Misplaced Pages

killer

killer chihuahua very nice. i like ! paris hilton clone Unixer 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't recall interacting with you on any pages - also the Paris Hilton reference has me confused. KillerChihuahua 13:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

we have never interacted before. the paris hilton thing is so deep that i don't understand it myself.

How do you manage to reply to messages on your page and mine at the same time ? is there a tool for that ?

Not that I know of. I copy/paste and use multiple browser windows. KillerChihuahua 13:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Coooool - Erudite

I subconsiously thought rude was in there... so it confused me all this time. Haha, thx. - RoyBoy 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Death

Thank you for your comprehension and kind words. The issue is not easy to deal with and I consider to have gone myself far beyond the line of respect. Your constructive mediation has proved to be necessary and meanwhile I'll make efforts to find a way of addressing the issue without provoking any unwanted edit war. Regards, --62.169.118.212 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, thank you for your note. KillerChihuahua 00:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Swat's RfA

FYI, he has fixed his sig. JoshuaZ 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your message

KillerChihuahua, we must have the same watch list. Happens all the time, I start writing a post for AN/I asking for a block for some misdeed only to see that you have already blocked them. FloNight 01:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

apologies for not replying sooner - concur, I see you everywhere, which can only mean we have at least significant overlap. I should add that I applaud your actions and sense, which you display whenever and where ever I see your sig. KillerChihuahua 05:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade RfAr

Hi. Could I ask you to start the RfAr on Sam Spade? The general consensus over at the RfC's talk page is that it should be done, and I agree. But, I don't have a lot of time on my hands at the moment to be the "organiser" of it. I will support it and provide evidence and comments as necessary, but could you take that first step? Thank you. -- infinity0 13:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

as I am one of the few who has not signed on to the "its time for Rfar" on the Rfc talk page, I find myself to be a curious choice for this request. Why precisely are you asking me, as opposed to one of those who has agreed that Rfar is the appropriate choice at this time? I am not trying to be flippant (I know tone is difficult to convey in text) but am genuinely wanting to know. thanks - KillerChihuahua 10:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that was because I suggested it. I thought you had endorsed the idea of an RFAR at this time — I'm afraid I must have assumed it and not checked. Sorry. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC).

I comprehend - no need to apologize. I very probably will endorse the idea, unfortunately. I am very slow to move to Rfar. I tend to try other approaches past reason rather than move in haste. As I had not yet, though, it seemed a curious request. Your assumption is a natural one, I'm just not quite there yet. KillerChihuahua 10:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:oops

Grr, block conflicts, they happen all the time. :) No problem, I personally think that user should be given the week I gave him, since it was his fourth block or something. Thanks for fixing it up. Regards -- Banez 13:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, he has it now. Thanks for understanding - KillerChihuahua 13:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus protection

You seem to have only semi-protected Jesus and placed a full-protection template on it. I'm confused. Could you shed some light, please? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. That would be the part where I screwed up - its fixed now, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I certainly meant to be consistent and fully protect. KillerChihuahua 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks. :-) --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Missler

Breaking a fixed edit is vandalism. Check the defintion. And stop rebreaking it. -James Howard (talk/web) 20:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Posting false information (Rv, Edwin Yamauchi is of Miami of Ohio University, not Miami University (which is in Florida)) without bothering to have done any research on the topic is rude and inexcusable. Before making an edit, even an admin should make sure they have their facts straight. I await your apology on my user page. -James Howard (talk/web) 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You've made the same inaccurate edit before, which my reversion of you called "vandalism" on the Chuck Missler article, to the Delta Upsilon article: . My information was accurate. Your changing the verbiage to that used by the original editor, which nonetheless led to the correct university in Ohio, does not obscure that you were changing those links to lead to the incorrect university in Florida. Your subsequent accusations of vandalism and personal attacks, which you have failed to explain, are beyond rude. In short, I concur an apology is indicated. We disagree on who should be giving and who receiving said apology. KillerChihuahua 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the edit was correct. The original reference was to "Miami of Ohio" and I moved it to "Miami University," exactly like I did on Chuck Missler. Sitting here and just lying about my edits did is offensive and administrative bullying. -James Howard

(talk/web) 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

1. You were correct on AN/I when you stated I had become confused about the links.
2. You have now added calling me a liar and a bullying admin in addition to calling me a vandal several times and insulting my intelligence once.

