 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

Welcome back : - ) FloNight 15:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And from me too! :-) AnnH ♫ 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Drat, I noticed the return, and didn't say anything. The pup deserves better. -- Ec5618 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to all of you! Happy puppy here. KillerChihuahua 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. The place has been dead(ly) in your absence. Geogre 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice pun... In attempting to read the usual gossip columns and dirt rags in an attempt to catch up on Current Events, I find it has indeed been a treacherous place whilst I was away. I hope none of the carnage is lasting or terminal. KillerChihuahua 16:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You were away far too long, KC! A few weeks is how long in dog-slash-wikipedia years? The site's turned ugly; we're going to all go to a new fork that only has the obscure, uncontroversial topics that nobody cares about. You know, history, literature, art: that sort of trivia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Knowledgecruft, in other words. Geogre 17:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You foolish humans, how little ye know of how the world actually works. We're headed toward our one-millionth Pokemon article faster than our one-millionth knowledgecruft article. Even non-notable bio-cruft grows faster than actual knowledge in this realm. I support your brave endeavors to actually add well-written knowledge based articles, but fear you are outnumbered. Once more, into the valley of death.... KillerChihuahua 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the "better" Pokemon articles do at least try to put their topic into some kind of perspective, but I've yet to read a single article (not even an FA) which answers this fundamental question: "Why should I - or anyone - care?!". I truly don't grasp wtf it's all about. In the past I made the mistake of noming a Pokemon article for deletion. The character is part of the "elite four" apparently. Like, whatever! --kingboyk 14:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm fiddin' to add a paintercruft nn-bio: Tilly Kettle. He was the first professional painter of British birthtrainingetc in India. That ought to get the Indians fired up or down, and then I've got this John Keogh guy who the Irish might want to know about, and then I'm going to try, try, try to help out the Barbara Palmer, 1st Duchess of Cleveland article. Geogre 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't all that book-larnin hurt yore haid none? I declare, I aint got no idee how yew manage. KillerChihuahua 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm 5 hours late to teh welcome back party! Syrthiss 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, the party's just getting started! Grab a drink, pull up a chair, join in! KillerChihuahua 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I was going to turn those two links blue, but then I had to stay off the phone all day. Oh, well, tomorrow we'll see Tillie Kettle and John Keough, and don't none of you people think of trying to get there first! I only write these things to see my name in lights. It's a close horizon and a dim honor, but it's all I've got. Geogre 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, as though I had time. And why denigrate your truly impressive additions/improvements? I swear, you sound like you were a Brit, with that self-depreciating tone. Be American! Be arrogant! (rofl at the thought of you being obnoxious and arrogant) KillerChihuahua 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Florida and G. Patrick Maxwell Rfd

Hello! Thanks for the vote of sanity on this Rfd. I have one other question and a comment for you. One, is there any way to stop Midgely's personal attacks on me? He has been warned by other admins to be civil, and I have asked him repeatedly to do so. This is way beyond any reasonable debate about this Rfd. Secondly, I live in Boca Raton, Florida. I love your photo of 'where you live'. That's Andrew, right? We are still waiting for tile for our roof replacement after Wilma. I would be interested in the Florida Wiki project. I will take a look at it. Thanks!MollyBloom 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

if he is not being civil, please provide a diff (or diffs); you may wish to try WP:CCD also. KillerChihuahua 23:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you have seen some of this. I would very much appreciate some assistance.

I don't know what else to do. I have already submitted a Mediation (?) request, but he continues to insult, misrepresent and malign. MollyBloom 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Without diffs posted, I can do nothing. Apologies for the brevity of these messages, I am just back from an extended wiki-break and am trying to catch up. If you wish, post to WP:PAIN, and provide diffs; your assertion that there have been violations of NPA is just that - your assertion. You are unlikely to see a response without diffs. KillerChihuahua 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:

I believe there is evidence that Homo erectus used fire. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

KS, your belief is good enough for me; however as you know, not enough for WP standards. If someone wants to clarify with "now living" a cite is needed. IMHO is unecessary as Homo erectus was a proto-human, but I have no strong feeling whatsoever. Good to see you posting, btw. :) KillerChihuahua 23:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

See and associated footnotes 69 and 70 (at the time I write this). I'm busy now but will add it back with citations later if it seems appropriate. Thanks, I'm still around, just busy...working and studying and all, you know. Sorry for the terse messages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

NP, I am right there with you on the limited time issue and message brevity. Still, concise is good, yes? As I said, I see no reason to clarify Homo xxx vs. Homo sapiens, as Homo xxx -sapiens is not SFAIK extant and was a precursor to H.s., if you follow. If anyone wants to add with the cite, I have zero objection. KillerChihuahua 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can assist...

I've been spending some time over at the John Wayne article lately and removed the "Draft Controversy" section. The reasons are, that after reading the talk page it became apparent that it was added and mostly sourced based on heresay and the individual thoughts on the contributors, many of whom have an obvious dislike of John Wayne. Further, is the fact that colorful language such as "wayne's cowardice" and the like is very non-encyclopedic. I removed it and then added a note on the talk page (note that i was not signed in at the time) saying that I think the section needs a source according to WP:CITE as its likely to cause some uproar. IP user 195.93.21.74 immediately reverted saying i have no right to remove fact just so i can "rewrite history." I removed it again and called for a source, to which he again reverted and said basically that he'll keep reverting because Wayne was a "Coward who dodged the draft while better men died." You can obviously see where his loyalties lie.

ANYWAY...if you could help out and let me know the best way to deal with this, obviously when he reverts again he'll likely be in violation of WP:3RR but how do I get him to stop mindlessly reverting and look for good sources? Batman2005 13:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will take a look at the situation. KillerChihuahua 13:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.....

