| Revision as of 14:10, 14 October 2011 editKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →AE closure: ce, as my earlier edit summary will not be readily available to later viewers, depending on how they get here← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 30 September 2024 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,593 editsm Reverted edit by Problematic-usurnaim (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: Rollback | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=February 2022}} | |||
| {{Administrator|number=1}} | |||
| {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | |||
| <!--{{Administrator|number=1}}--> | |||
| {{OTRS topicon|number=2|extra_offset=2}} | {{OTRS topicon|number=2|extra_offset=2}} | ||
| {{User talk:KillerChihuahua/Header}} | {{User talk:KillerChihuahua/Header}} | ||
| ---- | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| |small = | |||
| |image = ] | |||
| |text = This user is busy in ] {{#if:|until {{{end}}} }}{{#if:|due to {{{reason}}} }}and may not respond swiftly to queries.{{#if:|<P>{{{msg}}} }} | |||
| }} | |||
| ---- | |||
| * 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.)'' | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 25 | ||
| |algo = old(14d) | |algo = old(14d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:KillerChihuahua/ArchiveINDEX2|mask=User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}} | |||
| {{cent}} | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| ] | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 20 March 2023 == | |||
| <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-03-20}} </div><!--Volume 19, Issue 6--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div> | |||
| <!-- | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1144887209 --> | |||
| THIS IS A LIST OF FACs THAT URGENTLY REQUIRE FEEDBACK—TYPICALLY, THOSE WITH FEWER THAN 3 SUPPORTS, 2 ACTIONABLE OPPOSES, OR 3 SUPPORT/OPPOSES/MAJOR COMMENTS. LISTING HERE CAN ALSO BE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, ESPECIALLY WITH RESPECT TO PILE-ON SUPPORT, CONTROVERSIAL NOMINATIONS, LACK OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW OR THOUGHTFUL OPPOSES BY RESPECTED EDITORS.--> | |||
| {| class="toccolours" align="right" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" style="border: 1px solid #b2aaff; padding: 5px; margin: 0em 0em 1em 1em; float: right; clear: both; background: white; font-size:90%" | |||
| ! style="text-align:center; font-weight:bold; font-size:111%; padding:5px; margin-bottom:0px; border-bottom:2px #5800a8 solid" colspan="2" | ] needing feedback<br /><small></small> | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |] | |||
| |} | |||
| == |
== ''The Signpost'': 03 April 2023 == | ||
| <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-04-03}} </div><!--Volume 19, Issue 7--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 16:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC) </div></div> | |||
| The current version of ] is the wrong, please edit back to version from 06:06, 27 September 2011. Current page has no aesthetics, please look at the page of ], format of ] is very bad, a small table, large table, then a small, large table... Another example: Every change are making is changing from a direct link (like ]) to a redirect (like ]). Since the title of the article is ], we should match that in the article. While it's okay to have redirects in an article, there is no reason to intentionally change to redirects. In addition, many of those names are governed by our policies like ] and ], and so they may need to remain in their current version. ] 17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Bri@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1147436351 --> | |||
| :I am so sorry I protected ]. No wait; I'm not: Administrator ] requires that I protect whatever version is there when I get there. Sorry, but you have two weeks to hash this out on the talk page; if there are uncontested edits, whether spelling corrections, policy edits, etc; you can request the changes to the article by using the {{tl|editprotected}} template. Hope this helps! ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Who can edit the page again to correct version? ] 18:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :::Any administrator; use the template as directed. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How can send a message to an administrator? ] 06:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Use the template, as I said. You place the template on the article talk page, in this case, put {{tl|editprotected}} on ]. Follow the directions at ]. What you put on the talk page will look something like this: | |||
| {{Quotation|<nowiki>{{editprotected}} Please fix the spelling in the first sentence from "Hello, Dollie" to "Hello, Dolly". ~~~~</nowiki>}} | |||
| Of course you must replace my example desired edit with what you want done - take out the "Please fix the spelling..." part and put in the edit you want. The four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) will add your signature and a date and time stamp. The {{tl|editprotected}} will automagically turn into a request for an admin to come look at the edit you want made. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 13:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. 06:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::You're welcome, let me know if you have any other questions. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 15:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Administrators' newsletter – April 2023 == | |||
| == Discussion == | |||
| ] from the past month (March 2023). | |||
| Please join in ]. (I also posted this message at the link in your signature where the Talk link normally resides. I don't understand the connection, but then I don't know where you normally check your messages.) ] (]) 00:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Jimbo's talk page is an inappropriate venue for discussing this. He wasn't involved in the request or denial of the requests. I see that Chzz has already answered your query there. | |||
