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

		Civility Award
		You have the patience of a saint and should be rewarded accordingly. Thank you for not talking down to me when you could have, for talking up to others when it is difficult, and for the constant work you do as an administrator and a contributor. Erikeltic (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I try. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I used my real name for about four years, but I had to switch when I decided I didn't want all that stuff showing up on google searches and being available to anyone who might want to collect personal information about me. I appreciate my anonymity and don't want my real name linked to my Wikipedia account. ⟳ausa کui ^× 20:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for my recent edit then, I was unaware of your reasons and would not have put all that in a post had I been aware (or had I been more thoughtful, I am so sorry!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KC. Blippy here (well I think it's me). Thanks again for your work on the Berry Street page. One thing I noticed on my history (?) though is this: KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) (→Notification: tone down hostile template language, who writes this stuff?). I'm just a smidge confused; was that a notification to me, or just an amusing tag on your signature? I assumed the latter, but when I clicked the links it kept going back to my user page. I couldn't find anything there and so I just thought you might be able to clear it up for me, whether I've missed something, or done something wrong that I haven't realised! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the text from template from "you have been accused to "you are suspected" because "accuse" sounds like I'm sure, and I'm not; and overly aggressive and hostile, which is not how I feel and I don't want you to feel that way either. The dif is this. Sorry it confused you! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh that makes sense now! Thanks for explaining. You're right, who does write that stuff!?! 'Suspected' is a much more civil version. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you cut the list of work performed off halfway through 1997? --Chetfarmer (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was a paste error, I pulled the list to a text editor to format per the WP:MOS, and when I pasted back the correctly formatted list it looks like it didn't all take[1]. Are you planning to fix the rest of the performances to comply with MoS? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I went ahead and did it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am sorry if my edits on Talk:Prayer came across as not assuming good faith, because that was not the intention here. You might have missed the words "albeit unconscious" in one of my replies to you, and I am sorry of the full implications of that did not come across.

This said, ever since my overnight conversion from strong atheist ("I know for sure that there is no god") to strong Christian ("No one can credibly make me doubt the existence of the God of the Bible"), I have had a few spats with my family about the matter. Also, being as involved into political matters as I am, I've had to deal with a lot of people who do not want religion "imposed" on them in ways such as having someone indulge in prayer next to them. I have come to believe that wherever the State requires things that go against Scripture, or forbids people from doing what Scripture requires, then civil disobedience, even under the penalty of death, is the only viable option.

Over the years, I have come across many attempts at compromise that would involve adopting agnosticism ("I don't know whether there is a god") as a sort of state religion, or, in other words, promoting agnosticism in the name of separation of Church and State (which I regard as soundly biblical doctrine, yet not the same as separation of God and State). I've come to regard most efforts to avoid imposing a particular religious view as, unconsciously, actually imposing one: that of agnosticism. Unconsciously, because at the same time I realize that those who try to impose this brand of "neutrality" are often unaware that believers (of any religion) do not regard that as "neutral" but rather an imposition of atheistic or at the very least agnostic worldview.

I have also noticed that whenever I, or anyone else, spell out the above concern, people suddenly become very defensive, to the point of escalating a dispute where there wasn't even one to begin with, and to this day I have never been able to understand why. It is something that needs to be said. Maybe a softer tone would be more appropriate, I don't know.

But that's where I come from. Before your first reaction to my postings, I did not feel I was at war with anyone. I merely stated what I felt needed to be said, no fingers pointed, no accusations. If my comments have been perceived as an accusation, please be aware that none was meant. If you feel that in my "any idiot" comment I was calling a specific person an idiot, please be aware that I had no such thought. Not even remotely. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TL; DR. Seriously, though, regarding your religious views: I don't care, I don't want to know, and you should keep this seperate from Wikipedia except as regards being aware of your own bias and guarding your edits against reflecting that bias. Your long story about your battles and changing views has no place here.

Regarding your posts: you accused a new editor of being an SPA; you called editors "idiots"; you accused (one or more, it was unclear) editors of allowing their personal bias to affect their rationale for clarity of phrasing, even though this was not indicated at all by any edits made and a 100% supported phrasing had already been suggested, supported, and implemented - which puts your out-of-line speculation about the editor(s) personal views not only irrelevant and ABF but a borderline personal attack. If you did not intend such meaning, then I suggest your re-read the discussion as though you were a complete newcomer to the page, with an eye to how your posts might be percieved (and received) by others. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to understand where I come from, which is Scotland and I'm not sure that I understand it. However, we have a word here, secular, which is not the same as agnostic and desribes WP:NPOV more accurately. Either way, puppy is absolutely right about the primacy of civility and no personal attacks. . dave souza, talk 19:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was part of your wiki-edumikayshun, right? I wasn't harassing anyone, KC. Since we're clear on how you cannot really be neutral, and demonstrate some issues, could you kindly avoid posting in response to those comments of mine that do not immediately address your behavior, deal with you, or ask for you to be blocked or banned? Thanks in advance.
And just so we're clear - I don't need to receive a response from you on my talk page. Your responses to my helpful comments regarding your disingenuous behavior indicate you aren't ready to recognize your lack of AGF, evidenced by your repitition of them.
I think we're done here.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful hint given. . dave souza, talk 07:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a template. I wrote that myself. And it wasn't about me; you're harassing DreamGuy. You have been posting harassing messages to and about him for some time now, and it needs to stop. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw the image, and presumed it was a massaged template. And you are wrong about harassing DG; when the truth came out about Esasus, you lost no time in pointing out - in excruciating detail and lotsa bad faith - about how wrong I was. My message to DG was to note that he needed to take better care as to who he hitched his wagon to. To my credit, I was a lot more polite with DG than you were with me. And DG has said a lot more uncivil things to and about me than you ever have, or I about him - and still does. Odd how you don't seem to be telling him to stop. Hm. And while we're on the topic, your use of "snide" kinda crosses you into that whole 'hello pot, meet kettle' thing.