LOL. Thanks, I will contact you if needed. -- Kim van der Linde 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I really am annoyed I missed it - I would have added my support as well - not that you needed it. KillerChihuahua 15:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh (I am assuming Kim and I are referring to the same topic) - the amusing spin on it was really good to read! :) -- Natalya 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. You are welcome for the laugh, and I meant what I said about contacting me if you ever need assistance. KillerChihuahua 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

re: advice

Thank you for the advice. Anything can be construed as a personal attack by those who have no integrity or oversight. — goethean ॐ 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And some things are attacks, plain and simple. KillerChihuahua 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message

To answer your question, I keep mine at user:kylu/welcome. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! KillerChihuahua 22:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: RfA

Thanks for the reminder. I've replaced your {{unsigned}}. Kalani 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. FYI, to refer to a template, all you have to do is add tl and a pipe, like this:

{{tl|unsigned}}

Which produces: {{unsigned}}

This is shorter to type and has the advantage that people can follow the link if they are not familiar with the template you are referencing. KillerChihuahua 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip. I'll try to remember that =) Kalani 00:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Musical Linguist

Cross-posted from KillerChihuahua and User talk:Musical Linguist: But, did she place such a warning? I honestly do not know. And it seems there should be some process for removing the AfD notice other than a reversion which offers no explanation. I think that making the AfD in the first place was an attempt at harassment on the part of a user who is intent upon being a disruption. But, there has to be some kind of conversation about the issue, yes? ---Charles 16:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

answered on user talk page. KillerChihuahua 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare you

How dare you block Eternal Equinox. I have not been trolling on any pages. I posted a message for Bishonen to read because I wanted her to acknowledge why I had been so upset and somewhat uncivil these past few days, but you brilliantly rude and unorthodox administrators reverted me for no reason. Even if Bishonen asked me not to post on her talk page, I felt as though this was important since it would be my final message there (well, second-last after a "final goodbye"). This "trolling" is ridiculous, especially on the featured article page of S. A. ... whatever it's called. I merely placed something alphabetically (which I'm obsessed with) and I was considered trolling. Nonsense. I'm allowed to make such edits and yet I'm reverted under the edit summary: "say it out loud. It sounds better". Exactly when did this become Misplaced Pages policy?

I was going to message you on your talk page regarding the comment I left for Bishonen. In my most-honest opinion, you were far too critical and blocked my account before I had the chance to tell you of this edit. I believe this is an unfaithful notion and request being unblocked immediately. —64.231.75.85 00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare I? What a silly question. I'm an admin. We block, we unblock, we protect, we unprotect, etc.; when indicated. I warned you, you ignored the warning, you are blocked. 1, 2, 3. We don't have many rules here on Misplaced Pages but the few we have are very simple. I note that rather than placing {{unblock}} on your talk page as directed, you have chosen to evade the block by posting here, including a blanket personal attack. You have earned yourself a block extension for that. Try to spend the time productively by contemplating your behavior. KillerChihuahua 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just unblock me. I WILL NEVER EDIT AGAIN AFTER THIS. Ever. NEVER. I will leave you all alone forever. Just unblock me so that I can fix these pages up for two days — then I'm gone. I promise I'll never return. I don't care! I'll never come back. I'm sick of this place anyway. We Belong Together is too close to risk at this point — just unblock me and I'll go away after tomorrow night — forever. Please. 64.231.154.77 20:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg of you please. 64.231.154.77 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfC

I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding the rules to an RfC, I'm trying to learn how to handle it because I've never seen them in action. I am following the rules and guidelines as best that I can gather from what it says on the pages. Is it common for people that are actively involved (and certified that they have "tried and failed" to resolve the dispute) in the dispute to add seperate sections underneath the Outside Views section of the RfC? It looks like the format of the RfC is pretty clear.

1) Statement by members involved in the dispute that have tried and failed to resolve the dispute -- then endorsements 2) Response by person in the dispute -- then endorsements 3) Response by outside parties that are not involved in the dispute -- then endorsements

However FeloniousMonk has included his views in both the 1st section stating that he is an active participant that has tried and failed to resolve the dispute and now he has made up an entirely new section that isn't even for outside parties -- its for an active participant to get another say-so in after he already has had the opportunity and space to make his case in section 1.

Is this really how it is commonly done? Vivaldi (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He endorsed the Statement of the dispute, which he did not write. It is not common but is completely acceptable for him to write his own view. See for example Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cyde where Cyde wrote a View and a Response; and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SPUI where there is a Statement, a Response, a "Fair and balanced view", an "Inside view" (which is basically the same as what FeloniousMonk wrote), an Outside view, Another view, Yet another view, and a 4th Outside view. All of these are views. The issue is to not edit other people's views, except to Endorse. An endorsement can contain brief comments as well. You seem to be focusing on the rules and not on the points, which is not helpful. Please try to focus on the statements made - this is a Request for comments, after all, and the comments are (hopefully) to your benefit and the benefit of Misplaced Pages. This is not a trial. Several people have opened Rfc's on themselves, in order to get community input on their behavior/actions. KillerChihuahua 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Block log

The sound of three people snapping. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

GMTA, and I'm the "nice" one with 3 hours. Think about it, though - I didn't do a lookup, but s/he's probably editing from a library, possibly a school library. ah well, if any of you want to un- and re- block, I won't say a thing - none of the ip's being used by EE have ever been used by anyone else. KillerChihuahua 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider unblocking EE on certain conditions?

Killer, would you consider offering to unblock EE on condition that she only, absolutely only, edit 1) We Belong Together and 2)Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together for as long as your 72-hour block would have lasted? Of course you would block her rock solid the moment she edited even ONCE somewhere else during that time. Please just think about it? Bishonen | talk 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

But what about her great expressed need to continue edit-warring over images on Cool (song)? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, what about her threats and dares, such as "just try it, bitch" and "you're dead."?

Bishonen, why would I unblock this person? EE has broken every promise s/he has ever made, including to not pester you on your talk page - surely you have not forgotten that you received a Brick for doubting the last "never again" statement made. EE posted an unblock request, then less than 10 minutes later replaced it with a Fuck all of you message. So far as I can tell EE is either a spoiled brat or a troll, or both. I see nothing to indicate otherwise. KillerChihuahua 21:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just because of the FAC. I didn't see that last edit you mention, but I already knew she flails about when she's blocked, that's no surprise and doesn't make that much of an impression on me. It's up to you, of course. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

EE knew about the FAC when I posted a very clear warning on his/her talk page: Do these things and I will block you. EE did two of the three I listed; I blocked. Rather than taking the time to cool off and think things over; EE responded with vandalism, threats, personal attacks, and trolling. You are arguing Special Pleading; I view this as worse than irrelevant. I am open to persuasion if you have arguments you feel are valid. KillerChihuahua 21:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On re-reading what I posted, it does not mean what I meant to say. I did not mean to say your view or question was invalid, I was asking if you had thought of reasons I might not have, which had not yet been posted. Apologies for incredibly bad phrasing. KillerChihuahua 09:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Shucks! Bishonen | talk 10:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

That still-born FAC is what got him or her in trouble to start with. As HW, vote stacking on that stupid song got the first block, which s/h/it evaded non-stop, which got new blocks, and that led to the new identity, the next new identity, the next one, and now this one. I don't think the user ever served the first block, and that's what's important. Take the medicine. At least this time the creature is asking for an unblock: that's progress. Geogre 11:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Beer

Thanks! ...Fursty Ferret? I'm not sure I could order that with a straight face. KillerChihuahua 08:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In over my head

(From my talk page, a while ago:) please let me know if I can ever assist you, and do not think you are "wasting" my time!