   KillerChihuahua 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, hold on. I see your mistake. Let me make this easy on you. Miami of Ohio is a redirect to Miami University which was founded in 1809 in Oxford, Ohio under the Northwest Ordinance. The school in Flordia is the University of Miami which was founded as a private school in 1925. They have similar names. Often, the media refers to the school in Oxford as "Miami of Ohio." Alumni of the Ohio school, including myself, generally find this offensive. Because it is. They sell shirts there that say "Miami was a university when Florida still belonged to Spain." Regrettably, I never purchased one. Nevertheless, this confusion appears to be where you made your mistake. If not, please give some more details, because you're wrong and I have nothing better to do that figure out why. -James Howard (talk/web) 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That was indeed my error; however, I did not add the original link (Miami of Ohio). You did not attempt discussion, in which my error could have been discovered without hostility, you reverted with a summary of "Rv vandalism" and have since apparently made it your hobby to insult me. KillerChihuahua 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You are a bully and liar. Review what you have written here and on ANI. If you don't see it, you aren't being honest with yourself. -James Howard (talk/web) 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You are in error. I made an error, which was in good faith. This does not make me a bully, a liar, or a vandal. KillerChihuahua 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, James, we get the point. She made a mistake which is now resolved. There is no need to go on about "vandalism" and "bullying."— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs)

Yeah! I agree with JoshuaZ, give it a rest. -- Donald Albury 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to be a huge storm over a simple misunderstanding. KC a liar and a bully? You don't know her well. David D. (Talk) 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "bully" and "liar" are not anywhere among the top 200 words I'd associate with KC. On the other hand, Howardjp nees to learn something about civility and collegiality. Guettarda 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support, people. This is an odd occurance for me; I have made mistakes in the past, most recently completely misunderstanding something Andrew c was planning to do, and everyone was (confused and) civil, and the matter was cleared up very quickly with smiles all around. Others have misunderstood me, at times; I recall no time in which the matter was not handled with the same civility and ease. In this case I attempted communication with Howardjp multiple times, and received only escalating insults. I have been attacked many times by blatant vandals, and that does not trouble me; but that a regular editor would so viciously attack and accuse me with no justification and apparently no realization of the seriousness of making such unsubstantiated personal attacks is baffling, to say the least. KillerChihuahua 15:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

thewolfstar

You should unblock thewolfstar. Maggie needs mentoring, not blocking. Merecat 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Go mentor her on her talk page for the next 20 hours, then. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the note on my talk page, that was good of you. Tijuana Brass 06:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. KillerChihuahua 10:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the user in question has asked that I try to find out when her block will be lifted. I've also posted to another kind admin in question regarding this. Please see Thewolfstar's user page for more. --Flawiki 01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

My block was for 24 hours, which is well over. I will look into it and see what I can find out. KillerChihuahua 03:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ante Starčević

Thanks for actioning the semiprotection. I do not particularly like the way the article reads but the anon IPs situation was untenable. --Asterion 00:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As it is only semi-protected, you are free to edit it. It is only at full protection that we really manage to hit the wrong version. KillerChihuahua 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I just want the situation to cool down a bit. I made the mistake of trying to stop an edit war by the same factions before and got burnt badly. Not in the right wiki-mood now :o(. I appreciate the advice. Cheers, --Asterion 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathise with the wiki-mood being off. Cheers then, edit when ready. :-) Let me know if there is anything I can do to assist. KillerChihuahua 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate your wish to protect this page. But, bear in mind - do not prevent other people to contribute. This action of Asterion against anonymous contributor is not justified. Everyone has the legal right to contribute anonymously. The problem is - there is a number of people acting emotively: Starcevic is our guy, the Father of Nation, therefore anything bad said or written about him is POV, offensive, etc. - which we are going ultimately to derail. I am afraid that you sidelined with these guys for a moment.--Purger 12:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I responded to a request at WP:RFPP. If you wish to request unprotection, do so on that page here. KillerChihuahua 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Purger, I understand what you are trying to say, but people can create their own accounts and be held accountable. There have also been ten edit reverts since last night and this is getting nowhere. It is because this I have now requested full protection. I am no taking sides here. As I said, I am not happy with any of the two versions at this moment. Regards, --Asterion 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am curious what is your role here? As I see - you are only prompted to ask for the article protection when an anonymous user reverted the article. It is obvious that the user tried to support my version. All numerous reverts commited by others before were of no concern to you - which you could clearly see as unaccoutable at all. So - you are taking side!--Purger 12:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Who are you saying is taking sides? KillerChihuahua 13:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reincarnation considered