Let me make my position clear: AGF is indeed not a shield for bad behavior, and you've exhibited plenty of bad faith in regards to me. I've since given up in talking to you to point out where you were wrong and try to improve our relationship based on correcting your error. You either cannot or will not choose to see any pov but your own. I pity that (truly, I do), but I can accept it. All I ask is that, so long as you feel that way, you please stay away; you have demonstrated an inability to be neutral where it concerns me. Thanks. And this will likely be my last post here on your page, as I've asked you to refrain from posting in mine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stay off DG's talk page. Stop interrogating and attacking him on noticeboards. You are harassing him and I have warned you repeatedly about it. Your ridiculous attempt to paint my warnings to you as "failure to agf" and your unsupported attacks of me on your talk page, which you now inform me you are requesting I not rebut, do not in any way absolve you of your poor behavior regarding him. You are trying to frame this as something it is not. THis is yoru failure to take my warnings regarding DG to heart. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tedious as it is, I thought it necessary to give Arcayne some advice about behaviour. Perhaps best to assume good faith and hope that Arcayne will learn the lesson, turn over a new leaf and stop making baseless accusations about you, DG, or anyone else. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. No, i'm really gone for good though still checking in every few days out of habit. I appreciate the well-meaning sentiment of your edit on my talk page. I could have written one of those "I'm taking my marbles and going home because the other kids won't play nice. No, really, I mean it. I'm going now...watch me as i go... anyone there? Really, i'm going... yohoo... you'll be sorry when i'm gone" essays but they do no good and make the departing editor look, at best, a little needy and self-important. I simply came to realize that the culture at wikipedia as is requires endless discursive engagement with the ill-informed, the non neuro-typical (not their fault, but i'm not interested in participating in a cognitive therapy experiment for teenagers' with aspergers), trolls, Randy from Boise, etc... and that I, A. Don't enjoy this process; and, 2. Began to feel that i was the fool for getting drawn into it at all. I suspect wikipedia will still be extremely high traffic for years to come, and many of its articles will, as they always have, serve as useful jumping off points for learning about stuff. It will also continue to degrade under the weight of various xx in pop culture, list of xx obscure fictional things articles, criticism of xxx, feral narcissist blps of nobodies, reality-denying kooks allowed to edit science articles, nationalist scum, et al. That's ok. The aggravating things here will remain aggravating. The good things here will, more or less, remain as long as people like you are willing to play Sisiphus. You will still do good work and that will, on balance, make things better. From my perspective the culture is, if anything, moving further away from my own goals and values and it became clear to me that I am both powerless to change it and that the aggregate positive footprint from my own personal contributions was infinitessimaly (sp?) small.

For me personally I'm returning to the world of work after 18 months or so of semi-involuntarily imposed exile. I spent 4 years or so in Iraq and got, to say the least, a little rundown in the process. Oh, since I'm done, my name is Dan Murphy, nice to meet you, doing a little writing these days at www.csmonitor.com. On a final note, I can't make any edits to my talk page. Scrambled my password and the page has long been IP protected because of some stalker problem i had a while back. No matter. Email is still enabled, as far as I know. Best and go well -- Dan (bali ultimate) 173.63.22.131 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dammit, from a purely selfish perspective I shall miss you a great deal. I will also be emailing you. :D I can, however, see your perspective all too clearly. I took a break myself about a year ago. This was my view of the place at the time. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your user page.

meatball:DissuadeReputation

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't matter what version is offered, those who have no ears to hear... KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Category:Winter holidays can include any holiday in the winter season, and Thanksgiving for example is not even part of winter so it can't go in that category. As for the existing Category:Christmas, it's a whole separate idea. The idea of the Christmas/holiday season is a "season", spanning from late October? to January. It has notably been said to include holidays like Hanukkah and Kwanzaa. I think the debate here is more about the title of the article, Christmas and holiday season — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 12:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that debate is on the article talk page. The debate about the category is now on the Cfd page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. The reason I didn't link it in the first place is it makes it look like [[satanic ritual abuse moral panic]] rather than [[satanic ritual abuse]] [[moral panic]]. I'd prefer to separate the two wikilinks, but can't figure out a way of doing so without torturing the English language. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Well, torture is part of SRA, is it not? It might be appropriate. Let me think on it a bit; meanwhile, the back-to-back links are less evil than the possibly misleading unlinked "moral". KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, about as close to perfect as you can get without unduly harming the Queen's English. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I try! In spite of my username, I attempt not to murder anyone or thing, including the language. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did you read my essay and link it in your sig, but you pretty much turned it into the entire contents of your userpage? Puppy, this officially counts as my most awesome day at Wikipedia. Mind you, I thank everyone who bothers to read my musings, but this takes it to a whole new level. Consider yourself given an e-cupcake or e-puppy treat or whatever you'd like. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No chew toys? No pictures of pretty chew toys? Puppy also likes steak. (wags tail happily in anticipation.)

Seriously, your essay merits this attention, or I would not have given it such. the userpage is temporary, I'm sure you realize. I am happy and humbled that my notice of your essay has pleased you and made you feel appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steak it is, then. And believe me, it's not lightly that I can give it. I've not had anything like this in a long time myself, as I'm living in a country where this stuff is not too widely eaten or served.