| :The ?!? in my sig links here, as this is where you'd put your questions (?) and complaints (!). The other link is to an essay, which gives advice. That's why the link reads ''advice'' in stead of ''talk to me'' or similar verbiage. Many editors have links in their sigs to essays. You will find that other editors have far more obscure linking in their sigs; you must apply common sense. '''Elonka''', for example, uses the sig --]]] -- the '''el''' links to her user page, the '''on''' to her talk page, and the '''ka''' to her contributions. You should generally leave messages for people on their talk pages, or post messages on the appropriate article talk page or ]. Leaving a message for someone on an essay will not generally be considered helpful. I hope this information helps you. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 12:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::As you have probably now realized from Jimmy's comment, he has been involved in similar discussions before. We have now reached the tipping point, and imo it requires a broader discussion as I stated. As for your signature, I was under the impression such links belong on User pages. I have not seen such strings added before, and was indeed surprised at where I ended up. However, I am aware some users use multiple names but want all comments directed to one place. So, I posted there. I then navigated to your Talk page from your User page and posted there as well. I posted in both places to make sure you found the message and link. If you (and Elonka and any other of your Admin friends) insist on needless complication and confusion, I really don't think you're in a position to complain and get snarky when people get lost. imo Admins exist to be helpful and accessible. You are doing the opposite. Your actions, comments and general attitude aren't helpful, but I don't think you need me to tell you that, do you? ] (]) 14:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ok, ROFLMAO at the idea of Elonka being my "friend". We're more like civil enemies. We disagree on almost everything. I don't think she should be an admin, and she once spent a week writing an Rfc on me. I picked her as a random example because her sig confused and annoyed me when I first clicked on it, so I remembered it. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 14:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :And seriously, if you're going to take simple explanations of things as being "snarky" or "complaining" you will find that you are misjudging people, and you will miss out on a lot of helpful info. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Point of fact: the ?!? in your signature does not link to anything at all. I am using Chrome for my browser. ] (]) 15:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not on ''this'' page, because we're already here. Check the "on" in Elonka's sig on ''her'' talk page, and you will find the same thing. But on ''other'' pages, it will link you here. Please let me know if you have any further questions. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 15:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::True. With all the concurrent discussions I forgot which page we were on. I still don't understand why someone as uncivil as you have shown yourself to be would link to an article about uncivility, unless it's to communicate that we're all supposed to ignore your uncivility because you're 'special'. Perhaps you think you can say whatever you like, as long as you 'close' each post with some boilerplate sentence. Not true. Now here's some advice for you: if you don't know a fellow Wikipedian really, really well, then treat that person as you would your grandmother or grandfather. Perhaps great-grandmother and great-grandfather. iow, respectfully rather than flippantly. Helpfully. No snark, no sarcasm, no insults, no ridicule. Assume good faith. Try to be as helpful as possible, no nasty little snide comments. Wikipedians are from various countries, of various ages, and with various cultural backgrounds which includes different definitions and expectations of acceptable communication and attitude. At least, that's who we would like to include. Instead, the vast majority are now young boys and men who insist on treating everyone else as if they too were young boys and men. You clearly don't see this as a problem, and believe everyone should put up with whatever you feel like doing, blaming others for their understandable reactions. That isn't how the world works. If you insist on acting in a way which others consider rude, they will of course consider you rude. No ridiculing on your part for their 'misinterpreting' will change that. As an Admin, 'outsiders' consider you to be representing Misplaced Pages in some sort of official capacity, even though the rest of us know it's only a fancy term for 'janitor'. You don't seem to appreciate that, but I expect you soon will. ] (]) 16:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| (after ec) You are in error. I consider incivility a huge, huge problem. You have no idea. However, what I ''don't'' see is that complaining and escalating serves any purpose. I think AGF is the best ever advice given; I didn't write the essay I link to in my sig, but boiled down it advises not to take offense, not to escalate, and not to let someone else dictate your approach (ie, don't let someone piss you off and drag you into fights.) It also says some people are trolls and don't give them satisfaction, if I remember correctly, and that isn't such bad advice either. I try to follow that advice, and I think there would be less drama, arguments and self-righteous hurt feelings if everyone followed that and AGF. I am very rarely (almost never, actually) accused of being rude. Perhaps I'm off my game today; my aim is always to be clear, concise and helpful. I never intend to be rude and if I am unintentionally rude