I'm still considering it. The whole pattern is very, very familiar, but I'm such a conflict-averse admin that I wasn't highly involved in the battles against the candidates I'm thinking of. Let's just say that the insistence on "socialism" being the bane of civilization and the conviction that everything that he (and I don't think "she" is appropriate) is against must be socialist has familiar odors. I'm still considering which of the dead may have reincarnated, but I think it's a dead Nazi with college level writing skills. If I can narrow the list in my mind down to one or two, I'll go for checkuser requests. However, if this is not a spirit rejected from Nirvanna, its obsession with me (when I had never had an edit in common) is truly bizarre. Geogre 14:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Obsession not only with you but with Bishonen and to a lesser extent Bunchofgrapes. I seem to be peripheral. I would suggest checking vectors, however with the three of you, as you edit many of the same articles, there must be quite a few. I will continue to AGF insofar as I am able, which I confess, is not terribly far at this point. Somehow the attitude towards you, combined with attacking Bishonen as a Bad Admin, the truly revolting attacks on Bunch, and characterization of any and all admins who do not support this user's approach as "nasty socialist-nazi admins" leaves me a little short on the AGF. KillerChihuahua 17:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any obsession with me -- or Bishonen really -- other than an impressive inability to take critical suggestions without unbridled hostility. The Edit of Geogre's page was a bit strange. Still, I find it easy to AGF that this is a new user (but much harder to AGF that this can be a good user.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Impressive is not precisely the word I would necessarily have used. I certainly have not seen such instant-reflex hostility since I suggested HeadleyDown peruse NPA some time ago. Similar dependance on excrement, did you know that seems to be a hard-wired primate insult? Apes who speak sign frequently use the potty word to refer to those with whom they are displeased. But I digress. KillerChihuahua 17:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

She/he/it has a website, http://earthhopenetwork.net/, see userpage. Or claims to. If this is truly the website of the user, it should tell you much, Geogre. I don't believe she's obsessed with me at all, or with BoG. Maybe with Geogre, since that's different from her usual pattern: what she typically does is attach herself, limpetlike, to anybody who speaks to her. In practice this has meant, to people who happen to catch sight of her edits round the place and drop by to say "No personal attacks, please". This was the case with me, and with, uh, I suppose her impatience of the word "Personal attack" rising to a crescendo, the case with Bunchofgrapes also. She then insists on prolonging an increasingly repetitive and surrealistic interchange with them. This insistence might be one of the definitions of trolling, but I don't think it is so in intention; I too have no trouble seeing this as a new user, trying to fulfil some emotional needs via the site. Anyway, surely you don't think she insulted BoG? Hey, you can't have been following her much. Those were her mild little pokes. Her serious insults are Democrat! and liberal! If you want to know when she's in a bad mood, those are the zingers to watch for. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC).