Oh, and yes, I figured the userpage thing was a short-term thing. It's cool, anyway. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dang, you found a really good image. Everyone coming to make a post here will be drooling on their keyboard. :D KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doh! Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think you can mess around with other people's things? Obviously, I haven't finished the article yet if it had little information included in it. I was only starting, but now I have to start all over. If I run into you again, I am sending something to wikipedia in regards to your being a big nuisance to my private work. I swear I am not dealing with YOUR kind again. Besides, the article was meant for a book I was going to make. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS YOU IRRELEVANT KNOW-NOTHING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynnhoj93 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm guessing (since you weren't clear) that an article you started was speedy deleted by me. Please read Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? and if you still have questions, feel free to post again here. Please note especially that Wikipedia is not for your own personal research, and it is not for drafts, rough or otherwise, of books you plan to write someday. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why did you block me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.164.188 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This clarifies who "me" is, and it seems there was quite a discussion about the issues earlier. Shows the potential danger of outlawing sarcasm! . . dave souza, talk 09:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no reply was give, only excuses. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive_13 Shows a drastic need to outlaw sarcasm from admins. period! 75.91.164.188 (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC) As you were an original problem creator, Dave Souza, I would appreciate you not stalking and harassing me. WP:PA Now back to the original question. 75.91.164.188 (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a 24 hour block in December. To the best of my recollection, you were making personal attacks on the admin who deleted a page you wrote. Why on earth are you bringing this up now, six months later? I see you are still doing it, too - Dave souza doesn't need to stalk you to see this; he has my page watchlisted. You are attacking him and accusing him with no reason at all. "original problem creator" could be seen as a personal attack, which is a blockable offense. Are you angling for another one, or do you think you can stop being nasty to other editors here? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I defended myself from an admin who did attack me with sarcasm, he even wrote "sarcasm" so that it could be meant that way. Why was I the only one blocked? 75.91.164.188 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked for defending yourself. You were blocked for obtusely persisting in personal attacks and accusations against an administrator because they deleted a page you wrote. You have now made at least three such attacks on my talk page. Learn to be civil, and read WP:NPA. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my first question. What three attacks? From WP:NPA "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users." That is a serious accusation. 75.91.164.188 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. You were blocked for violating the personal attacks policy. The three instances here of incivility/attacks: 1) accusing me (by implication) of "do you block people reguardless of anything? Seems so." 2) "no reply was give, only excuses" 3) accusing Dave souza of 'stalking and harassing'

In short, you're being amazingly snotty and rude. I've answered your question; now Go away. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that's acting like a bitch. 75.91.164.188 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've deleted my past few comments. Quit being uncivil and grow up. 75.91.164.188 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I don't think Jimbo intended his injunction to admins to be polite to be taken as a license by IP editors to be rude and abusive, but no doubt we'll find out.[2] . . dave souza, talk 17:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your comment stuck out to me as raising a query: "If his role changes, there should be a small update to his role page and the Arb page. Adding an essay-type page to try to change things is unworkable."

There is no proposal that the introduction be added to the ArbCom policy: only the removals and additions in the box below. In your statement, you appear to assume the possibility of change in Mr Wales's role by "a small update" to that policy text. I'm confused as to what you oppose and what you support. Tony (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page itself is unecessary and a Bad Idea, IMO. It is Yet Another (proposed) policy page. Why on earth???? There is a policy page for Role of Jimbo - if his role changes, just edit that. If his role changes regarding ArbCom, edit the page delineating Arbcom (where it states "approved by Jimbo", or whatever the verbiage is.) The page which I commented on is a proposed policy page, and IMO it should be deleted, and that as soon as possible. That won't happen, because for some reason the community wants to keep every page ever tagged with "proposed policy" around. Please let me know if I have failed to clarify, and I will do my best to answer any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really would appreciate it if you could let me know where you feel like I lost my cool during the discussion at and around the Lambert article. Even when faced with a baseless warning, I didn't lose my cool. It really bothers me a little bit that you claimed I did. Unitanode 07:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you called the warning "baseless" and bitched at whats-his-name, who tagged you with it, and your bulldog-like inability to accept that there is a difference of opinion, and to simply let this go. Really, get over it. And don't move warnings to article talk pages any more; remove them if you like but placing them on the article talk page is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to understand your point, but I just don't. How is calling a baseless warning "baseless" (as I demonstrated that it was at the talkpage) losing my cool? As for having some "bulldog-like inability to accept there is a difference of opinion", I find that a bit mysterious as well. We had a disagreement. We worked it out, after I came around to your view. How is that as you describe it? I honestly do try my best to edit collaboratively, and to maintain my cool at all times, so I just was a bit taken aback by your assertions at that talkpage. Best, Unitanode 20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, KillerChihuahua. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!-- I dream of horses (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I still have this page watched from the RfA question. :) But happy birthday KC. ceranthor 14:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!!! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, many happy returns! . dave souza, talk 16:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea puppy, Happy Birthday from me too! --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question regarding what is going on in Talk:Sarah Palin right now. Does wikipedia have a policy about whether users can archive entire talk pages before discussions are complete? Zaereth (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share Zaereth's concern. WP:Archiving says:

Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to the Wikipedia policy of consensus for each case. If possible, archive talk pages during a lull in discussion, thus maintaining the context of a discussion by not cutting it off in progress.

Writegeist (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions should not have been archived; however, that is hindsight. I think the person who did the archiving did so in good faith, trying to reduce drama and focus discussion. It backfired; now the talk page is largely discussion about the archiving, which is hardly productive. My strong suggestion to you is to re-open discussions you feel were inadequately resolved, linking to the previous discussion. Don't get into an archive-dearchive-archuive war; that won't help a thing. I believe that there has been enough outrage expressed over the archiving that the person in question will not do it again; I will also drop off a note. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and thanks for letting me know this had gotten out of hand! I try to keep an eye on it, but sometimes unless you're really closely following the edits as they are made, its hard to see where things hit the tipping point and go from Civil disagreement into Potential serious problem. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your advice. I just wasn't sure what the policy was since I had never encountered this before. Zaereth (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look into it - and in the section above, I see in coming over here to leave this note. (As you say, it was done it was done in good faith and for good reasons that I explained, but the response has been unfortunate.) At any rate, I was just stopping by to say that "Simon" will suffice. "Dodd" is fine, too, if you prefer, but seems a little over-formal and has an adversarial ring. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I am of the generation in which using the last name denotes respect, not an adversarial feeling. I will attempt to remember you prefer Simon to Dodd; please also try to keep in mind that I mean nothing disrespectful or rude if I forget and use "Dodd" instead. FYI I am generally referred to as KillerChihuahua, Puppy, KC, MurderDog, etc. Please don't call me bitch, tho, as someone else once did, that's a joke I don't appreciate. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI/ANI follow-up

Sorry, Puppy :) forgive me, but: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Who_is_a_bigger_one.3F_OR.2C_The_bad_act_and_the_apparently_good_solution
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, but you could have tried talking to me first. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse protocol confusion... Had never noted myself mentioned up there, nor seen such an alluring topic title :) ... Never posted there before etc etc. Your choice was perfectly wise confronted with "that." (Will apologize more, and better, wherever appropriate.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol clarification

No one informed me that I had been mentioned in the AN discussion.

