::You're welcome, and have fun. So nice to hear of couples having a common interest and spending time together! [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
::You're welcome, and have fun. So nice to hear of couples having a common interest and spending time together! [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
== Please do not delete or hide relevant content ==
I do not appreciate the accusation of SPAMMING on the RS/N. Please ask an uninvolved admin to deal with this if you really do think I'm being tendentious. It is not appropriate for you and Cirt to reformat and hide my comments since you are actively engaged with me in a dispute over this subject matter.[[User:PelleSmith|PelleSmith]] ([[User talk:PelleSmith|talk]]) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:48, 14 December 2009
I need a break. I didn't expect a defender of the wiki barnstar but I didn't expect to get attacked either.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.
Wikimedia Foundation
Talk to the Puppy To leave a message on this page, click here.
If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )
And I still see people ranking their personal interpretation of WP:CIVIL above everything else. Above NPOV. Above V. Above NOR.
Oh wait, those are the Simplified Ruleset, aren't they? The basis for all of Wikipedia?
Silly me. Here I thought we were here to write an encyclopedia, and that while a civil environment furthers that aim, the Civility Police are generally counter-indicated by the chilling effect and escalation to which their actions usually lead.
Ed Poor has continued to engage in disruption at articles directly in his conflict of interest; namely attempting to remove info linking related organizations and front groups to the Unification Church and Sun Myung Moon, removing sourced information, and making disruptive page moves against consensus. Please see [2] and [3] for two recent examples. Enough warnings have been given at this point. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updates
Edit-warring to remove info from the lede, that, per WP:LEAD, was verbatim sourced later in article [4].
Sourcing info to another non-static wiki website? [5]
Hi, I essentially restored to my previous edit of Ayers, but added a citation. AFAIK there has been no discussion on the talk page regarding this since my last post, and I missed that someone removed my edit. I think my version should stand as factually accurate, cited, and npov, but I posted at talk in any case. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I willingly dropped the issue officially here: old ver [10], diff: [11].
Only message after this was to Alexh19740110 [12] to tell him I didn't share his views about AGW until Connolley marginalised the third party interventions (following diff) and then re-opened the conversation without further prompting from me [13]. Look at the succeeding edits and diffs to see who was driving the conversation. Dduff442 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He did not come to your talk page and ask you questions. He was attempting to respond to your highly confusing posts on his page. Kudos to him. Why are you here? Are you unclear on how you were harassing him? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share your opinion regarding his motivations in re-opening the debate or regarding the confusing posts. It's quite out of character of him to indulge enquiries he considers trivial. The entry was entitled 'an offer' and there was only one offer in the message... I think anyone with average intelligence could work that out. I'm unclear how it's *possible* to harass someone at their own volition, so yes. I'm here to answer your questions. Dduff442 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my intrusion, but in the spirit of the holiday season, I would like to offer to any party who wants one, a deluxe apology — this includes my eating dirt followed by washing my mouth out with soap. If this would in any way help any situation (which I am intruding into), please let me know. I will go wash some dirt and peel some soap. :-) In any case, happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm being defensive. But I've been getting threats from all angles for days inspite of trying my very hardest to act with fairness, directness, honesty and integrity. Consciously or unconsciously, there's a buddy system in operation. This encourages cynicism and gaming of the system and damages editors' faith in the admins. By extension, faith in the editorial system itself is eroded.
I just came up with a good analogy on BozMo's page, so I'm going to repeat myself without shame: Wikipedia is like a giant steamer with no captain and no rudder. If it goes off course who'll set it straight, and how?
(edit conflict) As someone in a stranger doghouse than you can imagine (not KC's beautiful floating one), I certainly understand how the waves of Wikipedia may crash upon our heads ... often simultaneously and from directions one cannot imagine waves coming from. :-) Again, please excuse my light intrusion into the matter which I know is frustrating — there are so many barfights going on lately, I feel compelled to do anything (even eat dirt) to, um, lighten the mood.