I'd point her/him to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy, but I'm not so sure it would have a positive effect, to say the least. KillerChihuahua 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

See, with a Venn diagram, I can see an overlap with one of the political warriors. I can think of a relatively recent one, in fact. I do not think this is a new user, myself, or at least not a new net warrior. Perhaps someone who likes photos of girls flashing their boobies at a Vancouver bridge? I don't know, but that's just a thought that it's hard not to think. Geogre 22:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm... that idea may have merit. I will have to look at the archives and compare. KillerChihuahua 22:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The user has posted on Jimbo's talk page (user talk:Jimbo Wales, of course), and I wonder about some of the metaphors employed. If they're not metaphors at all, it would explain much. Geogre 12:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thought; edits like would seem to indicate that it is meant metaphorically. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There goes my faith in the justice system and mental health system. Geogre 00:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, please don't take this too hard... but I always thought you were a fairly intelligent person. Now I find you had faith in the justice and mental health systems? Thats... not indicative of a very penetrating intellect, so sorry. Or perhaps your fever is back? :-P KillerChihuahua 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I had faith that both systems managed to incarcerate the innocent, but not that they let the guilty and damaged go free, unless the guilty and damaged were also embued with excessive cash. To think that they'd miss a person of average means with raging paranoia is disillusioning. Geogre 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The New Church

The New Church is not a protestant denomination first of all. It's views are quite distinct from any traditional Christian group. It should be allowed representation because it has had significant influence in History and the development of ideas. It is does not fall under the categories listed, and the lack of info about it makes it seem like there are no people who believe in the particular doctrines it holds true, which is misleading to the public. It should be known that there is a church which believes that Jesus Christ is the One God. It is simply an idea that deserves to be represented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonschnarr (talk • contribs) 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please make any case for this inclusion on the Talk:God page, as requested. KillerChihuahua 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OR on cold fusion

Since you seem to understand/be very familiar with the rules governing OR could you maybe pop by Cold Fusion and tell me if the section "Allegations of suppression of cold fusion research" has OR in it? The second paragraph citation is based solely on a copy of the relevant letter in the possesion of the editor who wrote the section. Thanks, JoshuaZ 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking indefinitely

Just a quick note to say in cases like this, it is probably best to block indefinitely, as the account was created for vandalism purposes only. Thanks, — FireFox (υ|τ) 17:02, 27 April 2006

Yup, was checking contribs and coming to that conclusion myself. Shall you, or shall I? (Don't want to have conflicting edits.) KillerChihuahua 17:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you have already done so; thanks. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem :-) — FireFox (υ|τ) 19:45, 27 April 2006

Please

Killer, I can't stand it, please look under your heading Thewolfstar above for a recent message. No, I know it's not your block doing it, but something seems to be wrong. Bishonen | talk 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

Removing warnings

Since there are those of us (myself included) who believe removing warnings should not be considered vandalism at all, and the issue has been disputed at length over the last several months since that clause was added, I would prefer not to mess with it right now. However, you might want to contribute to Misplaced Pages talk:Removing warnings poll where we are trying to devise a community driven way to decide the issue. Dragons flight 18:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, I agree there needs to be stronger consensus on this one. I have placed the poll on my watchlist. KillerChihuahua 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jed

Thanks :-) William M. Connolley 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For being handy when someone flagrantly abuses you? No problem, anytime. KillerChihuahua 18:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you don't have one?

YES! Thank you sooo much! I cannot tell you how I will treasure this. KillerChihuahua 23:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't tell me???? Or won't? Oh well... :-) Glad to help just the same. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't, I lack the vocabulary. Words fail me, even. KillerChihuahua 00:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hate it when that happens! For me, though, it doesn't happen all that often... or so I am told (as you shall see soon enough!) ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable that no one gave you one before. If I could have remembered the file name (yeah, I made it, but that doesn't mean I remember it), I'd have handed you one. Geogre 11:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I cheated. I just remembered someone that had one and cribbed it, box, tagging, etc, from their page. Why remember when you can steal? ++Lar: t/c 11:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statutory Instruments

Hi. I notice that you have previously voted or commented on the proposal to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

personalized rfa thanks

KillerJackRussellTerrier (the kind that are charming, but never give up when they sink their teeth into something =D )...thanks for your at first support, then constructive opposition on my RFA. Your comments, as always, mean a lot to me, and trust me that there are no hard feelings: I appreciate the criticism. I was indeed not ready for adminship. Hopefully in some months time, you'll be able to support me in the future. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 00:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In some months time, I also hope that is the case. I think if you apply yourself, you would make an excellent admin. Thank you for the graciousness of your response. KillerChihuahua 00:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For you