How did I learn of it?
I discovered it when someone I hadn't noted seeing around stopped by Talk:Sarah Palin and chastised[3] Simon Dodd for WP:CIV mentioning the characterization of "dick" ... which made me smile, but curious as to how they happened to enter the conversation on that note ... and so I checked their recent contributions and saw the entry:

"# 07:35, 10 July 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ (→Am I being a dick?: Yes)

... which is how I discovered the AN conversation in which my actions had been characterized.

While I understand the wording of Mr. Dodd's message at AN is that he was not seeking administrators to look at my behavior but his, he nonetheless posted a characterization of my behavior which would lead administrators to believe I had acted inappropriately. (NOTE: We see one editor referred to my actions as characterized by Mr. Dodd as "baiting.")

Why didn't I talk to you first?

• I went to sleep before you had stepped in, and when I awoke Simon Dodd had left me a message with a link to this discussion on your talk page.
• I then read your intervention on Talk:Sarah Palin ... and the words "Puppy is done."
• I then checked the AN discussion and saw your comments there indicating the situation had been handled.

IN THAT CONTEXT, where:

• my actions had been characterized negatively at AN by Mr. Dodd (without my rebuttal)
• an administrator had completed their intervention and noted the resolution at AN
• the administrator on Talk:Sarah Palin had responded to my proposal to correct the premature archiving with "Don't archive war" ... which certainly mischaracterizes my attempt to correct the situation (where I, apparently stupidly, refrained from simply reverting the inappropriate manual archiving while it was happening) although I do understand your admonition was to all editors, it was posted underneath my support vote, and indented. :)

"Talking to you first" did not seem to apply. (And so, yes, my words above re "protocol" are inappropriately fluffy ... and "wise" applying to the ruling that the manual archiving should not have been done.)

Hence my responding at AN.

Now, your response to my response at AN, is another kettle of fish. Perhaps more about that later :), but I will end on this note in the context of that kettle: The above is the length it takes to accurately capture the situation, rather than (what usually happens) a brief (inaccurate) mischaracterization, e.g. "archive war" :)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(clarification?) "TL;DR but ..."

(NOTE: I've stripped this of contextual and motivational clarification for the sake of brevity. Long version available upon request. LOL)

QUESTION (re your AN summary): You begin with "TL;DR but..." Would you fill that out a bit for me?

(Assume "DR" means Dispute Resolution, and "TL" may be "talk" but the semi-colon and the implications of the "but" are fuzzy to me.)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TL;DR Meant to be a gentle hint to try to be concise. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL (duh, Would have sworn I typed it right.) Although if I had, I would have found it a very odd contruct:

Oh, I see ... They are two abbreviations, it's just that the abbreviation for the second WP:TLDR is the same as the first (about essays vs policies).

Thanks.

PS/Edit Page was so short, I was confused. LOL Proofreader77 (talk) 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PPS COMMENT: I see there is a very slow edit war about whether the page WP:TL;DR should be a redirect to WP:TLDR ... the reason it isn't a redirect (like I would expect) is it is apparently an inside joke. :) Such are the mysteries of WP. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(clarification) A question for you at AN

Link to question (note: protocol complexities due to Simon Dodd's tactic of using that forum, excuse formality etc)Proofreader77 (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered, and I have now closed that section. Answer was "yes." Your practice of beginning a new subsection is not usual practice here; please desist. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The formatting of information for easier processing (indexing/reading/editing) is a preference I will seek to determine if there is some prohibition against. As for your talk page, you may certainly specify rules (i.e., using bold and big instead of headers) for those who leave you messages. But in any case, clearly the lines of the issue are such that further communication on your talk page about this case appears to be inappropriate. If it needs follow up, I will research where such things may be followed up (and inform you, of course).

2. Now: Due the role of the AN forum in this issue, the matter is somewhat more complex than it seems (although there was a parallel conversation on your talk page). Your having read a "brief" by Simon Dodd at AN regarding the matter in a forum about which I had not been notified my name had been mentioned ... before you made your decision ... well, that's an issue. (Even if there is a claim that anything I might have said would have made no difference).

Please understand I have no interest in causing unnecessary waste of your time etc, but the general problem of how to deal with "tactics" which some users employ (to the detriment of several factors within Wikipedia) is sort of on my agenda.

To go back to the our beginning exchange here. You asked why I didn't talk to you first. And I have (clearly, and completely) given an answer to that question. And I close with the reciprocal ... since you had read Simon Dodd's characterization of his side of the issue including his characterization of the editing behavior of Proofreader77 ... you should have talked to me before locking down your ruling on the matter.

I do understand the importance of rulings and accepting them. But this one got tainted by a tactic by Simon Dodd when he went to AN, said what he said, and no one let me know.

Rewarding a tactic by locking in its fruits is what is of interest to me. But I also learned, if I see someone pulling a stunt like this again ... don't go to the talk page, revert it immediately with clear edit summary, and let things play out from there.