He's not only changing the content from what the sources say to what the sources do not say, he's reverted three times already. I'm guessing you have the 3RR report all ready to file? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice17:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you take a look at the history of List of Unificationists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? There was a bit of reverting going on, and if asked I will gladly self revert something if need be - but I thought that per WP:BLP, any unsourced, controversial information about BLPs should be removed forthwith. In any event, post the conflict, I moved all unsourced info on WP:BLPs to the article's talk page. Look good, for now? Cirt (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, looks like some of these are sourced in their main articles. I'm looking at Bo Hi Pak right now. IMO you might want to make a list of the names you removed and go through them, slowly, verifying the sourcing on the main articles and re-adding to the List if indicated - including the source on the list, if you wish. I'm not sure where the rules are on that these days. I realize its a lot of work, but I think its worth doing. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly why I moved it to the talk page. I plan to go through them one by one, but only add back with sources on this page itself. :) Sound okay? Cirt (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider refactoring your comments on AN/I — or at least toning it down a bit in future reports? A lot of them seem to be in rather poor taste. Calling another editor a 'bigot' is quite beyond the pale, unless you're prepared to back that up with some really damning diffs. As well, referring to Ed Poor's four-year-previous ArbCom run seems to be a way to attack and embarrass Ed, rather than to address any problems he might have in his (current) editing. Moreover, it's a weak argument, first because several of the supporting votes (which you chose not to copy into the thread) endorsed Ed as a strong supporter of NPOV, and also because as at least four of the opposing voters have sinced been banned outright for their socking and trolling.
From your signature, I gather that you brook little interest in being civil, polite, and courteous for their own sakes', but please try to bear in mind that you'll be a much more effective advocate for your arguments if you present your requests a tad more dispassionately. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I'd rather that you either add suitable supporting diffs to the thread where you made the statement, or you withdraw the claim. It certainly appears that you've gotten the editing restriction that you sought in any case, so there's no need of it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem terribly concerned about this, yet I assure you it is not as provoking as you seem to think. Ed hasn't bothered to deny that he's a bigot, and as its fairly common knowledge, while I appreciate that you are concerned about how I might appear, I prefer to be accurate rather than withdraw one of the things which continually creeps into Ed's POV edits. Or hadn't that occurred to you? It is relevant; it affects his edits. Yet you seem more concerned that I used the term, than at the thought of a clear bigot editing articles in a biased fashion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice20:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: As the issue is now resolved, I fail to see what would be gained by adding links which could only harm Ed's standing, such as it is, even further. I don't understand your insistence that I continue to add to the pile of what's stacked against him after he's been topic banned. If you're curious, I suggest you check out RationalWiki's page on Ed. It has a lot of the links you are probably looking for, and he actually was awarded an award for bigotry there. Its not the most egregious content I am aware of, but seriously, dude, its about as controversial as
saying the sky is blue. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice21:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the comment reflects more poorly on you than it does on Ed, because of the appearance that you are making an unsubstantiated (and serious!) accusation. Calling someone else a bigot isn't taken lightly anywhere, as far as I know. On the other hand, if Ed is (currently) using Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to make bigoted remarks, then I'd be inclined to recommend something more than a piddly-ass little topic ban.
Bigger picture — I'm suggesting that if you took an ever-so-slightly less inflammatory approach, you'd be more likely to get a fair hearing at AN/I (and elsewhere). While it appears that you got what you wanted this time around anyway, I'd be inclined to suggest that it was in spite of, rather than because of, your reporting style. Whether you intended it to or not, you gave the impression of someone who was hoping to goad an opponent into an intemperate response (through various attacks, and the cheap shot about the old ArbCom election). With that sort of approach, you're going to end up shooting yourself in the foot one of these days. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is me, Ten. I've been here almost as long aslonger than you (June 2004). I've spent over five years being polite and careful, and you even misunderstood my sig to mean that I "brook little interest in being civil, polite, and courteous for their own sakes" which is about 180 out from how I think. In fact, it hurt my feelings a good bit, I never did get the thick skin they say you need for this job. But FYI, my sig is not advice to not be courteous. It is advice to not be a bitch when someone else is rude. But you saying it reflects badly on me? I'm willing to back up my accusation, but would prefer not to have to, because it would only be poling on Ed and it would be a good bit of work for me to no purpose at all. Go check out the links on the page I mentioned. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, pulling out an election result from five years ago – in which Ed received a substantial majority of supporting votes, and in which about a third of the comments you quoted were from now-banned trolls and sockpuppets – is a deceptive, cheap shot. You're experienced enough to know that ArbCom elections tend to bring out the nastiness in voters, and draw the trolls like moths to a flame. Showing that a small number of editors five years ago didn't want Ed as an Arbitrator was an unfortunately weak line of evidence for you to present. Choosing to quote it in full on AN/I as by far the largest part of your evidence (in terms of length) in support of your request came across as petty and spiteful. If you want to show a pattern of behaviour then do what you did elsewhere: provide appropriate diffs, and link to previous, relevant instances of dispute resolution.
