Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.] (]) 02:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.] (]) 02:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
== File:FloridaLighthouse.png listed for deletion ==
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 01:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.
Wikimedia Foundation
Talk to the Puppy To leave a message on this page, click here.
If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
How not to respond when an administrator warns you not to harass another editor:
Thank you. Mr. WikiCop. Now it would be nice if you weren't being so persnickety about meaningless things like this, and instead help out on new-page patrol to clear out the endless stream of pure vandalism and attack pages, articles about bands that were formed last week, and spam of all flavors. If you don't want to help, then get out of the way while the rest of us get down to work. (It would also help if you addressed the issue of borderline spam in the article that started this whole affair.)
I am a bit confused. Some time ago I have published an article on Misplaced Pages, Beanies, which was marked for speedy deletion. You declined the speedy stating: "Speedy deletion declined. Appears to be notable game; claims made, history given, claims of special status (first in several categories, etc.) Not a speedy."
The page hasn't been changed since then, and yet, now another user requested a speedy deletion.
How is that even possible on an article that is approved by an administrator and where no new content has been added and no edits made?
I saw that I have the option to undo the latest "revision" (the speedy deletion request) by this user, so I did, but I am still confused.
Can you help me understand? I would really appreciate it.
The tag on the article is for Afd, not Speedy deletion. Speedy deletion rules are fairly strict; any plausible (or even semi-plausible) claim of notability will result in denying the speedy request under A7, which is the tag I removed and declined. (See criteria A7) However, Afd is quite different. An Afd does not have to meet any of the Speedy criteria; it falls under the deletion policy - see reasons to list for Afd listed there, which include "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." In fact, I often decline a speedy and replace the speedy tag with an Afd tag, adding it to Afd. Your article makes a claim of notability; the Afd discussion is to decide whether it actually meets the criteria. The article's sourcing is also a problem; if there were better sourcing, the notability claim would be easier to defend. Let me know if you have further questions. KillerChihuahuaAdvice12:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information and your attention. What exactly do you mean by "article sourcing"? -- PaleZoe (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
All articles on Misplaced Pages need to be verifiably sourced with reliable sources. The first is a policy, often cited as the one of the most important policies on Misplaced Pages. The second is a guideline on how to identify which sources are reliable and therefore acceptable, and which are not. If you have specific questions about specific sources, you might want to try the reliable sourcing noticeboard at WP:RSN. KillerChihuahuaAdvice13:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Intelligent Design
I apologize for my tone in that comment on the talk page. It's just that that quote from Tony struck in nerve in me for several reasons. I'm not labeling you with any of these descriptions, but that quote seemed to me to justify an intolerant, authoritarian attitude (see the quote at the top of my user talk page), plus, its just plain childish to call people who believe the truth is different from what you believe, even if it can be classified as prejudice, "stupid." Cla68 (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I think Tony meant, and when I quoted it I certainly meant, that while "some people" might think/believe some awfully dumb stuff, it doesn't mean we need to give it equal, or even any, weight on Misplaced Pages. You may find it childish to classify some things as stupid, but quite frankly, there is a lot of stupid stuff in this world, and so long as I am speaking in generalities and not addressing any specific person or calling them stupid, I find it is unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Ignorance certainly exists; I am ignorant of a great many things myself; no one can possibly be knowledgeable on all things so everyone has some areas in which they are ignorant, and for almost all of us, those areas outnumber the areas in which we can claim expertise. Acknowledging this should offend nobody. KillerChihuahuaAdvice06:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
A week?
Killer, isn't this overdoing it? I have teflon skin and don't care what insults he or anybody hurls my way, but if he'd instead hurled them at somebody else I'd have given him 31 hours maximum -- and probably less if that somebody else were an admin, let alone the admin who had blocked him. -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
When he is told, directly and clearly, that "if there's more potty-mouthing, expect a longer block." and his response is "Fuck you - you self-righteous creep" I can only presume he recognizes his problem and is asking, nay begging, for an enforced break from Misplaced Pages. I have merely granted him that break. I see you feel I am being too draconian; if you wish I will post on his talk page that if he promises to be more civil I will lift the block. IMO he didn't take the civility warning you gave him seriously or he'd never have replied that way; or else he really is a complete nasty-mouth with some kind of inability to speak in a socially accepted manner; either way I don't see how giving him a week to learn some basic manners can possibly hurt. Its not as though he's adding lots of good content to Misplaced Pages when he's not blocked; the reason he started his tirade of rudeness and insults to begin with is because his content was unsourced, original research, synth, and in most other ways unacceptable. KillerChihuahuaAdvice13:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you say. However, people do often explode when blocked; when I block somebody, this doesn't surprise me, let alone faze me. An hour after telling me what I should do with my private parts, he might have thought "Hmm, maybe not such a good idea after all", and deleted it. (Not that I can point to anything in his recent editing history that would make this seem likely.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
yeah, I probably would have ignored it, or at most offered a mild observation, if it had been I who had blocked him and received the insult. I'll add the note to his page, and see what happens. Not holding my breath, mind you. KillerChihuahuaAdvice13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you protect the page you intended to? There were no edits since August 8 on that article. B——Critical__Talk03:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, except I read that date wrong. Still not sure it isn't a good idea. 1) had been subject to a bit of edit warring. 2) had combative Mfd. 3) Election season starting. 'nuff said. 4) Seemed like a good idea at the time. - Please feel free to unprotect if you want. We can always reprotect. KillerChihuahuaAdvice19:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, I never tried for it. I'm told I would have to do a bunch of stuff to prepare and don't have a lot of time right now. Pesky questions like "how many articles have you pushed to FA status." I did try to get GA on an article once, and found the review system has little participation. Oh, and I'm a deletionist. Probably fail just for that User:Becritical/Deleting unsourced material. B——Critical__Talk23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh I see... Actually I would not support you given your recent edits. You do realize not everything has to be sourced, right? We don't need a cite for every little thing - only things likely to be challenged, etc. I think your understanding of V is a bit off of the general consensus. You state in your page that you never try to find sources - do you ever examine the statements which were tagged? I often find that the tags were misapplied; the statement is common knowledge, or sourced, perhaps at the end of the para, or all too often, tags are added to the lead when the content is sourced in the article. KillerChihuahuaAdvice23:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
No, everything I deleted was definitely unsourced: either the entire article was (correctly) tagged as unsourced for over a year, or sometimes sections were entirely unsourced (my personal rule is for over a year). I always check to see if there are any sources in the article for the text. I guess you may be right about the general consensus, but "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source... Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed." So if policy is a reflection of general consensus, why was I wrong to delete the material? In other words, of course we don't need to cite every detail, but one citation per section wouldn't be too much to ask for. Material without any sourcing should be deleted after a while (how long is debatable, but a year seems enough to me don't you think?). B——Critical__Talk00:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey... can you point me to discussions of this issue? I guess I could look through the talk archives, but tell me if something enters your mind right off. B——Critical__Talk00:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned about your deletions as well. Please read, for instance, the article Seabiscuit, an article I have really enjoyed but is not well-referenced. Would you choose to delete sections of that article? Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not. I only delete what is entirely unsourced and has been tagged as unsourced for over a year. Now, you might find I made a mistake, but that's my personal policy on it. At the very least, people would have had to be adding unsourced material to a tagged article. I didn't necessarily check to see how old the unsourced text was when the article was tagged for long periods. B——Critical__Talk21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - Again