I generally apologize. However, I sometimes do not apologise when I'm not being rude, and the other party is simply determined to take offense, to use a common phrase (eg, trolling). I have not ridiculed anyone who has misunderstood my meaning; this is common in text and I expect misunderstandings and am always happy to clarify if I have been unclear in any way. FYI, your condescending phrasing and judgmental approach to what you have erroneously decided are my views is unhelpful and a bit insulting. Its interesting that you feel qualified to lecture me on how I think and feel, and don't see the irony in the rudeness of your unasked for and misplaced (in the sense that you're dead wrong on my views) lecture. As I've been an admin for over 5 years now, I don't know when you expect me to "appreciate" what an admin on wp is; I'm fairly confident I'm clear on my understanding at the present time. And lastly, I have no idea what you intended to accomplish by your post. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{Col-begin}} | |||
| == Sockery == | |||
| {{Col-2}} | |||
| ] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
| Remember, the great detectives thought I was User:Sam Spade once.--] (]) 19:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :See, this is why I don't do that kind of thing. And remember Durova's great misstep? I don't remember you being confused with Spade, though - even '''I''' would have known that was a bad call. :-D ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :] ] | |||
| ::When I first showed up in '05, I apparently had too much clue and not enough cowardice. So clearly I was an established user making some sort of point. Of course, being accused of socking wasn't as much of a big deal way back when.--] (]) 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec) Yeah, but ''Spade''? Your edits are nothing like his. Of course, now the imp in me wants to add something about socks to your page.. maybe the Army of rabbit socks thingy that MoP has on his ]. Only linked to confirmed sockpuppets and not Army of rabbit socks. :-D Don't worry, I'll resist the impulse. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Really, everything was less of a big deal then. *Shakes cane at the young'ns*--] (]) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ha, isn't that the truth. We were much more ''laissez-faire'' then. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{Col-2}} | |||
| == Discussion at Talk:Bible == | |||
| ] | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. {{#if:|{{{more}}}}} ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC){{z48}} | |||
| :In what section, and for what purpose? Is there a policy question? ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 21:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I should have given a better link. ] is the section I am talking about, regarding recent edits to the lead section. Sorry - should have been clearer first time. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seems to have been resolved already. Please let me know if I can help with anything else. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 21:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yeah - you seemed to resolve most of the problems while I was starting the discussion. What you've done seems to be fine - I don't think it's a problem now. Thanks. ] <sup>(] • ])</sup> 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No worries, let me know if you need anything else. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''CheckUser changes''' | |||
| == Maybe we can have a fresh start == | |||
| :] ] | |||
| {{Col-end}} | |||
| Hi Killer, I think we got off to a bad start. I was not aware of some WP policies and I can understand that you were unhappy with that, and therefore me. I was also in a disagreement with your friend Slru, which I think did not go well with you. I can also see how you may want to follow me around everywhere and ensure that I do follow policy. Please allow me to reassure you that I do want to follow WP policies, as I realize that it is necessary on WP. At the same time, sometimes I feel from you an inclination to resist me, even on minor things. I would appreciate it if we can work together as editors and not against each other. I don't want us to be opponents, and I hope you can agree. Kindness and support would certainly be appreciated. ] (]) 21:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
| * A ] is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving ] should be referred to the ]. | |||
| ] '''Technical news''' | |||
| :I would not say "we got off to a bad start" nor would I say I was "upset" with you. Nor am I, or have I ever been, your "opponent". I would say, rather, that you got off to a bad start. I have merely tried to offer you help and advise you of policies, which you have frequently dismissed and/or ignored. | |||
| * Some older ]s will not be able to use ] on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of ]. ({{phab|T178356}}) | |||
| :I will be blunt with you. I apologise in advance if my words seem harsh; please bear with me. I prefer to be clear rather than overly careful in my phrasing, so hopefully there is no misunderstanding. | |||
| * The ] has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default. | |||