Well... perhaps there is. It all started with a minor disagreement which set my nose off, raising some questions and prompting me to put an article up for deletion, where someone pointed out a previous ruling which is relevant if the editor is who some other people think he is (I'm not sure).

Is it possible for someone with fancy adminny detective tools and no interest in the actual subject (and I assume you are such a one) tell me whether my nose is correct? I'm not asking for any intervention here, just maybe a direction (give it up, or stick to it, or have a biscuit...) If you have some time, it would be appreciated.

Thanks! --Dan 17:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:RFCU -Admins in general do not have CheckUser tools. Otherwise, I see no errors you have made - it is a good-faith Afd nom, and the community will decide on the article. It does not appear to be faring well. Was there a more specific question which I am failing to answer? I'm not quite sure if I have addressed your concerns. KillerChihuahua 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I see! My mistake about the detective tools, then, sorry. Thank you for the pointer!

From the RFCU page:

1. ...checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first.

6. Evasion of bans or other arbitration remedies: may be listed where the problem is ongoing. Include a link to the closed case.

9. Vote fraud: only where (a) there is reasonable doubt as to whether or not the votes are valid (b) the vote or discussion period has closed, and (c) the possible sockpuppet votes actually affect the outcome of a decision. Provide a link to the closed vote and discussion.

9 makes it sound like I should wait for the AfD vote to close and see what the result is. 6 makes it sound like I should go there right now -- people aren't going to care about AfD, people will want to address the ArbCom ruling. 1. makes it sound like I ought to do something else entirely, or perhaps nothing -- people aren't going to care enough. (Coincidentally, this is roughly my own feeling about it already: a) I ought to take up the general case, b) forget the general case, I ought to deal with the one or two articles I care about only, c) forget it, this isn't at all what I signed up for.)

Understanding now that you have no special access to info, might I still trouble you for an opinion? Policy pages can say one thing or another, but without experience it's not easy to tell the relative importance people are going to attach to them in practice. I have been around a while, to be sure, but generally I'm minding my own business and not even logging in most of the time. I have no experience with ArbCom remedies, AfD, checkuser, or anything at all like this. I rather blundered into it.

Thanks again for your time! Cheers, --Dan 16:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As you were not the one who possibly "recognised" the banned user, leave it to those more familiar with that user to make the call on whether to go to RFCU, and don't worry about it. One puppy's opinion. FYI: the checkuser people are a tad overworked. There aren't that many of them. KillerChihuahua 12:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

(Why, are there other puppies with opinions?) This makes sense. I am now comfortable in my inaction. Cheers, --Dan 15:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Puppies are highly opinionated! Its just that not that many of them can type. KillerChihuahua 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We can barely get our dogs to wash the dishes. I've always wondered why they haven't come up with a breed that instinctively gives backrubs. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox

Just thought I'd let you know, Eternal Equinox continues to dodge the block you issued against him/her. HeyNow10029 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's EE. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably him. The IP address' contribution page has an edit made to User talk:Eternal_Equinox on May 30, edits to We Belong Together and his usual sunny comments in several edit summaries. Plus it fits EE's M.O. to constantly revert changes I've made to pages. HeyNow10029 21:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's possible, of course, but this is quite out of character; in the past, when she's talked to herself one-puppet-to-another (which I've seen quite a few times) the tone is quite different. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe s/he was trying out a new tactic? Who knows. I gather most of what s/he has done anyway is mostly a ploy for attention. ::shrugh:: HeyNow10029 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It just seems more plausible to me that the anon is simply someone who likes neither EE nor you, though. And if someone thinks it's to early to archive a talk page, you should probably just go along with that, or archive only the older items. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What puzzles me, HeyNow, is that your beef with E.E has nothing to do with her being uncivil. You are simply against her because of a stupid edit war you had over Kelly Clarkson, in which you were clearly in the wrong. And what's also stupid is this cat-and-mouse game you have where you list all of E.E's images for deletion because she/he was against you placing 4 images in kelly clarkson (and even though Admins see this, they do nothing. After all, its EE right? She deserves to be treated unfairly because she has been a pian to some). You all prance around here like some civilized upstanding citizens, but believe me, there is such a thing as karma, and if you ask me, both Heynow and EE deserve to be banned permanently. This type of behaviour does nothing for both of you, nor for WP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.196.21.5 (talk • contribs) .

Thank you, "anonymous" user (who just happens to have an IP address in the same range as Eternal Equinox and just happens to have coincidentally made an edit to Eternal's talk page) for that "unbiased" account. And for the record, the 3 images that I listed for deletion were not uploaded by E.E. but by two other Wikipedians. Lastly, no one has treated you unfairly Eternal; frankly, it's shocking the amount of patience the admins have had when it comes to your special case. From your your threats to sue, your 3RR violations and trolling websites you have no interest in to make edits purely out of spite, your continuous blatant disregard of the ban that's been imposed on you or calling people bitches and telling them to fuck off -- they've bent over backwards to assist your childish behavior. ::shrug:: I have plenty more to say, but why bother? HeyNow10029 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what, HeyNow? You really need to just exclude yourself from things that really do not concern you. Since you are so adamant in your claim that the IP is Eternal's, I thought that I'd let you know that its me, User: Journalist (and if you don’t believe me, just get a check user to prove it). It's good to see how you watch Eternal and point out every one of her mistakes, like you have been peachy since you came here. Believe me, I do not condone her behaviour. She has done some horrible things, but these things have not been unprovoked by you (see Talk:Kelly Clarkson, which you continue to revert in an attempt to hide (and haven't you also violated the 3RR at least twice?)) and many others here. Yes, the two images that you nominated were not uploaded by E.E, but she was using them in her articles (like Image:Weddingdress.jpg from WBT. (By the way, I will be re-uploading it).), and you chose to 'get back at her' by nominating them. None of what you have done have been in good faith.