(I will now remove your talk page from my watchlist ... should you wish to communicate with me on mine, you are obviously welcome)-- Proofreader77 (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KillerChihuahua. I did not want to undercut any diplomatic efforts you might have intended, but this editor is (in my view) an example of eternal forum-shopping over one single link. For background, see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#.22dubious_reference_....22.3F, which dates from September 2008. (He did not accept that discussion as resolving the matter). The regular math editors don't often raise matters at the admin noticeboards, so they were in the habit of just reverting Tim whenever he restored the link. His actions are too slow to trigger 3RR, but they *are* a violation of WP:EW, since he is repeatedly editing against consensus. Nobody but him has ever supported including that link, and it has been removed numerous times. The admin David Eppstein is quite familiar with the problem, but he is involved due to his own editing at Graph isomorphism. I had hoped I was helping to solve the dispute by warning Tim that he could not continue this behavior. My warning was first issued three months ago for Graph isomorphism and is newly extended to Graph isomorphism problem. If you think my plan is controversial, I will either just give it up or ask for it to be formally ratified at WP:AN. The mention of 'COI' that you see in these threads is the belief by some that he is one of the authors of the paper. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to forum shopping is to guide him into abiding by policy, not by stating that only your block threat keeps him in line. We do have dispute resolution; there is nothing to be lost and everythng to be gained by allowing this to run its course. You can keep this a small scale war, or if his desired edit is subject to an article rfc, then consensus will be made much more clear - and please recall, he very probably is editing in good faith. As you have no proof he is one of the authors, I suggest letting that drop. Seriously, there is no reason not to have an article Rfc, and I'm surprised you or one of the regular math editors has not opened one already. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As EJ says, I'm too involved to take admin action, but I'm also not convinced that admin action is appropriate yet. As for the RFC: regular RFC's are for clarifying what the consensus is, right? But I think consensus is quite clear in this case: everyone except Tim32 doesn't think his additions are appropriate. Maybe a RFC/U on his behavior? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might indeed be the best way to try to resolve this. I presume you've tried discussing it with him, explaining how consensus works, and that the onus is on him, as the one desiring the change, to convince others - not their job to sway him? I suggested article Rfc to him, as he is trying to gain support for his desired edits, and a wider field of discussion would clarify consensus, and allow for other voices to be heard, but as you feel his low-grade edit warring to include this has become disruptive then yes, an editor Rfc would be appropriate. It appears to me that both sides have become a little entrenched; be clear on your desired outcome, which IMO should not be that he cease attempting to edit the articles, or some unprovable coi. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there was no editor (except me) who would be informed about graph theory problems as well as about modern chemistry problems. For example, in Talk:Matching I wrote (23:51, 8 November 2008):" Mathematically David Eppstein's statement is correct: "Kekule structure is a type of matching", but unfortunately this is not obviously for majority of chemists.[...]Also a single article about Kekule structures in chemistry is necessary[...]" -- David Eppstein wrote: "[...]But I don't have the expertise to write that article." Anyhow, the problem is very simple: 1) current state of Applications section is incomplete; 2) there is a link to improve it, so the link has to be inserted 3) if and when better link would be found my link may be replaced with that better link. Any problem more?;)--Tim32 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I suggest that you are attempting to introduce a WP:FRINGE element. The theory you wish to link may be valid, but with only one source, and your statement that only you know about it, then it should not be included per WP:UNDUE. In a few years, when more papers are written and it becomes mainstream, you may suggest adding it. This is not a reflection or judgement on the paper - far from it! But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we don't want to be "cutting edge" or "up to date" to that extent. We wish to include established, well sourced content sourced to secondary or third party sources. Not original research or anything that has not yet been established. Does that help you understand why your edits are meeting so much resistance? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not! Not only me know about, but there was no editor (except me) for these articles in Wiki only, but not in the world. I see, so much resistance looks like envy. The fact is that link to my paper was stable, before I wrote (19:00, 30 September 2008) in talk page: "For the record: M.Trofimov modified his recursive GI algorithm[...]The article was sent to well-known sci. journal; as soon as it will be printed I’ll add the link." Just that moment Míkka wrote (19:00, 30 September 2008): "And as soon it will be added, I will delete it [...]" and he deleted that link and began edit war.--Tim32 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then allow me to try to explain. UNDUE is very clear: if its a small view, if only a few people adhere to it, then we don't put it in. If you think this should go in, give me a link which shows many experts support this paper. Not just that the paper exists. Can you do that? Don't tell me about who reverted you, it does not matter at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paper cited in Automatic Proof of Graph Nonisomorphism paper (also see Google scholar) and also in arXiv:0711.2010v4. Also, see brief info about me in Intel site: [[4]]. My current work and my current paper (I wrote about it in GI talk page) had been supported by Intel.--Tim32 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one source. Show me a source where someone else, someone notable, talks about that paper. I need to see a noted mathematician speaking about that paper. It does not matter what notice you got inside INTEL. I need to see an article about your theory in New Scientist, or something of that ilk. Giving me yet more links to your one paper do not make that paper any more mainstream. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arjeh M. Cohen , Jan Willem Knopper and Scott H. Murray in one source, Reiner Czerwinski in another source + my co-author E.A.Smolenskii. How many scientists are necessary? In other Wiki articles my papers had been cited also and nowhere else in Wiki I have similar problem for self-citation. My initial article ("Scheme for the Calculation of the Electronegativities of Atoms in a Molecule in the Framework") for this approach had been cited 32 times -- please see: Google scholar--Tim32 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "It does not matter what notice you got inside INTEL", but INTEL noted me in "Top Community Masterminds", so, perhaps, I am notable myself? ;) --Tim32 (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless there is a good deal more to you than that. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, note that you should not write an article on yourself. If you're notable, others will do so. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I do not want to write Wiki article about me :) I only want to fix bugs in some other articles. I noted scientists who know my approach, but this paper is not only about my approach, there are big list of links in my paper to other methods which methods may be very useful for GI task in chemistry.--Tim32 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:RS and when you can bring several sources which demonstrate wide acceptance of that paper, you will be able to make a plausible argument that it is not WP:FRINGE. Currently, that is not the case. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current edition is (I took part in this edition; particularly, I insisted to restore SMILES):

"Chemical database search is an example of graphical data mining, where the graph canonization approach is often used.[26] In particular, a number of identifiers for chemical substances, such as SMILES and InChI, designed to provide a standard and human-readable way to encode molecular information and to facilitate the search for such information in databases and on the web, use canonization step in their computation, which is essentially the canonization of the graph which represents the molecule."

