Misplaced Pages

• Note: there is an element of humor in the above "bumper stickers" which the humor challanged may miss. Feel free to be unamused; however I will not be badgered about light humor on my talk page so if you feel the need to lecture me about them, be aware I am uninterested. KillerChihuahua 16:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Zis ist Viki, zere ist keine "humour" allowt hier -- verstehen Sie, meiner kleiner Laffe? •Jim62sch• 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

User:KillerChihuahua/Icons

All Eyez On Me

I didn't really need an admin. I was overreacting, and I knew it. I haven't been on Wiki quite long enough to gracefully handle potential edit wars. Thanks for the heads up, though. I'll re-add the article to my watch list and try to keep a cool head. Ford MF 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you'll be sticking with the article. We have essays on how to keep cool on WP: WP:CHILL, WP:MASTADON, WP:TIGERS, etc. Give Mastadon a read for the humor value, it helps. KillerChihuahua 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in this, as I never finished The Good Soldier and do not like Pound enough for the witticism to bite, but Mastadon is pretty darned funny. I even added a line. Geogre 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Brit/American spellings

Sorry, I wasn't sure of Misplaced Pages's policy on spelling variations. Thanks for the heads up.

Your puppy is very cute, by the way. He makes me think of my longhaired at home. Finduilas 09 06:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - that one trips up a lot of new users, who "fix" the spelling without realizing what they're doing is changing the style of english used. The puppy is a generic pic from Wikimedia commons, not my personal puppy - but yes he is cute! If yours is as cute, I imagine you get a lot of joy out of him. KillerChihuahua 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks very very much! I am glad to hear that my sometimes wry sense of humor is appreciated, and if I have managed to lessen tension with a laugh, I am delighted. KillerChihuahua 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tirade

What can be done to discourage User:Sugaar from continuing on WP:ANI#Unjust block? (watchlisted you) --Ideogram 11:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears this is already in hand. Several admins have weighed in on the advisability of dropping the subject; if s/he persists, someone will surely mention it on the user talk page, and so on. I suggest you drop it as well. No sense escalating this. It really needs to move from Current Events to Past Events. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 11:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I had no intention of touching it. Just wanted to hear your thoughts. --Ideogram 11:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your favorite article

... appears to be Tupac Shakur. --Ideogram 11:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well mine certainly isn't, and yet somehow I always seem to wind up editing Tupac articles. Sometimes Misplaced Pages is just like that. Ford MF 12:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are in error, Ideogram. If you check my talk page history, back in March, I actually posted a request for other admins to keep an eye on the article. I don't like rap music, I really don't care for 2Pac, and yet it is my highest edit count, due to TUPAC IS ALIVE, TUPAC is the greatest rapper EVER, and TUPAC is just another dumb dead nigger type edits. It is one of the most vandalized articles on Misplaced Pages. 99% of my edits are rollbacks; 90% of my talk page edits are variations on Do you have a source for that? and still I babysit the darn thing because no one else has taken over. The person whose favorite article is Tupac Shakur is License2Kill, who is not an admin, occasionally allows his admiration for 2Pac to cloud his judgment on NPOV, and has less clout for dealing with vandalism. Doubtless Fordmadoxford has similar rationale for editing Tupac related articles. They are fan magnets and 2pac-hater magnets, and often the people editing come directly from forums with no knowledge of V, RS, NOR, and NPOV. We clean up the article and educate the editors. KillerChihuahua 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Why do you care enough to maintain it? --Ideogram 13:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is on Misplaced Pages. 'nuff said. I also babysit Guiding Light, but I've made no real effort to clean it up. And I don't even want to tell you what I think of soap operas. All I do for GL is make sure the unsourced tag stays on the article and people don't grab the castlist directly from Soap Opera Digest. KillerChihuahua 13:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR/172