I'm not here to make a case for E.E. Frankly, I want nothing to do with her, as was clear by my edits (you know which ones). But I find it hard to just sit back when self-righteous people like you (and everyone else involved in this whole matter) treat someone unfairly because he or she is helpless. And for the record, E.E probably wasn't trolling S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. Having worked with her, I really have to admit that she really is that picky (, , , , ). However, none of you would see that. Afterall, you all were looking for the first chance to institute a block. (I was about to protest it, but E.E made the situation worse by cursing).

You have plenty more to say HeyNow? Please, let loose, 'cause so do I. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to EE's talk page, HeyNow10029's talk page, or email. I am not a host for a series of ad hom attacks. Surely you have something better to do than this self-rightous arguing? KillerChihuahua 19:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that my block has expired (and because I arrived in Japan about twenty minutes ago — well, maybe a little more than that), I would like to point out that I completely agree with Journalist about the images issue. That is all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a message on User talk:Bishonen because I would like to ask something of her. Please do not remove this. Thank you. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

One last message has been posted on Bishonen's talk page. I won't post there again. Now we are completely clear — thanks for remaining patient. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Hi. I'm a recently appointed admin. I'm missing something about closing AfDs.

I realise that you're supposed to wait 5 days in the ordinary case.

1. Does this mean that an admin trawls through all the AfD debates that are about to fall off the end of the 'current discussions' list? Should I do so?
2. How quick should an admin be to close an AfD early? If a debate has 20 delete votes and one 'keep' vote, can I snowball it 2 days into the discussion?
3. Is there any more firm policy than 'rough consensus'? In particular, to what extent does an admin assess the quality of votes rather than quantity?

I can't find any hard policy in the reading materials. - Richardcavell 03:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I refactored your post for easier reply - hope you don't mind. Much of this depends on your judgment, which is one reason only Admins can do this - you're trusted to have some sense and fairness. That said:

1. Yup. That's a good reason for the Afd's to be organized by date.
2. My humble advice - 99 times out of 100, don't - at least until you have more experience. On rare occasions, it makes sense, but even those are open to shrieks of "foul" and "improper closure" and often show up on WP:DRV, and sometimes the admin shows up on WP:AN/I.
3. This is where your judgment is called into play. If there are 10 keep and 10 delete, and the 10 keep say things like "Becoz i workd reely hard on this and your just being mean" and do NOT address notability issues or whatever the reason for listing on Afd is; and the deletes all state things

such as "I have done extensive research into malls in the Greater Podunk region and this mall is completely non-notable, and in addition is an advert copied directly from mall advertising from 1983, no point in fixing or saving, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection" etc; then its a clear delete even though it is by the numbers a tie. In other words, you weigh according to whether the opinions voiced address WP standards. NOTE that "this article is a mess" is an invalid reason for deletion; it is a reason for Cleanup. If it is unclear, close as no consensus. If it is really unclear, feel free to ask for a second opinion from another admin. If there are less than 10 editors voicing an opinion and it is even slightly unclear (not all keeps or deletes), relist to gain consensus. Or set your own "not enough" level; 10 is mine.

This is my take on all of this; opinions will vary among other Admins. Please feel free to get a second opinion - my suggestion is to ask Guy. KillerChihuahua 12:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Need your help

KillerChihuahua, one of my favorite editors Herostratus is being eaten alive on his Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Herostratus. Please see my comment and support if you think it is wise. I know that you have edited the Lolicon article and likely understand the complexity of the out of process deletion of that image. I think he is being unfairly portrayed by some oppose voters on that topic. FloNight talk 18:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Concur, and had I known he was up for sysop I would have supported already. I don't check that as often as perhaps I should; when I do I generally don't voice a position except in borderline cases. I have interacted with Herostratus on more than one occasion; I feel he would make an excellent admin. KillerChihuahua 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the puppy for supporting Herostratus. Just now the tally and comments are better; he is up to 78%. He is a great guy so I hope it goes through. FloNight talk 02:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

re: congrats

OK, KC, I'll bite. Per #6 of your very funny message - would you please spend some of your precious time and review my block and delete logs. Pick out some items at random and make sure that you agree with the decision I took. Obviously, that won't include all the CSD's I declined and all the AIV entries I've dismissed, but I am a lot less worried about those. While I am still learning the ropes, your input would be particularly helpful in nipping whatever mistakes I may be making in the bud. Thanks a lot. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look. KillerChihuahua 22:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

For starters, please sign your block notices - that way everyone knows who blocked the user without digging through history or logfiles. This is also a courtesy. KillerChihuahua 22:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Lord" being a name and not only a title

On the entry "God", I do have a reference as to the word "Lord" being a name and not merely a title: Jeremiah 33:2-3. I don't know if that's satisfactory for Misplaced Pages standards, however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathanbrickman0000 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Young's Literal Translation, the word was originally "YHVH", the Tetragrammaton, which is usually written as "Jehovah" not "Lord". We can dig up some linguistic and biblical scholars if you want to pursue it, but IMHO its a semantics issue - like saying "I'm the MAN" and getting it as "My name is MAN." KillerChihuahua 21:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and please remember to sign your posts using four tildes ( ~~~~ ). KillerChihuahua 21:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lord, or "Adonai", are not names -- they are honorary titles like Sir. The Tetragrammaton is not consistantly used throughout the Bible -- hence the distinction between the Jahwist and Eloist writers (as well a the Priestly writer) of the Bible. •Jim62sch• 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a hard row to hoe. Elohim, Adonai and Yhwh are three words, not two. To claim that Elohim is a title means you are claiming that "El" is not the proper name for the God. Therefore what is "El"'s name? Obviously, GOD has more than one name. Wjhonson 14:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

God

Copy of post left on StThomasMore's page

Hi - it's clear that you have very strong feelings on this subject and there seems to be some sort of edit war going on this page. However there is no activity on the talk page at all and I would like to ask you and KillerChihuahua to start a thread there so that others can get the hang of what the problem is. Often discussion, with other editors helping, can find the wording necessary to include all important information whilst preserving the NPOV that is essential for wikipedia. You will find that others of different religious views will read your edits with a much more open mind if they are worded carefully. I will be honest and say I'm an atheist, but an open minded one - I have good friends with very strong Christian views (both Catholic and Protestant) and we respect each others opinions and accept that we are all on our own path and must walk it the best that we can. I will be out and about the next couple of days but will catch up on the discussions when I can. I hope this dispute can be resolved without having to protect the article which is what will happen if these reverts carry on. I have also posted this on KillerChihuahua's page.