| :My interest and focus is ''always'' to improve the encyclopedia. Your intent seems to have a less neutral bent; you are clearly ignorant of religions other than a certain type of Christianity and you persist in editing as though that were the "right" or "one, true" religion; you promote beliefs often held, sometimes ignorantly, by followers of that belief system. This is a violation of NPOV, as you are now of course well aware. That you are aware of it has only changed your methods so far as I can see. You are still promoting a fundamentalist Christian POV, but instead of doing so with a blunt frontal approach, you are removing anything you disagree with unless it has been cited to your satisfaction. You are running very close to violating ], especially with your removal of such common knowledge from the lead of the article ] as the extremely well-known fact that Islam holds the Bible to be a religious text of standing. This is about as controversial as the statement that butterflys have wings, yet you removed and demanded an RS be provided. I promised on ] when your indefinate block was reduced to 12 hours that I would keep an eye on you; you've done better than I thought you would but you still have a long way to go. You persist in arguing on talk pages that ''"a bunch of unbelievers have the controlling power over a page about the Holy Book of God's Word"'' - and ''"you won't be able to cover up the truth on the Day of Judgment when God judges you for your actions"'' - a violation of CIVIL, NPOV, TPG, and probably half a dozen other policies and guidelines. You can't even seem to see that ''"I am helping present the truth in Misplaced Pages, which is in line with the Words of Jesus, who is the Truth, and Savior of the world. I can present that neutrally according to the rules of Misplaced Pages"'' is problematic. You cannot "present the truth" AND be NPOV. The two are at odds. Our aim and goal is ''accuracy'', not revealed truth. | |||
| * A link to the user's ] page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on ]. This was voted #17 in the ]. | |||
| :All that said, I will help you as much as I can, whenever I can. This does not mean that I will cover for you, or bail you out, or take your side. I don't do that, for anyone. It does mean I will offer advice, and answer questions to the best of my ability. My first suggestion is to slow down. There are many complaints currently that you are filling the talk page, not following TPG - indenting incorrectly, etc. You should probably read through the policies carefully; especially all of NPOV and V and NOR. You must stop telling people they're going to hell, which is basically what you're implying when you say "you won't be able to cover up the truth on the Day of Judgment when God judges you for your actions" - that is a blockable post right there. | |||
| :Regarding religion: You keep posting about yours, and speculating and commenting about others'. This may be the most important advice I can give you right now: No one cares, or should care. I don't mean this as in they don't care about you as a person, etc. I mean as Misplaced Pages editors they do not and should not care. Your fellow editors could be Christian, or Wiccan, or Muslim, or sacrifice virgin frogs at midnight to Cthulhu. It does not matter, and you should not comment on, or speculate, about it. '''Comment on the content, and not the contributor'''. | |||
| :I hope this rather lengthy post has been helpful to you. Let me know if you have any questions. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 21:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am very appreciative for your offer to help me as much as you can, whenever you can. I hope that we can now consider each other teammates, and work together to improve WP. I do believe in truth. I think every statement on WP has some kind of implication to be true (even if it is just claiming it is true that so and so said something). I think your recent stance about including the statement in Islam and Bhai show you think that is true, and because it is true you spent time to find sources and back it up. We can just consider our first statement about the Bible being the primary religious text of Christianity and Judaism. Is it true? Would it matter if it weren't true? I don't know why people have a problem with truth. Whoever came up with this whole truth doesn't matter on WP, totally deceived some people. You may disagree, but I hope you can see my point about truth being implied in every sentence. If we want to improve WP, then I think the improvement should be telling the truth, not lies. If we said the Bible is the primary religious text of Hinduism, that would be a lie, and would not be acceptable, right? Again my point is, truth is under much of what we edit on WP, even if we don't acknowledge that. Again I hope we can see each other as partners to improve WP. ] (]) 22:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you're conflating "truth" and "factual". ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 22:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Look, read this, think it over, and try to understand this point of view: Truth is inherently subjective. My truth is not your truth is not someone else's truth. If I believe in reincarnation, that's my truth. If you don't, we can argue all day each thinking we have The Truth, but there will not be a resolution. But verifiable facts are different. There they are; if there are different views then standards can be applied as to whose view is verifiably more likely to be accurate - how to weight different views. For example, a nail expert's opinion is huge on the Nail article. He's the world's leading expert and is cited by everyone else who writes about nails? then his views, as published in leading RSs about nails, will receive much attention in the article. A Nail article in a magazine not devoted to nails? Let's see, is it about building materials? Metallurgy? If yes, then some weight is given. If its a magazine about something else, and nails are only mentioned in passing, no weight will be given - the magazine may be an RS for something else, but not nails. A blog post about nails doesn't meet RS and will not be considered. Your cousin George's opinion is OR and will not be considered, even if he's a contractor and knows a lot about nails. But Truth cannot be validated in this way. That's why Misplaced Pages is not about Truth; its about what is verifiable. And that's one of pillars of Misplaced Pages - a core policy. ]. You must learn to understand this policy if you want to avoid policy violations here. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Is it the truth that the entire Christian Bible (KJV) includes the word "God"? Is there any way the truth can be "No"? Do you think we should include a RS that says the answer is "No?" Is that the kind of nonsense you want in WP? If it is, then you can help make a horrible Encyclopedia. Truth is not inherently subjective, because there are absolute truths regardless if someone doesn't believe them. If someone doesn't believe the KJV has the word "God" in it, that may be their belief, but that is objectively false and foolish. WP must be about truth to have any worth, even if it's just implying the truth is that these are the various views of the controversial issues. If WP is not about truth, then the site should be closed, and readers should not be led to believe what is written is true (whether statements of fact or statements about different views). Truth matters in life, it matters about God, and it matters on WP. What a an awful excuse for an Encyclopedia if it doesn't care about what is true. I can't convince you, maybe. I can pray for you. You talk about conflating truth and (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,fact) fact...I hope you help make a great Encyclopedia. ] (]) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It is a verifiable fact that the Bible contains the word "God" and is largely concerned with the doings and pronouncements of the Christian deity. That is all that matters here on Misplaced Pages; please do not spam my talk page with more polemics about Truth, real or perceived. If you do I will remove them. Please confine your posts to questions about policy, which I will do my best to answer. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Arbitration''' | |||
| outdent | |||
| * The '']'' case has been closed. | |||
| Since you mentioned issues of policy, I thought it would be appropriate to point this one out from WP:VNT: "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean that Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court devalues truth. What Misplaced Pages devalues is not truth itself, but assertions of truth that are not supported directly by reliable sources." I just wanted to point out the seeming contrast with your statement: "I don't care (speaking as a[REDACTED] editor) if its true or not." However, I'm sure you can clarify. :) I hope we can all greatly value Truth and respect it. ] (]) 00:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * A case about ] has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023. | |||
| :That's not policy. That's not even a guideline. Its an essay, and it means nothing (other than the opinion of the author(s)). Please stop spamming my talk page with this crap. If you have a policy question, or need to ask how to do something on Misplaced Pages, ask it. Otherwise, you're just harassing me and filling my talk page with unwanted cruft. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 00:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| == Evolution article == | |||
| {{center|{{flatlist| | |||
| * ] | |||
| I don't want to (or like to) make a big deal out of virtually nothing, but doesnt the evolution article deal specifically with ''biological'' evolution? Of course there are such things as evolution of ideas and evolution of languages and evolution of cars but you wont find those in that article because it deals specifically with "change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals" which is biological evolution, is it not? Once again, its really no big deal, thats just what i was thinking when i edited that. | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] (]) 00:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| :Yes, it deals specifically with biological, as opposed to other uses of the word, evolution. That's why I reverted your removal of the verbiage which made that clear. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 00:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| }}}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| == Tree shaping == | |||
| -->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1146829295 --> | |||
| Thanks for your comments in the Tree shaping dispute on my talk page. In the circumstances I do not think I can do much about the effectiveness of the ban on some editors until some new infringement arises. In the meantime, your opinion on the subject in dispute would be welcome at the RfM. ] (]) 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy First Edit Day!== | |||
| :thanks but I only offered an opinion as an uninvolved admin. I am not interested in becoming involved. Good luck. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 01:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| {{ombox | |||
| == Myth == | |||
| | name = First Edit Day | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| not to my knowledge! ] | ] 00:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| | imageright = ] | |||
| :Darnit, my fuzzy little brain is making that grinding noise it makes when I can't remember something. I was sure there was something. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 01:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| | style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(60deg, MistyRose, AntiqueWhite, Ivory, Honeydew, Azure, GhostWhite); | |||
| | textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center; | |||
| == Loose usage of the term "personal attack" == | |||
| | plainlinks = yes | |||
| | text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi KillerChihuahua! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! ] (]) 02:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I note your deletion of a post from ] from the ] page where that user defended his words as not being a personal attack. While I agree it was time for some silence on the thread (hence my walking away at that stage), and the thread is a happier, healthier place without that post, I agree with the words Dessources wrote. | |||
| }} | |||
| == Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society == | |||