I'm surprised by your unblock of 172 for 3RR; it looks like 3RR to me. I'm even more surprised that you didn't explain yourself on the 3RR page or on RA's talk page. Its hard to see that as polite, though I'm prepared to see it as such if you care to explain William M. Connolley 20:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant to, then r/l interfered, and I ended up going to bed without remembering to log back on and do so. I am open to discussing it if RA or you feel it is desirable. 172 made a series of edits which RA himself described as "In the first reverts, he removes "anarchist communism" entirely but then decides to merge it into the preceeding section" which aligns with 172s explanation that he was attempting to reorganize per the talk page, on which he made 16 edits on 19 November. The original version was by Uusitunnus; 172's first two reverts were indeed reverts. The third was not a revert, with the edit summary "attempting new compromise, putting an abridgement Donnachadelong's section" - the diff between the reverted version and the new version is this, which is clearly a re-org. A paragraph has been moved below and rewritten. The final edit was summarized as "Compromise. Inserting the abridgment of Donnachadelong’s section under a new title, so that anarchism does not appear to be subsumed under Marxism" and the diff between the "new" version above, and the "final" version is miniscule: this is the diff. So it was two reverts, followed by an attempt at a rewrite and one revert to end; for one shy of breaking the 3rr. It was edit warring; it was questionable, and RA or you or anyone would certainly have been within bounds for blocking him for 3RR as a warring editor can be blocked for edit warring regardless of whether 3RR was actually broken. However, the decision was one-sided; the edit warring was certainly bilateral; and 172 was (witness his 16 edits on the talk page and attempt to rewrite to compromise, followed by the final reversion which was a small change but still moving in the direction of compromise) attempting to work with other editors to acheive a version all could live with. He was not contentiously reverting repeatedly to "his" version. Reading the history and talk page, I concur with 172s assessment that the other editors are promoting a POV and "gaming the system" and his blocking would send the wrong message. IMHO Communism would benefit from mediation or more experienced editors, so that 172 is not battling a concerted POV group alone, or nearly alone. I do not see how blocking him for attempting to work with other editors while maintaining accuracy benefits Misplaced Pages in any way.

I will post a link to this section on 3RR, RAs talk page, and 172s talk page so if there is any further commentary or disagreement hopefully we can handle it in one place.

And finally, I apologise for failing to post an explanation last night. I plead r/l; I certainly did not intend to be impolite to anyone. KillerChihuahua 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Re impoliteness, I'm happy to accept your explanation. Re 3RR, I disagree, and would have blocked him myself William M. Connolley 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Would you have also blocked or warned any of the other edit warriors on the page? KillerChihuahua 22:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any other blocks there - as far as I can see, only 172 has broken 3RR William M. Connolley 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding rendundant, that didn't really answer my question. Would you have warned any of the other edit warriors on the page? KillerChihuahua 22:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I say, only 172 hs broken 3RR. I wouldn't warn people for only 3R, if indeed any others do have 3R. If I'd been processing this report, I wouldn't have warned anyone else William M. Connolley

William M. Connolley and I are not on the best of terms. I don't think he is being a very partial judge here. To call the 4 edits a 3RR violation is ridiculous. In one of them I am reorganizing the article and summarizing another editor's work, working toward a new version rather than reverting back to an old one. To call this edit a revert is utterly ridiculous. In that edit I'm correcting a mistake/typo that I made myself and admitted to on the talk page! That's a minor edit! I renamed the heading on Marxism "emergence of communism" in order to broaden the section's focus in a previous edit. That was a mistake; I should've changed the section name to "emergence of modern communism." So I corrected my own typo in this edit. The edits were not a 3RR violation by any stretch of the imagination, unless one is to argue that self-correcting typos counts as a reversion. 172 | Talk 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

172, you are right "To call this edit a revert is utterly ridiculous." However, if you look at the report, that is not listed as one of the 4 reverts. --BostonMA 00:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, then what did you include? My renaming of the headings-- that was a new proposal for a new version, not a reversion? My mistake. Frankly, this is getting silly. I'm going to go back to attemping to with other editors while keeping the article consistent with professionally written encyclopedias and the secondary academic literature on the subject, which I what I was doing before your report. 172 | Talk 00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the report, I see it was this one. I was working toward new headings, a new structure, a new version trying to meet Donnachadelong halfway-- not a reversion. I think I'm the only one on the talk page trying to do this. Yet I'm the one getting hassled. This is unbelievably frustrating and unfair. Now, please llet me get back to some real work. 172 | Talk 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with William Connolley - the problem with 172's action was that he engaged in multiple, complex partial reverts. I feel that whatever debate and changes he wanted to carry out should have been discussed properly on the talkpage - edit summaries are not supposed to be a communication method. He should not respond to other people's objections by reverting their edits, albeit with compromise alterations. And the law is impartial - other editors did not come close to violating 3RR but it would be ok to give them a gentle nudge of warning as well. I quote a passage from WP:3RR here as I did on Bishonen's talkpage:

"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. 'Complex partial reverts' refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention."