Hope the dialogue starts soon - I will look out for it when I can and help if necessary. Sophia 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have asked several times for StThomasMore to post on the talk page, but he has not. As he is the one who desires to change the article, he is the only one who can present his reasoning. KillerChihuahua 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hehe

Hey, thanks! :) Most of them were quite easy, but there were two which I was pushed for time for. First one involved parametric equations and the second one I wasted about 10 minutes trying to get borders around some of the cells on MSExcel XD -- infinity0 15:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, equations... you must be more math-friendly than I. Glad to hear you did well overall. KillerChihuahua 15:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :) -- infinity0 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool (song)

This was a good idea (I had thought about doing it to), but I am unsure whether it is accurate. Yes, the music video was filmed specifically at Lake Como; does this also indicate that it was filmed in Como? The references do not mention that particular city. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Como is where Lake Como is, they cannot have filmed at Lake Como unless they were in or around Como. The edit also fixes the forests and restaurants (in a lake?) issue. KillerChihuahua 19:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am surprised that I had not come across that mistake earlier. Anyway, I suppose you are right one way or another, so thanks for fixing that. Cheers. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

NP, hopefully it helped the article somewhat. KillerChihuahua 20:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to say goodbye

Though at first I found you to be quite the pain in my side, I've developed mutual respect for you, so I hope that all goes well for you in the future. My final edits will be made on Misplaced Pages on June 26. After this date, the only edits I will make will be occasional pop-culture updates. Thanks for your kindness and your time. Take care! —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't trying to be a pain, just doing my job as an Admin. I'm glad you aren't holding a grudge. Good luck to you as well. KillerChihuahua 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do me one last favour: delete my user talk page the way it has been done with my main profile page. It would be appreciated. Thank you. Goodbye. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, evidence from her talk page is currently being used in a RFA against User:Eternal_Equinox, it can be found here. HeyNow10029 02:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The user talk page will have to stay, EE, at least until after the arbitration case is closed. KillerChihuahua 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen K. Hayes Article

Hey, thanks for getting involved! I sent two pleas to Admin User:Fire Star since he'd been involved with that article before. I know that Jikaku has a history of edit wars with that article, but I'm looking for a compromise, ya know? Do you have any advice? Thanks! --Corwin8 05:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Posting on article talk page. KillerChihuahua 09:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while Corwin8 may mean well, he has a history of not necessarily understanding exactly what is and isn't "POV" for example. It also seems he has a history of being overly confrontational and combative - (i.e. "STOP IT! STOP IT NOW!!!" etc.), even though he may not realize it, or even intend his writing to be taken that way. It seems clear that while even you (KillerChihuahua) have pointed out that his contributions to the Stephen K. Hayes article are at best OR and so shouldn't be included - he still feels as though he's in the right, and being attacked for having that material removed. Not sure how this can be resolved, exactly. --Jikaku 03:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Take the same advice

There is a good reason why you need to take this advice as well. Its called the Wikimedia Foundation Charter which was issued under the laws of the State of Florida and to which the Wikimedia Foundation must subscribe. ...IMHO (Talk) 09:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The Charter has nothing in it about notifying a b'crat before posting on a users talk page, or any of the other silly "advice" you gave Knowledge Seeker. KillerChihuahua 09:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing to the Bible

As a recent participant in the TfD dicussion on whether {{Bibleverse}} and {{Bibleref}} should be deleted, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new discussion at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources/Bible. The goal of these discussion is to resolve the concerns raised re GFDL, use of an external cite, etc. Additionally, this page should serve as a location for recording research about the different websites that provide online Bible information. Please edit the summary and join the discussion - thx Trödel 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the heads-up. KillerChihuahua 15:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

np Trödel 18:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua Abuses Adminstrative Priveleges

Semi-protection is intended to allow good edits to be made while preventing vandalism of the page. There are some situations in which it should not be applied. It is:

   * not to be used to deal with regular content disputes. See the protection policy for how to deal with this;
   * not intended for pre-emptive protection with the exception of some biographies of living people
   * not for the day's Featured Article, which should almost never be protected;
   * not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general.

Article-talk pages are not protected as a rule, except in special circumstances. User-talk pages subject to persistent vandalism or trolling may be semi-protected or protected on request.

Semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort. Remember to lift the semi-protection after a brief period if appropriate.

I demand that you unprotect the Prayer links page and unblock any affected users or I will be forced to begin a campaign requesting removal of your administration status.70.8.99.43 19:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh, a campaign, that'll be fun. Do we get to print out bumper stickers? --Cyde↔Weys 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Spicynugget. Make bumper stickers if you wish. KillerChihuahua 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for User:Spicypickles. Appeared just after this user did - made a few disruptive edits then stopped when the similarity was noted. It may pop up again now that nugget is having problems. Sophia 12:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, and immediately before that was User:Spicytomato. Not a lot in common on the edits though. KillerChihuahua 13:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Category_talk:Pseudoscience

Hi KC, I'm copying this from the cat talk page because I appreciated your comments and wanted to make sure you got my reply. You commented "The assertion that its an implicit NPOV violation if the cat is disputed is nonsense." Yet that's actually what WP:CG says; see the relevant excerpts; I'm not making this stuff up. But of course undue weight still applies, and that is exactly what resolves the issue. In order to cause an NPOV violation, the dispute needs to be a legitimate one. That means within the scientific community, including significant minority POV's (the real kind, from scientists publishing in the same refereed journals, not in their own would-be peer-reviewed journals). I don't mean dispute between scientific consensus and advocates within the pseudoscience community. Creationism is thus safely within the cat. Quantum physics, which another editor suggested could be in the cat because some say it has pseudoscientific elements, should not be. Some of the so-called alt-med stuff for which there is EBM-level evidence IMO shouldn't be either. cheers, Jim Butler 01:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, replying there. KillerChihuahua 14:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Words of wisdom

Thanks for the "puppy list"; I don't doubt any of them! With less than 24 hours as an admin, I've begun to use the tools, but I'm trying to be very cautious. When I went into the "speedy deletion list," I found myself saying, "Hmmm....I'm not 100% this one really fits one of the categories, even though I'm sure it would soundly fail in AfD." It's a lot easier to put the speedy tags on than to take responsibility for actually deleting something! OhNoitsJamie 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! Remember list item #5. Seriously, though, I think you are wise. KillerChihuahua 17:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple things

Since I know you've been capable of reasoned discussion in the past:

1. Not a good idea to call fellow editors "obtuse." You certainly should know better.
2. If you're going to cite policy, then actually work within policy. The constant warring is due to people IGNORING policy to whitewash notable and important information. The discussion is right there on the talk page, and you're siding with people who would rather protect their POV on the matter as opposed to follow the relevant policies they try to cite with poor results.