| That thread on ] has been verbally dominated by ]. He has been very rude about other editors on many occasions. (I laughed when I read his "I can't help it" announcement on ]. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him?) He has frequently accused other editors of personal attacks, which were nothing of the kind. They were realistic but blunt (sometimes brutal) criticisms of things he had said. | |||
| ] Dear {{PAGENAME}}, | |||
| As Dessources said, a personal attack is when negative comments are made about someone's person or personality, not just an aggressive criticism of a post. I don't think I've attacked Ludwig (I try extremely hard not to) and I don't think Dessources did in the post you deleted. | |||
| A true personal attack is a very bad thing and totally unacceptable. We must avoid labelling posts personal attacks when they are not, or it weakens our rules and their application. | |||
| Anyway, I don't want this post to end up reading like a criticism of you. It's definitely not. You're doing a job you will rarely be thanked for. These comments of mine on personal attacks are really, I would hope, universally applicable, so I guess I'm just using your Talk page to get my thoughts together. Sorry about that. | |||
| I'd be interested in your thoughts, or you can choose to totally ignore me :-) | |||
| Good luck. ] (]) 02:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :You're right; I used the term loosely; however if you check policy I applied the correct policy. My interest is in getting people Back On Track; no one should be discussing other editors in that fashion on the article talk page unless their objective is to create a hostile editing environment. We work on consensus, not bullying; '''any''' comments on the other editors which denigrate them in such a fashion should not be part of the arsenal, so to speak, of collaborative editing. Please recall ]'s nutshell version, which informs us that we should ''"Comment on content, not on the contributor"''; we are reminded again on ]: ''"Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.''" I'm not at this point terribly interested in reading the whole history of the recent disputes to determine who said what when. I don't much care; I '''do''' care that the inappropriate comments cease as of now. and btw, thanks much for the comment about the thankless job. :-) ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 02:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == FC Steaua București in Europe == | |||
| Hello! | |||
| <br>I have a request for unprotection this article, ]. What is the procedure? ] (]) 03:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :]. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you! ] (]) 04:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're welcome! ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 01:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == I have quoted you == | |||
| I hope you don't mind. ] (]) 10:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you, this courtesy is appreciated. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 14:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == An "aww... cute!" for you == | |||
| --] (]) 09:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Ha!!! No, I had not seen that one, thanks for thinking of me and posting it here! ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 14:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Essay on AE == | |||
| I just wrote a ] of what is intended as some advice on how to make one's case at AE. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. ] (]) 10:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks; I'll take a look, and make my comments there. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 12:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Re butane == | |||
| I have modified the butane comment per your statement, which I have removed as my understanding is AE does not approve of threaded discussion. If my filing was "an excellent example of how to file an AE request," why has it taken two days to evaluate? ] (]) 14:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :thank you, and yes you acted completely appropriately removing my comment, which I did intend you to remove when seen. I could not have commented yesterday or the day before at all due to time constraints, but probably would not have anyway, waiting on Ludwigs response. There is also a good deal to read through and evaluate. I cannot speak for anyone else, of course. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 14:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Was 6 months ban too harsh given the context? == | |||
| I understand that it may have been hard to follow the heavy exchange on this highly controversial page with time constraints. However, there was much heated banter involving all parties, which is not uncommon on this page. In context, Ludwigs2 could not be singled out. His views deviated from many on the page, myself included, but his approach though at times like others robust was never unreasonable. Of the 12 editors commenting, only 2, Hippocrite and Boris Harvester clearly supported a penalty. It's hard not to sense that this has been a set-up to stifle debate by those who oppose his attempts to bring neutrality and debate onto the Talk page. I had expected that an admin would dismiss this or give a 24 hour cooling off ban. Your 6 month topic ban seems unjustifiably harsh. I ask that you reconsider. If your decision is final, can other involved editors appeal against this? ] ] 06:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Ludwigs2== | |||
