Misplaced Pages

This is a Misplaced Pages user discussion page. 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself.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.

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 ( ~~~~ )

24 - 23 - 22 - 21 - 20 -19 - 18 -17 - 16 -15 - 14 -13 -12 -11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 -4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Archives

Please let me why u did delete my page

hi, I have listen[REDACTED] is the free Encylopedia where anyone can introduce his company and so on... here we can see a lot of persons profile exists... please let me why my page has been deleted please mail me at majmaliqbal (at) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmal Iqbal (talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a host for your resume or curriculum vitae. Please see WP:BIO for why your article was speedy deleted, and and WP:COI for why you should not write about yourself. KillerChihuahua 10:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Another warning?

Would another warning for uncivil behavior be warranted for DreamGuy (talk ? This doesn't seem very civil: .Faustian (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/France – Papua New Guinea relations

This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as keep. I've opened a DRV on the matter here .Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Formal attempt to negotiate

To be honest, I'm somewhat concerned about your language and attitude. So far today you've called me 'clueless', 'obtuse', used the edit summary "Exxolon, you don't have a clue what I was talking about. Hush before you make yourself look any more clueless." (see ), regarding me, which is just plain offensive and have described me as a "rules-wanker". Relevant sections are Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Death_of_Baby_P and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misuse_of_admin_powers if you wish to review.

This kind of language and attitude is over the line in my opinion and is doubly inappropiate considering you are an administrator, a member of a group that is supposed to set an example to other editors.

I would like to see if you are willing to undertake to not resort to this kind of behaviour and language again if you disgree with me (or any other good faith editor for that matter).

I look forward to your response. Exxolon (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your desired outcome? KillerChihuahua 22:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, "I would like to see if you are willing to undertake to not resort to this kind of behaviour and language again if you disgree with me (or any other good faith editor for that matter)." - assuming you are willing to agree to this then I'm happy to consider the matter resolved. All I want is for you to agree to remain civil towards myself (and any other good faith editor), even if you disagree 100% with my (their) opinion. Exxolon (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility varies from culture to culture and individual to individual. I don't recall calling you an asswipe, or a shitbag, or anything offensive. Perhaps you wish for me to always check with you before I say anything to ensure it does not offend your specific ruleset on what is allowable? Or did you have something else in mind? KillerChihuahua 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

By that response it's obvious that my good faith attempt to resolve this with you is not going to succeed. You believe your comments were within the bounds of civility, I do not. I can see little point in continuing this dialogue at this point, however I do feel it was important to at least attempt to resolve this with you. Since that is unlikely to happen I will solicit informal feedback from other editors at WP:WQA - please consider this message notification of that fact. Exxolon (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Dang, you give up easy, don't you? Must not have mattered much to you.
2. Don't presume to "read my mind". If you wish to know what I think, ask. Don't tell. I assure you I am more accurate than you on what I think and feel. Or to put it another way: "Please refrain from speculation regarding my opinions: the normal way of resolving that type of uncertainty is to ask for clarification." -- Durova --KillerChihuahua 22:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I left a note on Exxolon's talk page suggesting he use more usual phrasing. KillerChihuahua 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• This has to be one of the lamest begs for an apology, ever. I seriously hope one isn't offended when I state that certain crybabies are being incompetent because they are of-so offended by the word 'obtuse' and 'clueless'. These are the same individuals that ran to the teacher during high school when they were called a bad, bad name. Time to grow up and grow some balls and thick skin. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Followup: reading into the background of the complaint that started this thread, it is well known that I take a hard line on civility generally. The context in which KillerChihuahua quotes me is not applicable; a clueful, acute, competent and mature reading of my wiki-philosophy would affirm that administrators should set the tone for appropriate conduct. Specific identification of problem behaviors is often useful in discussions; epithets are best avoided. Durova 16:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Like "clueful"? Which tends to imply the reverse, that I am clueless. KillerChihuahua 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily, although this is a context more suitable for quoting my statement from February. A bit more fully: "Please refrain from speculation regarding my opinions: the normal way of resolving that type of uncertainty is to ask for clarification. To presume a faulty understanding and then lecture an editor for the supposed shortcoming could be viewed as uncivil." Durova 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you tell someone that behaving like A means you are "clueful" then it implies that if they don't behave like A they are clueless. Your intent may have been otherwise, but frankly the meaning of the phrasing is precisely that. To argue otherwise is specious. If your meaning does not fit your phrasing, clarify. Don't try to make the phrasing mean something else. I have no problem with people saying "That came out wrong. Here is what I meant" - but I take issue with people insisting that "If you were smart, you'd kick the ball" doesn't mean "If you don't kick the ball, you're not very smart". I don't presume to know your intended meaning but I can darn well inform you of how your phrasing appears to me. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment on "The future"

It's very odd to come to this page and find KillerChihuahua quoting me--or demonstrating any type of respect at all--after the needlessly personal tone of this recent post. Surely it's possible to disagree without insulting my judgment. Unless, of course, it was intended as an ironic demonstration of my thesis--in which case it's quite witty and deserves congratulations. My argument (expressed more fully at the discussion talk page) is that the setup has occurred in a way that discourages useful opinions which fall outside the hosting editor's paradigms. Rightly or wrongly, it's begun in a space that is known for hostility and aggression toward dissenting opinions. Would appreciate if you modified your post, either to remove the sting or to make the irony explicit. Durova 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

After EC:I have reframed my view, per your request. That said, in my world, the expression I used was very slightly stronger than a very mild "huh?!" No disrespect was intended, and as for personal, I was, after all, commenting on your view, with your name. KillerChihuahua 16:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Durova 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. Please always let me know if I accidentally offend you. I appreciate such candor. KillerChihuahua 17:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

welcome back

Everything ok? Drop me an email when you're able... I wanted to run something by you. --SB_Johnny |  23:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sent, let me know if you got it.

Where've ya been, if you don't mind me asking?--SB_Johnny |  00:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the wb - I got your email, and I'll tell you when my email is back up (I can receive but not send right now). Too much R/L info can be bad for your health, eh? Regarding other matters - if it looks like a duck, its gonna poop in the pond. KillerChihuahua 11:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Spamming ANI

Respectfully, I think its apparent from your past statements that you are unable to render a neutral opinion where I am concerned. I would appreciate if you would exercise a modicum of judgement and allow another admin with less personal animosity to step in. You are not neutral, and your premature closure of my submitted AN/I was inappropriate. I mean, Erikeltic weighs in (which is appropriate). DG - who I am sure you are aware is not in anything resembling a position to be neutral regarding a complain i make of anyone. Some more input would have been more beneficial to resolve the problem. Hopefully, you are able to understand that your premature closure was inappropriate, and will allow, after appropriate input from neutral editors, to be closed by someone without an ax to grind. - Arcayne () 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)