Think about it, please. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am delighted to have my misgivings of your suitability to be an administrator confirmed so quickly, and delivered to my talk page, too! How considerate. KillerChihuahua 14:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet you somehow became one with no apparent grasp on relevant policies or civility. Maybe it's best that I don't dive into that club right now. That's twice now. Keep it up.--badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Which reminds me of an old joke - A man and woman were wed. They got into his wagon (this would be in horse-drawn wagon pioneer days) and proceeded homewards. The horse paused to get a few mouthfuls of grass from the side of the road. The man started the horse again with the laconic comment, "That's one." His wondering wife did not question his meaning. Later, fording a shallow stream, the horse paused to take a drink. Again the wagon was started with the comment, "That's two." The wife's curiosity increased. A snake in the road hissed, and the horse stopped and shied. The husband sighed, said "That's three," reached under the seat for his gun and shot the horse dead. The wife in horror begain to protest: "Why did you shoot the poor horse? He didn't do anything wrong!" The husband looked her in the eye and said, "That's one." KillerChihuahua 14:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

well, it's funny at least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the birthday wish, it was fun! :) HeyNow10029 19:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am delighted to hear you had a fun birthday. :-) KillerChihuahua 12:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"A woman might have pissed it out"

Bits and bobs are starting to go in, driven by a high easterly wind in a medieval wooden city that's like a tinderbox after a summer drought! Bring yer demolition gear and a hatful of money to pay for some firefighters! Bishonen | talk 22:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC).

Did the Lord Mayor opine as to how much beer said woman would have needed to consume prior to her attempt to join the ranks of vigiles? KillerChihuahua 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the WP:1.0 Team!

Hi, and thank you for signing up for the Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team! I wanted to find out what areas interest you. A few possibilies:

• Right now we are busy trying to review Version 0.5 nominations, I'd like to get up to 500 articles approved for Version 0.5 by the end of the month. If you're interested, please sign up for the Review Team.
• In parallel with this, the Work via WikiProjects group (WVWP) is contacting all of the projects for a second time. This necessitates a major revamp of our information organisation, including the creation of a new summary list to keep track of things. We're asking projects to provide us with a list of their most important articles. The group worked with Oleg Alexandrove to adapt Mathbot so it can produce worklist information for the projects, so we are encouraging them to use that system. In just a few weeks, we've reached a point where almost 12,000 articles have been assessed with our scheme and tracked by the bot! If you're interested in WVWP, let me know and I can explain the details.
• If core topics are more your thing, we need someone to go through the Core Topics Supplement and assess the articles, as well as adding a template (to be written).

Although we have a lot of people signed up, there are only a handful of active people trying to do an immense amount of work, so I hope you can help. It is very worthwhile! Thanks, Walkerma 00:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I will show you

I shall craft a glorious butter spreader article and shall allow no link to it from butter knife. I have gone renegade, I fear. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You're off your usual mettle, I will grant. How does it feel to be down here at the level of we flawed mortal folk? KillerChihuahua 01:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is agony. But Mount Olympus is so humid this time of year. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Two days ago this article was RUINING Misplaced Pages with its unsourced claims. We are on safe ground now. I shall watch your butter spreader article like a hawk to make sure we do no return to our days of shame. --FloNight 01:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

(cross posted from Talk:Butter knife): Alas, I have sad news. The RUIN of Misplaced Pages still looms. Have you seen Fish fork? KillerChihuahua 01:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ralph Abercrombie

Do you have a source for this information? Please do not add original research, you must add verifiable sources) This is a very interesting question from one that does not abide to it. That was the reason why I did not post any reference whatsoever. Anyway the most reliable and most verifiable sources are the ones that I have gathered over time form the Public Record Office, KEW.

Admiralty Papers ADM 1/231 ADM 1/306 ADM 2/1332 ADM 3/64 ADM 1/237 ADM 1/307 ADM 3/44 ADM 3/70 ADM 1/305 ADM 1/1788 ADM 3/49-51 ADM 50/107

Calendar of State Papers C.S.P Col. 1702-3 C.S.P Col. 1710-11 C.S.P Col. 1712-14 C.S.P Col. 1712-17 C.S.P Col. 1717-18 C.S.P Col. 1720-21 C.S.P Col. 1724-23

Colonial Office Papers C.O. 5/36, et, als.

Foreign Office Papers F.O. 7/43, et, als.

P.R.O. (Chatham) Papers

P.R.O. 30/8/101, et,als.

As secondary sources I do have the following:

Buckley, R.N. Slaves in Red Coats, The British West India Regiments 1795-1815. Yale U. Press, 1979. Life of General Sir Ralph Abecrombie Carried Down to the Battle of Alexandria. By an Officer in the Army, Drumskirk, Fowler Print 1816. And not to mention the numerous sources in Spanish.

Sincerely, Rev. Jose Pereda Ph.D in history and Cultural Studies, major in Puerto Rico History From the Pre-Colombine times to the XIX Century and a Minor in Military and --In terrorem Fidei defenso 03:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Economy History. Master in Theology.