Go ahead and make yourself a copy of the toolbox and Wikilinks that are on my userpage. Martial Law 05:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Passive aggression

Hi. Regarding your comment on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Passive_Aggressive_Behaviour, I am guessing you were thinking about Sam Spade when you wrote your comment. However, User:ElectricRay is actually talking about me. He has accused me of this for a while now, and I have found it incredibly hard to respond to his accusations - this is the best I can come up with. Ironically, his accusation is incredibly passively aggressive; the very thing he is accusing me of.

It may be a problem, but his suggestion of the cure only leaves open possible abuse - like the abuse I am being subjected to at the moment by him - false accusations of passive aggression which are impossible to respond to without seeming to be passive aggressive. -- infinity0 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is a problem, and the cure may be worse than the disease. As I said on AN/I, the idea may have merit - but it may also have serious problems which outweigh any good it might do. Thanks for taking the time to post here. KillerChihuahua 19:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Funny, I didn't think it was talking about either Sam Spade or infinity0; I thought it was talking about JFAS. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The list is legion. KillerChihuahua 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm only trying to make known what I myself have experienced, that's all. :) -- infinity0 11:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the question

Hello KillerChihuahua : ) Thanks for asking the question so I could clear this up. I left my answer on the RFA. When I read the oppose vote about blanking instead of archiving, I was confuse because I had in fact archived my talk page. I saw that the page where I blanked Amorrow's sock puppet post removed my archive. I vaguely remember starting a 2nd archive and being distracted. I fixed it today. Very sorry to raise concerns. FloNight 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was losing my mind, I could have sworn I'd seen archives on your page before. Thanks much for your prompt response. KillerChihuahua 18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the words of wisdom. Keeping a sense of humor around this place is a must. :- ) FloNight 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please delete my talk page

Just a reminder: Please delete my talk page. --JedRothwell 16:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA, your nomination and advice message.

Thanks for joint nominating me and all the help you have given me at Misplaced Pages. Let me know what time the official cabal welcome ceremony is scheduled. JoshuaZ 14:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wait for the usual secret handshake and you'll be escorted to the party. The drinking of expensive champagne laced with cocaine from ivory cups is of course entirely optional. Secrecy is not. :P --kingboyk 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome of course. You are not yet, however, a member of the Cabal - didn't they tell you Adminship is only the first step? Now you must become an official KillerChihuahua wikistalker, be called a Rouge admin at least once, and preferably have an Rfc opened against you because you actually block for vandalism and 3RR violations. Then you will become an Acolyte. All of this can be skipped, of course, if Jimbo posts a compliment to you on your talk page. KillerChihuahua 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Meme Transmission

Please read my comments on the meme talk page. No one is replying to my comment so how do you expect me to get support? The current wording of the article is wrong. Kernow 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Please explain what you mean by "vandalize", as I did no such thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blainetologist (talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

These edits: , , , , and now I see you have made this edit in which the edit itself may be a content dispute, but the edit summary itself "(no justification for calling that filth "art")" is most certainly your personal point of view delivered in a hostile manner. I suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V prior to editing further on topics on which you have a strong opinion. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ . KillerChihuahua 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

oh come off it. I suggest you get a life and/or clue. 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And now I suggest you add to your recommended reading list WP:CIVIL, and for good measure (you haven't violated it but its always good to know policy!) WP:NPA. KillerChihuahua 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Signatures are four tildes, not five, btw - five only adds a datestamp. KillerChihuahua 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious you did that just to harass me, so I don't care what you think. I'll read whatever when I get around to it. Blainetologist 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your threats and harassment

Leave off already. I'm tired of your harassing me and threatening to use your admin powers against me in violation of the policies on admins. You're just trying to provoke me and I've had enough of it. Blainetologist 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I point you to applicable policies which you are violating. This is not harassment. I am violating no policy; on the contrary, you are. KillerChihuahua 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You're making threats and following my edits around and trying to twist what policy says while trying to provoke me. Not going to give you that satisfaction. Leave off. You're the one violating your own precious policy. Blainetologist 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