Now I suggest following addition:

Another effective approach [1] is based on electronegativity calculations [2], which calculations use Sanderson's scale [3].

1. M.I.Trofimov, E.A.Smolenskii, Russian Chemical Bulletin, 2005, 54(9): 2235.(http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11172-006-0105-6).
2. N. S. Zefirov, M. A. Kirpichenok, F. F. Izmailov, and M. I.Trofimov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1987, 296: 883 [Dokl.Chem., 1987 (Engl. Transl.)].
3. R.T.Sanderson, Chemical Bonds and Bond Energy, Acad.Press, New York, 1976.

--Tim32 (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be on the talk page of the article, or on an article Rfc. Not here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Also I noted that yesterday you said No for my request to be third opinion person. But you studied the situation, so I think it was be better to discuss this my edition with you rather than with somebody else. Note, please, EdJohnston wrote here: "The regular math editors don't often raise matters at the admin noticeboards, so they were in the habit of just reverting Tim whenever he restored the link." And so I am sure as soon as I send this my offer to the talk page of the article I will hear the same absurd reasons about COI etc. So, please, help me to organize serious discussion. Yesterday I wrote here: "In other Wiki articles my papers had been cited also and nowhere else in Wiki I have similar problem for self-citation." And today I am not sure that my opponents in the nearest future will find the articles to remove my links as well - because they have such habit;) And as I could see nobody here believes in my good faith. I did more than 500 editions in English Wiki and I made more in Russian Wiki, but now I think to go away from Wiki, because absurd COI accusations are not suitable for any scientist who printed more than ten papers. Sorry again, but here I am remembering well-known soviet censorship - it used similar methods – I do know, but here it is more poweful :(--Tim32 (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I only have a minute right now, but listen carefully: You do have a conflict of interest. Its not "absurd". You've been edit warring to introduce a paper, that you claim you are one of the authors of. That's COI. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look! I also have a minute only, so listen: What conflict do you mean? Is it a conflict: me vs Wiki? Note, please, self-citation is not forbidden in Wiki, so you have to prove that it is insignificant paper which adds nothing to the article -- only in this case the conflict "me vs Wiki" would be real conflict. Or may be you mean following conflict: me vs somebody in Wiki? I.e. I am interested the link to improve an article, but somebody is not interested in my improvement. Is it COI? -Yes, is it WP:COI - No! ;) In this case we have "real absurd"! --Tim32 (talk) 22:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:COI. --KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did it!: WP:COI: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed...", so you have to prove that it is insignificant material which adds nothing to the article -- only in this case the conflict "me vs Wiki" would be real conflict.--Tim32 (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I follow this page for other reasons (I like KC, he's a good pup), so I hope you don't mind my interjecting: the WP:BURDEN is on the person seeking to add the information. You have to show that despite your COI it's something that should be added. You haven't managed to convince other editors on the article talk page of that. Verbal chat 19:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These reasons are not proof. Long time ago somebody made a mistake, but now as EdJohnston wrote here: "The regular math editors don't often raise matters at the admin noticeboards, so they were in the habit of just reverting Tim whenever he restored the link." So, nobody here believes in my good faith, but this is forbidden in Wiki, in contrast with self-citation, which citation is not forbidden.--Tim32 (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. BTW, Verbal, may be the discussion with you may be continued on your talk page? This current discussion is my discussion with KillerChihuahua first of all. Recently, you removed my reply from the discussion with you and wrote that it is not interesting for you.--Tim32 (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) first of all, Verbal is welcome on my page, and if you bite my talk page stalkers, you won't be. Secondly, he's right. You don't seem to realize that everyone, without exception, is telling you the same thing - no one disagrees, but you. Could it possibly be that we know what we are talking about, and your response should be not "you're wrong" but "thank you for explaining that"? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KillerChihuahua. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

→ Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 22:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you responded to the request for closure of the Flame Viper bidness on AN...IMHO, I see a consensus for unblock with a mentor and/or other caveats. I asked Sarah if she'd be willing to mentor, but she has other commitments. He doesn't seem he'd be too terribly much trouble compared to other mentorees I've seen, unfortunately our mentorship program is bogged down with users who are on their umptieth chance for reform who game the system just enough to avoid permaban. I believe he knows exactly where he stands in regards to the community's expectations. And this is from me, a hardass and ageist to boot (I honestly believe we don't need editors under the age of 15 period. And get off my lawn! (shakes fist at yer)).

So if you or anyone else you know of would like to do it... :) Auntie E (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We now have at least three mentors volunteering for him, so no worries on that. I agree, he should be no problem. He knows our rules forwards and backwards; he'll follow them or he won't. Its gonna be mostly stalking, IMO. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really is unwarranted to proffer negative speculations merely because I declared that I had retired from mentoring and asked whether you would step forward. That was a poor use of the influence and experience of your position in the community. As Peter Symonds notes, the resignation had something to do with serious offsite harassment. The grace with which Dylan handled the matter raises my opinion of him. Please consider redacting parts of your commentary from the AN thread. Durova²⁷⁵ 02:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, two items: you are accusing me of something I didn't do ("proffer negative speculations"? Uh, right). Two: you never answered my very simple question, which I even repeated and bolded in case you missed it. I cannot believe you have the gall to come here and accuse me of nebulous nonidentified nefarious nonsense, while ignoring that you very clearly responded to a post of mine, which you considered rude, by opposing mentorship, which you made clear you thought I was advocating. Now, that was childish and petty beyond words, and unless you take this third opportunity to offer some other explanation, I have nothing to say to you and no respect for you.