"From one who does not abide by it"? I have added nothing to that article. Check the history. You are in error. As you have sources, if you wish to add the information, please include the sources, or it will be reverted again. If you do not know how to add references on Misplaced Pages, ask and I will be glad to help. KillerChihuahua 10:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Killer Mutt

Ha! grrrrr At least you're a human mutt. 203.234.156.4 04:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

woof woof! 203.234.156.4 04:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

New message

I do have a blog but unfortunately it is in pure Tagalog Language. The problem is that I'm struggling to speak in english. And I'm hoping someone here in wikipedia can help me share what my point is.... BTW Thank You for welcoming me here!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki hervey (talk • contribs) 10:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Urban legend

I see you're handling the mutual attacks by Elliskev and JoeyRamoney. May I suggest that you ask another admin to step in? Consider the fact that Joey was attacked without provocation. If he had reported this at ANI, the other editor, after due consideration of the situation and the involved editors' edit history, would have received a 24-hour block. That is not what happened. Consider that where calling the cops is fully warranted, only saying they should be called shows restraint. You were involved in the discussion, you defended the offense without identifying as an admin, and quite obviously had not checked these users' edit histories at that point. From there things deteriorated and both parties are now at fault. I am not blaming you here, just documenting essentials and suggesting the obvious. You're too involved. Better let someone else handle it. AvB ÷ talk 12:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that I am "involved", that I defended any offense, and that I should recuse myself. Mutual attacks were made before I ever posted on their talk pages, and I posted to each without any bias or preference. Why precisely, since the mutual attacks have now ceased, should I request another admin "step in"? KillerChihuahua 13:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Signing the case over to another admin should wait for any ceasefire to end. In the meantime please think this over. AvB ÷ talk

There is nothing to think over. I'm not involved; there is no reason to recuse myself. KillerChihuahua 14:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You are acting as if this did not happen. I stand by what I've said. Calling another editor a "moron" is not something that should be a wee tad more tactful. It is not acceptable. Especially when unprovoked. Please consider this friendly advice. AvB ÷ talk 15:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And I noted that Elliskev was not being civil, and he has apologised. I'm not pretending anything didn't happen; and this still does not make me an involved party to their brief little flame war. I do not consider this friendly advice; I consider this pointless lecturing about a non-issue. You said your piece, I said I disagreed with you, can we be done now? KillerChihuahua 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added an entry at WP:PAIN. Not that I want this to go on. Just for some closure. --Elliskev 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully JoeyRamoney will move on to more productive pursuits. Let me know if you want me to get involved again. KillerChihuahua 23:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

need Admin assistance

I know you are familiar with the AOL IP troll that keeps attacking the John Wayne article. Thought I might circumvent ANI and request protection on the article...yet again. Since it was lifted yesterday the troll is up to 5RR trying to push his uncited POV, including a soapbox rant on the talk page celebrating the death of the article subject. It's like an old album that just keeps skipping. Good day mate. 216.21.150.44 17:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked. For now, just revert the addition. Use the edit summary Rv vandalism, its certainly been made clear to him, even if he never bothered to read the notice at the head of the talk page. Let see if we can keep it unprotected for a while. KillerChihuahua 18:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't going to skirt 3RR over a content dispute. And I wasn't 100% on which line this particular attack was falling under. I am amazed at how quickly the AOL user pounces on the page once it becomes unprotected. He must hawk over it pretty hard. Again thanks and have a good day. 216.21.150.44 19:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I understand. IMHO it may have originally been considered a content dispute but he's been asked repeatedly to provide sources for this very hostile and damaging information and has not provided anything or responded with anything but trolling and nastiness. In my opinion he's crossed the line into disruption and vandalism. Revert away, and let me know when it happens again. If you are blocked, email me, ok? KillerChihuahua 19:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

More on John Wayne Page

Hey Killer, glad to see you're still helping to revert the troll over on the John Wayne page. Please see here and let me know if ANYTHING can be done regarding these persistent and increasingly vile personal attacks. Just because he's an AOL user doesn't mean he gets a free pass does it? Thanks for any help you can give. Batman2005 22:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Replied on AN. KillerChihuahua 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Your oppose on Werdna's RFA

Hi there, I'd just like to tell you that your recent opposing of Werdna's RFA with the word "no" may be interpreted as being incivil and in bad faith by some editors (see this incident), so I would recommend that you add some reasoning for the oppose. Note that RFA is not a vote, and as such reasoning for supports and opposes are much preferred over a lack thereof. Thanks. Cowman109 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped people would be perceptive enough to realize that I was opposing based primarily upon Werdna's bizarre histrionics at Dunc's oppose of Simetrical's Rfa. If you read the thread you linked to, you will see me making that very point, just below Werda's accusations of incivility, dire warnings thtat Dunc's vote will probably be discounted, and threats of blocking - all of which, especially the last, have convinced me that Werdna is not even remotely suited for the buttons. KillerChihuahua 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that, so please take the time to make the case on the RfA in your usual calm way. FWIW, having seens ome of the things the oppposers have found, I am now neutral. Is uspect this is a "come back later". Thanks. Just zis Guy you know? 19:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing such selective enforcement of "please explain your position", it is hard to assume good faith. Dozens of people say "Support" without any explanation but nobody ever hassles them. Why do people saying "Oppose" deserve such hassle? Frankly I think it should be the other way around. To me, oppose is the default position unless I see a clear reason why someone deserves adminship, so unexplained opposes make sense while I would be wont to question unexplained supports. --Cyde↔Weys 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

True, a very good point. I simply brought up this incident as it seems to be in response to an error Werdna had in reference to another voter using the same description. Nonetheless, WP:RFA does specifically state Explain your vote by including a short explanation of your reasoning, particularly when opposing a nomination. I am going by that, though I will just as gladly tell the same to those who give no reasoning for supports. Werdna did bring up an interesting point, that such votes without reasoning can hurt. Cowman109 15:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO it is blindingly clear to anyone who can read that my oppose is based upon that very incident, as I mirrored the vote Dunc made which caused all the fuss. If you think most Wikipedians are too dense, or too unfamiliar with the incident, to "get" it, then I will consider adding a brief explanation. KillerChihuahua 15:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No. --kingboyk 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