Basically, I just want to understand the 3RR policy better and make better decisions. I have no issue or consternation at KC's unblock of 172. Rama's arrow 23:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you not turning a difference of opinion into a personal issue, and instead treating this in a professional manner, RA. As you can see there are sometimes disagreements. In my view, 172 did revert, but then made different edits. WMC sees a clear technical violation of 3RR, so there is a difference of opinion there. It certainly wasn't one of those easy cases where all reverts were precisely, or even substantially, the same.

All parties were edit warring to one extent or another, but 172 reverted twice then tried to work towards a compromise version. To state "no one else violated 3RR" is to focus on the Rules rather than the Situation - which is certainly a valid position, and WMC is tireless in his work on 3RR, so his judgment comes from an enormous amount of experience. Strict rules interpretation does not always take into consideration the Misplaced Pages:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_without_edit_warring, which would exclude whatever in 172s rewrite may have appeared a partial revert; and on the part of the other editors, This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day from the intro to 3RR. Finally, one does not have to violate 3RR to be blocked or warned for edit warring. As the situation involved two parties, and one (172) was attempting to work towards a compromise, then the others were also at fault - not for a technical violation of 3RR, but for warring rather than trying to work with 172. Thus my unblock - as I have stated, the 3RR was not clear to me, 172 had begun working towards a compromise version. IMHO the other editors merited a rebuke for continuing to edit war. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 10:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Selig Percy Amoils

Dear Mr. Chihuahua, there is currently a discussion on this article's talkpage regarding how to properly apply BLP policy to this subject. Knowledgable comments from more experienced editors would be very helpful. I have therefore invited you and AnonEMouse to comment in the hopes that you can help clarify this situation. Thanks for your time and attention Mr Chihuahua. Doc Tropics 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Gee, you've been off having (partial?) sex reassignment surgery, Mr./Mrs. Chihuahua? And here I thought it was just a cold! How the hell are you? Have an animated flower! Would you like something hopping and bobbing to look at on your page to cheer your convalescense? Say the word! Bishonen | talk 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

wrong wroom?

excuse me, but who're you, and what exactly are you asking me? (did that sound rude? I'm being puzzled--just clarifying here) but if I understand, then yes, that was my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAS (talk • contribs)

Dang, I just passed out at my keyboard. That's what I get for holding my breath while awaiting a response from KC. Normally I wouldn't do such foolish things, but I'm anticipating a nip from the pup for expressing myself a bit too firmly. C'mon, get it over with... : ) Doc Tropics 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WAS: You seem to have understood my question correctly, thanks for answering. In the future, rather than fragmenting a discussion over several pages, please answer on the page where the question was put - thanks. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which will sign and timestamp your posts. As to who I am, see my User page.

Doc Tropics: In my opinion, something gentler would have been in order. Test2, which is nonsense, would have been more appropriate to the edit in question. However, certainly a repeat offender has frayed the tolerance of AGF, so I have no quarrel with your choice. KillerChihuahua 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KC, I agree. My original response was probably too harsh; I had planned on using test2 until I saw all the other warnings...but things seem to have worked out. With just a little self-control WAS will be fine. --Doc Tropics 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Communism

Thanks for the feedback on the references and other issues with the article. If you have time, any further help-- now that I have started work on references-- will be greatly appreciated. 172 | Talk 09:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, I hope it helped. I regret that I cannot commit to taking on anything more right now - I will look in from time to time and offer any suggestions I can, though. KillerChihuahua 12:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

happy Turkey-Day!!!!

Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Randfan!!