• You oppose Dylan mentoring Flameviper, saying I was rude and offering no other reason[5]
• I am horrified anyone would be so petty, and ask if what you said is what you meant[6]
• You accuse me of ad homs and say you have "serious doubts" about my judgment (by your definition, this is an ad hom) unless you meant someone else, because you called me "the only advocate"[7]
• I ask what you think I am advocating, reject your definitions of "ad hom", and repeat my earlier question about rationale, bolding it and asking why you're blowing me off[8]
• You never responded to me. Never clarified a thing I asked about. And you have the brass balls to come here and ask me to strike some vague, unidentified part of my post. Which post, Durova? Which part? Are you planning to never answer why you decided my perceived rudeness was grounds for opposing a mentorship, when I was not either of the parties? Seriously, you talk about my judgment being off? Bah. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that he wasn't ready to fly solo and suggested a copilot. You attacked me for that opinion, so I opposed--because he still wasn't ready to fly solo. Once he found a comentor I supported the proposal. Your advocacy was so aggressive and ill-considered that you nearly derailed the proposal. I don't know where you infer those very odd surmises from perfectly normal interaction, but several people have already told you that you crossed the line (including Dylan). You might want to consider a wikibreak because you don't seem to be reading very clearly. I have no quarrel with you and used to have a high opinion of you. This interaction has been very disappointing. Durova²⁷⁵ 13:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read as far as "you attacked me for that opinion" and stopped. Please post a dif of the perceived attack. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which you have now turned around into a rather bizarre focus on your recent admission your mentorships were too much for you. I suggest that as you couldn't handle yours, you're hardly an expert on how to handle mentorships.[9]

Somehow you construed a straightforward statement about resignation as if it were an admission of incompetence. There was really no reason for doing so. Two different people have informed you that the resignation was related to serious offsite harassment, yet your responses have been to change the subject and continue aggressively. Two other people have also called your actions overly aggressive. That should be enough. Experienced editors shouldn't have to tolerate that kind of rudeness when they make a polite comment that doesn't wholly agree with your opinion. You may want to really think over your approach here. Your manner has been counterproductive and harmful to morale, and that puzzles me because it seems out of character for you. Have made fair efforts to communicate the problem, and am returning to work on a 150MB TIFF restoration of a 400 year old nautical chart. Durova²⁷⁵ 17:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh Durova, incompetence???? No, just said you'd decided it was too much for you. Didn't even speculate as to why, whatever. You decided, for very good reasons I am sure, that mentorship was too much for you (right now, forever, I have no idea and am not guessing.) Why the heck do you assume I thought that was a declaration of incompetence? Did you even bother to ask? Hell no, just accuse me of all kinds of lame crap. Puh-leese. Should I even bother to read the rest of your post, or was that the crux of the matter, that you did a very bad imitation of mind reading and got it wrong? Damn you have a thin skin for someone who was supposedly in the military. Had I had any idea you were so very thin skinned, I would probably have tried to be a lot more delicate with you, and I'll try in the future to remember you cannot handle comments unless it they extremely carefully phrased. I was under the impression you AGFd rather than this kind of sensitive bull. You did change focus to YOUR mentorships, blowing your own horn about how much you'd done etc, and that after you'd very rudely tossed down the gauntlet to me, challenging me to do something I didn't even agree needed doing, and have ever since called me an "advocate" of said effort in spite of my correcting your error. Regarding the two other people: they said I could have been more civil, that's all I saw. I could have been more civil, no argument, doesn't mean everything you're saying has the good housekeeping seal on it. Also doesn't mean you're totally innocent here. Sorry if your morale was hurt because I didn't handle you with kid gloves, my mistake I am sure. And um, try hard not to blow your own horn, it looks childish to bitch me out then brag about your contributions. I know you're good at image work, a lot of people know it, just... don't brag so damn much, ok? Like you did in the original ANI thread, with the "I've done more than my share" seriously sounds like you are trying to be the center of attention. I'd edit this for brevity and clarity but I don't have time. I'd edit for civility but I'm fairly sure you're going to find a way to whine about how I say things no matter what I say. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your support at the content noticeboard, but you're wrong: he apparently did have enough to filibuster this. He twice reverted my edit (a number for which I have previously been "warned" for "edit warring" and for which he has received... Ratification, tacitly). And when I posted the matter to ANI, not a single admin was willing to lift a finger to help, and a regular editor first got involved and started waggling his finger at me, and then closed the debate. (On what authority he did this, I have not the faintest idea.) I have been told, instead, to wait for consensus. No one has explained how long I am to wait, or why three weeks isn't long enough for a merger although seven days is good enough for an AFD, or what this consensus is supposed to look like before action can be taken. And while that is pending, I have no doubt that JezHotwells will canvas up a veritable army of opposition.