X --Cyde↔Weys 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and that was just the reason I was bringing it to your attention, per WP:POINT. Sorry for bothering you, just wanted to make note of it before someone else yelled at you for it, heh. Cowman109 17:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Really, see, Cowman was taking a bullet for you, KC. You should be grateful. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-read WP:POINT again. It's not merely "Don't make a point", it's "Don't do the opposite of what you truly believe to show the absurdity of the opposing position, thus disrupting Misplaced Pages". --Cyde↔Weys 17:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)::I'm overflowing with gratitude... at least I would be, were I actually disrupting Wikpedia, which (had Cowman read that) is what WP:POINT states: not that I cannot make points, not that I cannot have opinions, but rather that I cannot disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Otherwise all this talk page discussion and Rfa, Afd, etc is all rather.... pointless. Tell me, Cowman, do you actually read any of the things you busily paste onto talk pages? Because from your posts, you didn't read the thread on Dunc's talk page, and you haven't read WP:POINT. KillerChihuahua 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're right about WP:POINT; it's more concerned with policy-making and article disputes as well, anyway. Nonetheless, it still stands that to Werdna, that comment probably feels like a slap in the face (my first thought was that it could be interpreted as a way of taunting him with his mistakes). It would be much more civil, in my opinion, to simply state that you are opposing because of the incident. Thanks. - oh, and I didn't see it as taking a bullet for you... I am just overly empathetic and I'm sure Werdna doesn't feel too good by that comment. Cowman109 18:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to Werdna, if a two letter word can cause distress. However, if Werdna cannot handle mild issues such as a "no" on his Rfa, what will happen when he receives the hostile posts which are an Admin's regular lot? "You are dead!" is the least of the one's I've gotten. A little perspective and maturity is called for here, part of which is not reacting emotionally or precipitiously to posts. If Werdna lacks that, Werdna is ill suited to be a sysop. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 18:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I fully agree that sysops need to handle such stress, but I simply feel that comments that can be interpreted as incivil are better off being made more civil if possible, just for the sake of keeping people happy. Not to be confrontational myself, but I feel the fact that this is in an RFA is irrelevant, and it's just a matter of being kind and respectful to others. I must be off for the next few hours, we can continue this philosophical debate later if you'd like :P Cowman109 18:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a large difference between "That could have been said more civilly" and "Please stop this behaviour or you will be blocked for incivility." For "No"? No isn't even uncivil - uninformative, yes, but uncivil, no. This is over-reacting, and it is not someone I want to see with the block button. KillerChihuahua 18:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that Werdna was way out of line and being incivil when he made that comment; I think we're talking about two different things. I was just suggesting that you explain that you are opposing per the no event instead of just simply saying 'no' as an act of good faith, otherwise it may be taken the wrong way for the same reason that the same comment was taken in the wrong way in the past by others' usage. What I'm trying to get across is, that as you said, 'no' is uninformative, and I believe with context to the 'no' event, it seems a bit blunt and borderline civil for referring to the mishap. I saw it as a taunt directed towards Werdna as opposed to an informative reason. At a glance, it does appear incivil if one does not have the context of the whole 'no' event. So I guess it's just me being nitpicky about that - as I said above, I find the fact that it's an RFA irrelevant and think it's simply a matter of intentions easily appearing distorted through the internet. Oh dear, I admit I sort of lost track of what we were discussing.. have a cookie. Cowman109 21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for clarifying :D. (milk) File:Milk l de.jpg Cowman109 21:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Thanks for the cookie! I know Werdna almost certainly understood my oppose, but realize it may not have been as clear to others, hence the clarification. KillerChihuahua 21:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, a big thread just on me!? Wow. By the way, just so you know, the blocking threat was in response to a hostile edit summary, and reference to me as "trolling" and "stupid". The only comment that was in response to the original opposition was "I'd like to see you come back and explain this opposition, as I consider it rude to oppose without an explanation. Additionally, I'd like to point out that the reason why we expect explanation from oppose voters is because one oppose voter cancels out five support voters effectively, as these days you need 80% consensus to pass. Werdna (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reminder:It is not a vote. The 'crats do not count votes. Overemphasis on the number of Support or Oppose is a bad thing. Likely that an oppose without a comment will weigh less than a Strong support with a comprehensive reason. IMO Werdna, instead of asking oppose for a reason, you should ask the Supporters to give a strong comprehensive comment. I think that is more effective because it can better influence other voters. FloNight 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid

I'm curious as to your endorsement of the proposal to rename "Israeli apartheid" to "Allegations of Israeli apartheid". Do you also think that American terrorism ought to be renamed "Allegations of American terrorism"? How many other articles might likewise be renamed in such a way after this precedent is set?

That's what concerns me about this naming proposal. Regards, Gatoclass 05:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid is about allegations of an apartheid-like position on the part of Israel. Not only does Israel, unlike South Africa of a few years ago, not have an official government policy of apartheid, the article itself is more or less about the unsubstantiated use of the term in order to smear and isolate Israel. American terrorism is likewise primarily about the term and its use. Terrorism is slightly different from aparthied, in that the definition can be much broader, and it does not necessarily imply government enforcement or even sanction. To use the article name Israeli apartheid implies an official policy. To use the term Foo terrorism implies that there are some terrorists from Foo, or working out of Foo, or possibly even with the blessing of Foo's government, but not that laws have been passed and policies set to enforce terroristic activity - whereas Foo apartheid implies precisely that. KillerChihuahua 11:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was just curious as to your reasoning. I admit to having some doubts myself about the appropriate way to name the article, especially given the trenchant opposition to the original name.

Anyhow, it looks like a consensus is about to be reached after all, given a recent influx of new signatures in favour of renaming. My main concern at this stage is that the article itself remains of a reasonable standard, there have been some blatantly POV edits lately that really need to be fixed. Regards, Gatoclass 12:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

X-American list proposal

Hi, I am contacting you as you have expressed some interest in the current arguments over lists of X-Americans. I would appreciate if you could have a read of my proposal and state whether you support or oppose it Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Rules for lists of X-Americans. Thanks! Arniep 11:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars ship names

Hey, Killer! I've read your comments on the aformentioned articles. Please explain your thinking more to me, as your definately have more experience than I. If necessary, I'll add a description for every ship: it's condensed history, commander, accomplishments, famous battles it was at, and where it was destroyed.

Thanks,

RelentlessRouge 11:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Replying on user talk page. KillerChihuahua 12:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

RSPW

you know, wikipedia vandals have been permantly banned for lesser acts than Chadbryant perpetrates on the RSPW site and others' talk/about pages. WillC 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to open an Rfc on him. KillerChihuahua 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who has to revert him daily. WillC 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Truth

I think that we can afford to let Jon have a little tantrum. He is clearly in breech of Misplaced Pages:Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point; this is much easier to demonstrate than an accusation of trolling. Banno 21:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "proving" it. I'm also not interested in letting the talk page fill with his trolling nonsense again. The entire post was a blanket ad hom. KillerChihuahua 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is the course you wish to follow, I have no problem with your reverting and removing my reply to his post. See also the discussion on his talk page. Banno 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest we move the whole discussion to his user page, as a possible median? KillerChihuahua 21:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea. I'm off to cook breakfast now - would you do the honours? Banno 21:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)