Cheers! :) —Randfan!! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Religious POV from your user page:

I totally disagree with your POV issue on your user page. Mainly because I don't feel that Christianity is as pushed as you say. One good example I've come across was the Dinosaur article. A scientific viewpoint was held over the Christian view point on the subject of dinosaur/evolution etc. Further still, I feel that the Jewish viewpoint is even more pushed than the Christian's view point. So yes I do agree with you in that a small religion has such a big part on Misplaced Pages. Anyway, was kinda lonely, so decided to randomly message a person I don't know. Have a great night/day depending on which side of the Earth you are on... :) Spawn Man 11:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What part does a dinosaur play in the religious beliefs of Christians? Sorry, your post makes no sense to me. KillerChihuahua 12:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about Religious perspectives on dinosaurs? KillerChihuahua 12:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a horrid article, btw.  ;) •Jim62sch• 14:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What's not to understand? Spawn man totally disagrees and agrees with you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Spawn Man has totally misunderstood me, and also that he considers "Christian" and "Young earth creationist" to be synonyms. KillerChihuahua 20:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, for an administrator that was a bit uncivil sounding. Anyway, I said in relation to the Young Earth creationist vies on dinosaurs. It was just a comment, jeez... ;( Spawn Man 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversion on Creation-evolution controversy

It is a bit ironic that I already did discuss the removal on the talk page, while your edit summary requests that this be done and you did not add to the discussion! Could you please place your rationale there, so that the matter may be discussed appropriately? Seraphimblade 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ping

Puppy ping. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Clown ping. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 06:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no!

do we all have to have them? My Mac is still in bits after the move! The best I could do was Image:JzG.gif. Bah! Guy (Help!) 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Neighbors

I had thought we might be neighbors, but wasn't sure, and was reluctant to ask (privacy y'know). But yes, I am here. Well, technically I am actually here at the moment, due to business and family obligations. I miss the sun, I miss the sea, and most of all, I miss my friends. With luck I'll be back in January. Don't hate me because I look like a snowbird, I'm actually a native who just has to spend a lot of time away from home. Doc Tropics 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You poor baby, you must be freezing - still Chicago is a beautiful city.

Speaking of here and there - Why, oh why, do you persist in splitting conversations? Why do you answer my post on your talk page here instead of there? KillerChihuahua 10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's fun to watch you run from page to page like you're chasing your tail? Sorry, I'll try to keep them in one place at a time. It's actually snowing like *%$# right now. Good thing I laid in some firewood. Email sometime, if you want...Doc Tropics 07:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"As" and "is" on Intell. Design page

Your recent one-word change produced this text:

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause

I suspect that what's wanted is this:

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause

(Excuse the intrusion into your talk page. I have a lot of trouble using the ID article's talk page or editing the article. It's probably my browser's fault.) Cognita 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that is what is wanted?

The one affirms that it is an alternative, the second affirms it should be taught as - and I didn't make a change, you did. I reverted your change, which changes the meaning slightly and was not discussed on the talk page of the article - whcih is where you need to take this next, watch the page history for talk page archive if you're having trouble loading it. I realize this may seem like a trivial difference, however we have had six month long edit wars over one word on the ID article, and it behooves you to have good reasons for making a change which changes meaning. KillerChihuahua 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You knew this, but just to make sure - I didn't write this vandalism you correctly and understandably reverted. See WP:VPT#Major_edit_glitch for more explanation. Art LaPella 08:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew it had to be something like that - I was just rolling back the weirdness, no worries. The worst thing I thought at all was "huh! that's odd." But I did wonder what happened, so thanks much for letting me know! KillerChihuahua 12:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Speciation

Hmmm.. You removed what you called "speculation" about the validity of speciation in the context of macroevolution. In the previous paragraph, the concept of uniformitarianism is cited as the reason to infer causes. My post on where the gene variation in finches comes from uses this same principle in a much more reasonable sense to infer the preexistence of the gene types, and hence, that no evidence of macroevolution is observed in the darwin's finches example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furrypig (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Take this to the article talk page please. KillerChihuahua 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Query

With regards to your suggestion I should archive my talk page — do you suggest it purely for technical purposes, or is there something I should be concerned of? — Whedonette (ping) 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither. Merely that there have been some minor hostilities and a fresh page might assist in ending it. KillerChihuahua 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a pity. I feel strongly that had those who oppose investigated more deeply, they would have found that in those controversial cases, you were pitted against Trolls and POV Warriors who would have done considerable damage had you not held fast. KillerChihuahua 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly! AnnH ♫ 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for the Barnstar. This simply started as a simple task I though I could perform very occasionally -- one which required little work, really -- and it's gotten quite out of hand. It's very difficult to stop once one's started! --CalendarWatcher 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I know what you mean! Welcome to Wikiholics-not-so-anonymous. KillerChihuahua 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Diff or not