| Shame you weren’t able to be a bit more judicious with your ‘powers’. Your suggestion that the editor receive an extra 5-month topic ban, just for speaking sincerely about the situation as he sees it, and in his own defence, has given that enforcement request all the credibility of the Galileo trials. Doesn't stand up well to the advice article you link to beside your user name either. -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 17:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :If you were accurate about what I'm actually doing, your point would have considerably more merit, and I might agree with you. As you are in error, your conclusion is also erroneous. No one is ever "punished" for speaking sincerely. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 17:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::What, you don't think he was speaking sincerely? I do (and I'm being sincere too; having seen the problems he talks about first hand). I don't think he should be restrained from expressing sincere opinions, I think he should be listened to. Fine, if you don't agree, you can ignore his arguments or state that you don't accept they apply. But to say suggest that his comment has moved you from recommending a 1-month ban to a 6-month ban is tantamount to saying "speak again, and I'll make sure that you cannot speak again". Not a wise move where his complaint involves "continual bias" from those who "do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it". -- ] '''Δ''' <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think he was completely sincere. I have no idea why on earth you've thought I might not have thought that. His comments show a continued battle ground mentality and a tendency to blame everyone else, but did not address any of his own actions, which is what he needs to do; address and correct his NPA violations and battleground mentality. Please read ], which I mentioned in my earlier reply to you above. Its not that he said something honestly, its that what he honestly said is "I don't have a problem! THEY have the problem!" when it is clear that he has repeated violations. If he's not going to correct his behavior, he needs more time to read policy and re-examine his actions. I did stop short of suggesting an indef topic ban, which is a common sanction for combative editors whose only response is to blame and attack everyone else for their own actions. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is the term for people who ignore their own advice to other people (or for themselves)? "Uncivil users may be looking for a response when they behave uncivilly. Deny them this. Block them, and you just fuel the fire; ignore them, and you deprive the fire of fuel." I believe you are advocating this. I also believe that you are ignoring your own advice. Moreover, it would seem that the action against Ludwigs2 was started by... Hipocrite? ] (]) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == point of order, please == | |||
| If you're going to lambaste me, please don't misrepresent me. I said nothing about a 'cabal', nor did I say it was everyone else's fault. I'm perfectly happy to believe that skeptical editors are all independent actors with a shared understanding of the world; it's just that it's a biased understanding of the world (which, granted, they probably don't realize is biased). | |||
| I'll add, if you are waiting for me to say I was wrong in ''anything'' except poor word choice, you're going to have to ''show me'' that I was wrong in something other than word choice. I do freely admit that my word choice is often poor, and despite some of your suggestions I do work on it, but I see no evidence that I am wrong in my assessments. If you think I'm not as neutral as I claim, demonstrate it; if you think I am making some incorrect judgment about a topic or about[REDACTED] culture, show me. If you cannot show me that, then please don't assert it as truth. | |||
| Thanks. --] 18:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I stated it was a paraphrase; I prefaced that with the caveat that it was "boiled down"; ie, a summary of meaning, not intended to be a verbatim quote or precise transcription. The part of your post I was criticizing was "a half-dozen editors descend on the page to revert all changes, ignore the talk page or turn it into a quagmire of circular reasoning, and accuse me of policy violations for any trivial thing they can think of." Your entire post was outward facing; you criticized everyone else and your only (very small) acknowledgement that you might have room for improvement was "I don't <nowiki></nowiki>my attitude sometimes either - but my attitude is a product of trying to reason with people who do not want to be reasonable and are willing to use force to avoid it." in which you say your attitude may have a fault, but then turn around and blame that on the other editors, who "do not want to be reasonable". In short, your only statement which acknowledges any wrong whatsoever blames others for your actions. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::In fact, I do admit my failings, and have done so frequently, in multiple places. I know that I'm temperamental, I know that I speak out of turn, I know that I am incredible strong-willed (to use a polite euphemism) about certain things. none of that is actually in question, and none of that makes what I said ''wrong''. What you quoted above is precisely my experience on multiple fringe-related articles - I can walk you through several hundred diffs of it if you like - and none of my own problems cause or change those facts. All I can say about my bad attitude is that I'm coping with it as best I can and getting better at that all the time; If there's some more concrete promise you need, let me know what it is. It would make my coping task easier if I didn't have to deal with that kind of aggressive behavior, mind you, but I do recognize that the 'coping' is my job to do, and that I fail at it a bit too often. | |||