As to your opinions on civility — consider how it looks when you link to that essay in your signature, and it appears right after you say things like "POV pushing, rules-ignoring bigot", "tired of your bullshit", "spends most of his time rewriting the bible at Conservapedia", "he'll just weasel his way around the edges". It gives the impression (fair or not) that you're asking everyone to give you a free pass on any incivility in which you might engage — and placed after those sorts of comments, you'd have reason to ask. There are far better and more effective ways to say those things, and after five years here you should know that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've read your first sentence and stopped there. NO, it was NOT. I'm really sorry if it looks that way but I took EVERY SINGLE oppose from that nom, in order to be thorough and not cherry pick, and only to establish that these concerns are of long standing. You might want to try to AGF a teeny tiny damn bit and not be so sure I have such foul motivations. I'm offline for a bit. I've had about enough of getting shit on by you and accused of motives I don't have, because of one bigoted troll who has been sanctioned several times by ArbCom and who apparently has enough nostalgia factor to get some sort of weird sympathy for the hole he dug himself. You have voiced your view; I have disagreed. Now be done with that and cease informing me, incorrectly, of my motives and thought process. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One last note for the holidays :-) ... I don't read everything on user pages ... but I finally read that Abraham Lincoln "tail." I like Abraham Lincoln. (lol) I did not know that one. But that quote is PERFECT for all kinds of (stupid) rhetorical occasions. Amen. (I now return puppy to her regularly scheduled episode of dramatic non-tv.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFEA
You're quite right, of course. I took one look at his userspace and jumped way too early. Thank you for the reality check, so to speak. Yours, @Kate(parlez)02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is true. :) And I believe that you and I can agree that the more articles that Wikipedia has (that meet its criteria), the greater wealth of knowledge that it is. Thanks, again. @Kate(parlez)02:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent post
Killer, I was surprised to get a warning from you on my Talk page (see diff here). I acknowledge your concern and will endeavour not to counter-revert WP:BLP reversions in the future. Madman (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KC, can I trouble you for an explanation of why you consider my analogy a "false analogy". As you pointed out I should not have insinuated that you did not have a rationale when you made the comment, but I have since apologized and I have stricken that insinuation. Perhaps you did not notice this, or the fact that I have asked for such an explanation. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi puppy, I just came across this editor and before things get out of control well you'll see, that is if you are curious. :) never mind user name is spam, editor's user page is spam. The editor has already been final warning for spamming their site to the IBS article. I figure maybe nipping this one quickly will prevent a lot work along with preventing a lot of agrevations. If not interested, I'll wait and watch but I hate going to AN/I for obvious reasons. Be well, --CrohnieGalTalk20:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like CactusWriter already got it! Wow, we have some great admins here, don't we? sorry I was afk when you posted this - glad someone else saw the issue and took care of it! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice21:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey no problem! I have to admit I was totally surprised at how quickly this was handled. I even looked to see if the administrator was one of your many talk page contributors or lurker and saw my comment. Yes, we do have some wonderful administrators. Take care and thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk12:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. It was also an accusation of POV pushing and cronyism, which is something you should avoid unless you have actual evidence, and not to be used to smear another editor in a dispute. This is the second time in a week you have struck comments about me. I note you are also using that tactic, whether you are aware of it or not, against other editors. I suggest you remember to comment on content, and not resort to character assassination of those with whom you may disagree. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice18:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not appreciate the accusation of SPAMMING on the RS/N. Please ask an uninvolved admin to deal with this if you really do think I'm being tendentious. It is not appropriate for you and Cirt to reformat and hide my comments since you are actively engaged with me in a dispute over this subject matter.PelleSmith (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