Mr/Mrs, I did not ask for a diff, nor for help. I want my name respected on WP. In that interreality case, my name is still used out loud but all my original text is deleted by myself last week. The current text in the article is not mine but of other contributers, i suppose. But still suspects and accuses are made by some establishment about me, using my real name in their comments. That is going too far, is violating my privacy rights, especially because MY text is deleted, and i have quitted that whole article. Not by the critics, but by the way newcomers are handled. Including the blunt comments of Doc Tropics that when I (unexperienced and confidently) use my real name, I have to accept the consequences. If that is representative for WP, than this is not my world. That's all and that's over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.207.182.13 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread my post. I asked you for a diff of where anyone had posted personal information about you, or made any attacks towards you. What comments, specifically, are you complaining about? From what I see you posted your own name - I fail to see what you are unhappy about. KillerChihuahua 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The first 5 lines, from "This article ... to sources." My full name and website are posted, but these relay to the original article. Not to what now is. After I was repremanded about being OR, I discussed that with some and after about 2 days I withdrawed my article text and deleted all my posts as far as I could. In days between some others contributing to the article with their focus, something about history and cartoons and so. That is not my business nor core. So, I am unhappy with my name in comments to text that is past and gone. Also i don't except being accused when I am out of action.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.207.182.13 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, sign your posts with four tildes. Secondly, the first 5 lines of what page? KillerChihuahua 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

neo d

Hey KillerChihuahua, if that's how you feel about the term, I noticed it's also at Lynn Margulis — coelacan talk — 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I guess it's an epidemic. — coelacan talk — 02:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is a redirect, but ah well. I primarily objected to it being used as the primary description; I'm not going to argue the use of the term across all of WP, as even though it is a neologism it is one gaining currency. Thanks for the heads-up. KillerChihuahua 08:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding: Note that Margulis is described in the intro as a biologist. KillerChihuahua 08:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email, perhaps you missed it? Or your email is not working? KillerChihuahua 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it, but did not want to engage in an extended discussion about a simple observation. Fred Bauder 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an extended discussion, I asked three simple questions. Are you saying you'd prefer not to answer them? KillerChihuahua 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Warning

Explain to me how this User_talk:Filll#Your_Accusations is harrassing. And tell me when I called anyone stupid. Because I didnt. The fact that you are suggesting I did shows that you didnt read what I said and/or you just believed Fill's version. Hence, I believe your hasty behaviour was also inappropriate. And as I said in Fill's talk page, I will take it to WP:DR if he doesnt cease his behaviour. It was my last warning to him. Your warning was therefore redundant. Or did you miss reading that part as well? Lukas19 09:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I followed every link and read carefully, thank you for your concern. The three civility warnings, which were removed by another, then replaced by you, in the section Civility (which I removed here) constitute harassment, as you have already been informed. You refer to Filll as stupid twice, in bold face no less, in the section you link above. And finally, one does not "warn" they will take something to DR. The correct course of action is to attempt to resolve things with the other editor(s), and only if that fails, then you simply take it to DR. Its not a warning. My post to you that if you continue to harass Fillls you will be blocked may be taken as a warning however. Please heed it. KillerChihuahua 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Saying that race is a myth is IGNORANT and STUPID" This refers to the argument, not to Fill. What do you not comprehend?
• Yes, I've been informed. But I havent been explained as why they are harrassment.
• One does not warn? Really?

"The editor must have been warned with the npa2, and npa3 templates as appropriate. Reports of unwarned editors may be removed." Lukas19 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggested DR on your talk page. You state above that you have warned Fills you "will take it to WP:DR if he doesnt cease his behaviour". The "must warn" info you mention and link to immediately above refers to NPA and PAIN, not DR. Two different things. One does not warn before taking to DR. Referrring to someone elses comments as "misinformed" or "incorrect" or "inaccurate" is fine. "Ignorant and stupid", in all caps, or bolded, is not fine. Discuss the content, not the contributor, does not mean calling what they say stupid. It means discuss the article. You are being highly uncivil and inflaming the situation. You are edit warring on another user's page. Do not replace warnings, ever, on another user's page. Doing so can result in a block for harassment. They have seen it. It exists in page history. There is no need to have it stay on the page if they do not wish it there. Replacing them is harassment, and violates talk page guidelines. Please let me know if this is at all unclear. KillerChihuahua 10:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1. That was a typo. If you read my warnings on Fill's page I told him I was going to report him. I was meaning PAIN. I mentioned WP:DP on your page first time because that was your suggestion.
2. Regarding my comments. I'll repeat what I've said:

   "However, I admit I could have worded my comments more constructive but given the quotes such as User_talk:Doc_Tropics#Civility_warnings, give me a break."

3. I also note that you think:

   "You are being highly uncivil and inflaming the situation"

   While you do not think any of Fill's comments were uncivil? Please read: Talk:Black_people

4. I also note that you think:

   "Be civil in your dealings with Wobbles and all other editors as well."

   But you havent made the same warning in Wobble's page and others (ex: LSLM ..... )

5. Ok I understand. I didnt know

   "Do not replace warnings, ever, on another user's page. Doing so can result in a block for harassment. They have seen it. It exists in page history. There is no need to have it stay on the page if they do not wish it there. Replacing them is harassment, and violates talk page guidelines."

   I wish you have told me earlier. Like when you warned me, you could have explained this or given an appropriate policy link instead of simply saying:

   "Do not harass other editors. Cease your disruptive and inappropriate placement of civility warnings on Filll's talk page, or I will block you for harassment. If you feel there is a problem, take it to WP:DR. " Lukas19 10:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop pasting content from other posts with such abandon. I have formatted your very long post. You are complaining that i have not warned other users. This is a tu quoque type argument. Do not move the focus from "is Lucas being civil and following guidelines" to "Is KillerChihuahua a good and even handed admin?" or "does KillerChihuahua think I am uncivil and think those other editors are not uncivil?" and think the second somehow has something to do with the first. My informing you that you are uncivil stands by itself, and dragging in "well he did it! why dintcha smak him!" is worse than useless. As far as you wishing I had told you other things before I did, all I can say is WP:RULES is a lot of stuff, and I inform as I see necessary and appropriate, and not before.
• I cannot stress strongly enough that if you intend to continue posting on my talk page, I will be happy to help you, but do not paste content from other pages, especially my very own post made hours or even minutes before. I am not senile yet, thank you. Be patient with my posts. If they seem terse, it is partly because that's how I type but its worse than usual right now because I seem to have fractured my left forefinger and typing is difficult. thanks - KillerChihuahua 10:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok what's left to discuss here then? I've told Fill I wont warn him again and now that you've explained to me what is harrassment, I wont revert my warnings. I will also try to word my comments more constructively, though I disagree calling someone's argument stupid is uncivil. Lukas19 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Accusation

I see that you called me a troll and advised Fill "Not feeding the trolls" . Explain yourself. Lukas19 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the linked page, it seems fairly well written to me. What do you not comprehend? KillerChihuahua 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read the page and I do not comprehend as why you considered me as a troll. Lukas19 10:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, lets be accurate here. What I posted was "I now advise you to not encourage or respond to him." This links to DNFT. Did you read all of the linked page, or only the DNft section? KillerChihuahua 10:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read all the page and as I said 2 times before, I do not understand how any of the types of trolling applies to me. Lukas19 11:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Is KillerChihuahua a good and even handed admin?

You are right. This has nothing to do with my uncivility. However, I still think that you've handled all this poorly. You've given me multiple warnings now and all you2ve said to Fill was to stop feeding trolls. As per your request, I will "stop pasting content from other posts with such abandon". But please read Talk:Black_people to read Fill's comments. His implications here User_talk:Wobble#Black_People and here User_talk:Doc_Tropics#Civility_warnings in connection with his remarks here should be considered highly uncivil. I'm not even talking about his baseless accusations explained here User_talk:Filll#Your_Accusations. You also warned me about Wobble while ignoring his own behaviour. You also said I called Fill stupid. But I addressed his arguments. While this may be uncivil (I disagree. We even see diplomats using stupid.), it was still quite different than what you have claimed. Given your other claim that you "followed every link and read carefully", you should have made that distinction. Lukas19 11:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)