FeloniousMonk does not seem interested in either formal nor informal mediation regarding the Von Bertalanffy (crediting him with an early concept of irreducible complexity) matter (I think I've waited long enough for his response) and the RfC's do not appear to have resolved the matter either. I have thus been considering arbitration. FeloniousMonk has by far been the most vociferous opponent to my charges of original research etc. regarding this disputed claim. Would you consider yourself a significant objector to this discussion? If not I won't put you on the list of involved parties (should I choose to go ahead with it).

--Wade A. Tisthammer 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, Wade, it has been some time since I've looked at that - I posted some info during the original discussion, but have not really visited it recently to see where things are. Give me a little time to go back and see where things stand and I will get back to you - thanks. KillerChihuahua 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You may find the mediation cabal entry a useful summary of the current situation. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, I'll start there. KillerChihuahua 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like currently the text reads "An early concept of irreducibly complex systems" not that Behe's use of the term and concept were a descendant, direct or otherwise, of Bertalanffy's concept. Under Discussion in the mediation appears the following statements:

2. It appears that there is no dispute as to the accuracy of Bertalanffy and Paleys' writings or citations.

3. It appears that there is no dispute that both Bertalanaffy and Paley both promulgated ideas that are, to some degree correlative to Behe's and were promulgated prior to him (it is disputed that Behe's ideas are derivations therefrom).

I'm not sure why there is still an issue? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are limits to which #3 is true. From the cabal entry:

Also, (as another editor pointed out) the somewhat novel interpretation of von Bertalanffy's writing that he originated an "early concept" of irreducible complexity appears to be original research, since the claim can apparently be found nowhere else besides the Misplaced Pages entry. The viewpoint that von Bertalanffy did indeed come up with an “early concept” of irreducible complexity appears to be an extremely small minority (namely, a few Misplaced Pages editors) and would thus not be suitable given Misplaced Pages policy on what viewpoints to include.

When the citation is examined (see the beginning of the entry) the concept just isn't there, and calling what he described an "early concept" of irreducible complexity is not only extremely tenuous, but original research. JustinWick, an editor who dropped by from the RfC and who is actually an opponent of ID, said "A quick google search shows that Misplaced Pages is the only place on the web where these accusations are made ." I did some googling myself and confirmed that the assertion is only made in Misplaced Pages (and sites that copy it, e.g. this one). There is also, as I indicated earlier, Misplaced Pages policy on what viewpoints to include. Hence my attempts to remove the apparently unsuitable von Bertalanffy claim (or at least modify it in a manner that is more fitting with Misplaced Pages policy; see the compromise I put forth in the the cabal entry). --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am, quite frankly, rather distraught that I did not get a similar invitation. Wade, buddy, after the many months we've spent collaborating on various articles, working out POV kinks and assuring that our citations were the acme of the summit of reliability and verifiability, how could you neglect me? I'm deeply hurt. •Jim62sch• 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you recall you raised heck when I included you in the mediation cabal entry, apparently because your contributions were "specious." I didn't think you'd be interested in arbitration. But if you are, let me know. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Abortion intro

Dear Killer,

if you have checked the link you sent me (Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph), and searched for my nick, you would see that I already participated in the discussion once and I can assure you, that I did read some things on it. Not using the definition that is clear, simple and obligatory to follow for healthcare providers worldwide and replacing it with some weird intersection of ideas of pro-life and pro-choice editors, who are naturally attracted to the article is wrong, as the result is not Encyclopedia - doesn't present facts, but some intersection of individual beliefs. This is what Misplaced Pages shouldn't contain. Plus - wikipedia is not democracy. I will change the intro once again. Then I'm going to bed. ackoz 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly

I did not address you on this issue.Thanks--Bairdso66 23:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You're on a Wiki - you are discussing in a open venue. KillerChihuahua 00:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I stole your line

At the end of this comment. Figured you weren't using it during your break. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just passing by...