| ::If you want to bust me for having a sour, jaded attitude, I really can't argue with that. It's true. What irks me is the fact that you refuse to address that I was ''doing the correct thing'' on the page, just doing it in an unpleasantly sour, jaded, grumpy way. I'd be OK with you saying I was ''not'' doing the correct thing (then we could discuss what I was doing wrong content-wise, and maybe I could readjust my goals on project), but by simply ignoring the fact that I was standing up for NPOV and proper sourcing against misguided science editors you effectively cast me as a different kind of editor than I actually am, and implicitly endorse violations of the project's core principles. Is that what you mean to do? --] 19:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Violating NPOV is not what you're at AE about. The report mentions Poisoning the well (with NPA attacks), NPA, and Edit warring. Your only interest, on '''that page''' (AE) should be to address the charges. Your repeated insistence that you're following NPOV does not address the charges. Your blaming of the other editors does not address the charges. You seem to think it is germane to the discussion whether you've followed NPOV. Unless "Violates NPOV" is one of the sections added by the reporting party, then no, its not germane at all. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 19:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I assumed you would say that, and all I can do is reassert the fact that by narrowly focusing your view in this way you are implicitly endorsing violations of the project's core principles. I find it astonishing, actually: back when Sandstein tried to block me for seeking help with QuackGuru, it seemed to be incredibly important how the 'good work' QG did offset his well-known tendentiousness; and before that Ronz (when he blew up at me over that dentistry article), was saved from strong sanctions because everyone was concerned about his 'good work' and wanted to downplay his behavior. and ScienceApologist - sockpuppeting, baiting, outing, a history of tendentiousness that probably required a server of its own for data storage - he was ''loudly'' praised as one of the project's best editors for the longest time. | |||
| ::::I'm an ass at times, yes, but I'm merely on a par with Ronz and don't hold a candle to QG and SA, and yet 'my' correct behavior is somehow "not what's being talked about". does that strike you as proper? --] 19:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: SA was valuable. You should be able to defend yourself without denigrating others ] (]) 19:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I'm not saying he wasn't, I'm just pointing out the differential treatment. I can only defend myself within the context of a fair system. If I am to be a second-class citizen on the project, then I should at least be informed of that fact so that I can give up on the concept of equitable treatment. | |||
| ::::::I'll add, just for information's sake, that that last sentence was not meant to be challenging. I don't really care if it is the project's intention to treat me as a second-class citizen - I can adapt to that role easily enough, and work well within its boundaries. I merely need to know if that's the case so that I can begin adapting. A lot of the things I say that people on-project find challenging are really just me being honest and pragmatic. strange worldview, I know... --] 20:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: My advice, for the little it is worth, is to defend yourself as yourself, not by comparison to others. If you don't like it as a moral principle, just treat it as a practical one. You make a number of other arguments that would be best unmade ] (]) 20:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == AE closure == | |||
| excuse me - I'm not sure what's going on here. I offered what I thought was a perfectly valid resolution to the problem, which should have addressed all concerns adequately. You did not comment on it and went straight to sanctions. can you explain that please? I am assuming you simply missed it and will reconsider, which will save us a whole mess of an appeals process. --] 13:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the ''']''', an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Misplaced Pages project for twenty years or more. ​ | |||
| P.s. --] 13:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Best regards, ] (]) 02:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :No, I read it. Your "offer" was basically "I'll try really hard to follow policy, but I reserve the right to categorize editors as a group, like an ethnic or religious group" - this is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start. You're haggling over sanctions, rather than pledging to do better. You're reserving the right to group editors together - do you know how many editors have been blocked or banned for doing that? "The Serbian editors" or "the Jew editors" or "the anti-Christian editors" - its wrong, simply wrong. Your "offer" merely underlined how problematic your approach in this area is. I'm at a loss as to how to communicate this to you, as clearly everyone on AE and the Talk:Astrology page who has tried has met with the same utter failure I am now facing. Try to re-read the posts made, and the comments made, and look at it from a fresh perspective. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 14:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{clear}} <!-- Template:Twenty Year Society invitation --><span id="The_Herald:1719628742029:User_talkFTTCLNKillerChihuahua" class="FTTCmt">— ] (]) 02:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
Latest revision as of 15:06, 30 September 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. KillerChihuahua has not edited Misplaced Pages since February 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Userpage | talk | contribs | sandbox | e-mail | shiny stuff 9:11 pm, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
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 Centralized discussion 
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.The Signpost: 20 March 2023
The Signpost: 03 April 2023
Administrators' newsletter – April 2023News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Happy First Edit Day!
Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Misplaced Pages project for twenty years or more. Best regards, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) |
||||||||||