I have no idea what to do about this, and feel incredibly dispirited about the whole thing. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them, because I'm on the verge of throwing up my hands and walking. This encyclopædia often seems incapabable of enforcing its own policies.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My advice: Ignore it for a few months. Like I'm ignoring Levi Johnston, an article created in direct contradiction of WP:BLP1E and kept through an Afd in which all the keeps insisted that multiple talk show appearances due to the one event satisfied "more than one event" - they do satisfy "low profile" not being the case,but they sure as hell are not more than one event. To me, a textbook case of BLP. Closing admin closed early, closed keep, has less than one years experience, said the "deletes" were borderline WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is currently up for b'crat and will probably pass. It is best to try not to care too much when you see fundamental principles being ignored. See Wikipedia:Don't panic, Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers and Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. If those don't help, try Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism. Good luck. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think the b'crat run will pass? God I hope not. It's at 79% currently. And I was under the impression, you needed more for b'crat. Of course, I was also under the impression you didn't need a five-point dissertation of why you wish to not give the kid a serious position that demands trust on these as well. It's ridiculous, the childish badgering the opposes got, like it's some IRC-buddy admin run. That one kid, iMatthew, every time someone mentioned the quick AFD closes, claimed that had nothing to do with b'cratship. What??? Poor judgment is poor judgment. How many times is the phrase "I trust the b'crat" stated on this wiki? Unbelievable. Auntie E (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no... not complaining, as it was patently the correct decision, but please take a look at the related articles Chris Fernandez and National Wiffleball League. The organization is a classic example of Wikipedia:Madeup and the notability of both individuals hinge on this "league" (which seems to be about a dozen guys playing wiffleball in somebody's back yard). I think I've seen articles listed for deletion as a group, though I have no idea how to do it and no time to learn at the moment. If you'd be so kind as to take a quick look at these and list for deletion if you find it appropriate, I'd appreciate it. On the face of it, none of these three articles stands any chance of surviving Afd if the nature of the National Wiffleball League is made clear to the reviewers. Majorclanger (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done a group listing on Afd, myself, but give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can't figure it out. I agree; they all hang upon each other, and should be judged as a group. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. League is the only article not speedied that I could find. Instructions for grouping Afd's are at WP:BUNDLE, if you need to add more or need to do this again. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey you deleted the article i had wrote but it was tagged for deletion within the first 5 minutes of my first edit so i get flagged for being a repost while I'm editing and i added the significance and importantance of the said person but you deleted it for being a repost .. it was already changed could you please have my article reinstated (Reggae809 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You recreated an unsourced article about a DJ. See WP:MFA. If you think you can find enough sourcing, and that this individual is notable enough, I suggest you try writing an article in your userspace - User:Reggae809/Sandbox would be a good place - and when you have the article up to where it is not eligible for speedy deletion, ask me or any other administrator and we'll move it to article space. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried to enlighten Rebroad as to how (s)he is supposed to add data to wikipedia? Some of the information they are putting forward may be relevant. It just doesn't need to be added everywhere, just to the relevant places.

If Rebroad was all "zomg! Must reveal conspiracy", then yeah, maybe they're a kook. But... I think I saw some edit summaries where Rebroad was at least _trying_ to gain consensus, just not succeeding.

If that has already been tried, that's when people might want to pull out the ban-hammer. Otherwise, maybe we're a tad early and can try the soft way first?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only arrived on the scene due to CAT:RFU. Rebroad has been around since 2004, off and on, and has 3637 edits. Should know by now. Currently complaining to the en mailing list... not asking what they did wrong, mind you, but how their block was too long (possible) out of process (not) and asking how to get the blocking admin and possibly the admins who reviewed the block de-adminned. IMO Rebroad is not remotely interested in mending his ways; he's interested in Proving He Is Right. If he'd said Oh, yeah, I could have been a little less edit warry, and a little more Talk pagey, and tried for consensus, and isn't a month a bit long? I would have reduced. Instead, there is scads of wikilawyering and arguing the finer points of WP:DE which Rebroad informs the admins on the page does not apply to him. Tenditious. Abuse of unblock template. I have no inclination to deal with that. If you want to give it a go, I'll unlock the talk page and you can try. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just demolished my will to try quite thoroughly there... :-/ Thanks for replying! --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... now I feel bad. I dashed cold water on your bright cheerful optimism... But I'm still not inclined to try with that editor. Lemme know if you change your mind. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away? Well perhaps. Still, in this incident, I don't quite see where anyone actually explained the *expected* behavior for this user to them. (Positive approach and all that). It *could* be tried. Stranger things have happened. But if he's been around that long. Yeah, interesting. OTOH, if he HAS been around that long, doesn't that mean he has at least some of the requisite survival skills? Hmm.... --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this at 5am in the morning here. Remind me not to do that ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim, don't write no more posts at 5 am; you will regret it the next day. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting cited material at David Copperfield (illusionist) and Herbert L. Becker? ► RATEL ◄ 22:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another matter, it seems from your user page that you are one of the few admins who will take action against stalkers, IOW editors who follow other editors from page to page, hoping to start an edit war. I have a stalker of this type, Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Can you do anything about this please?► RATEL ◄ 23:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence he is stalking you would be a good place to start. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some preliminary comments on this issue at Talk:Herbert L. Becker. Feel free to move them here. ► RATEL ◄ 01:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Moved content- On a broader issue, I wish to object to the stalking by the perennially tendentious user, Collect. The wikistalking has gone on for many months now, and I'm sick of it. Most recently he turned up at other pages I edited, like this one, and Resurrection of Jesus, and Ian Plimer. He now turns up out of the blue on most pages I edit. This all dates back to a long argument we had at Drudge Report wherein he edit warred for months, and lost most points. This all became part of the negative RfC on his conduct. There is now an established pattern wherein Collect runs to his admin pal, Gwen Gale, appealing for help against me, eg. diff diff diff (there are many more). Note how other editors complain about her closeness to Collect in the aforementioned RfC. Unfortunately, Collect usually succeeds in getting Gale to do his bidding (note the coatrack accusations leveled here by Gale without basis). I'm now thinking of writing this all up in an essay to be submitted before a tribunal that reviews the actions of admins for fairness and abuse, and has powers of recall. Gwen Gale has an interesting history (She was blocked many, many times before and was even restricted by ArbCom. To use Jimbo's term, Gwen has verified that she has a poisonous personality.) Please direct me to the right portal to start this case. ► RATEL ◄ 01:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points:

• You will have to show difs, of your first edit to a page, then Collect's first edit to a page. That is evidence. What you have above is allegations, which will be ignored.
• Gwen was blocked 3 times, and that has nothing to do with a damn thing else you say here.
• Collect has also asked me to assist, and I am happy to do so. He knows me from the Sarah Palin family of articles, which I enforce probation on. This is normal. When an editor feels comfortable with an admin, he asks assistance of that admin. Am I now an "admin buddy" that he "runs to"? Be aware that another editor, whom I tried rather hard to get indef'd from this site, has asked me for assistance, and I have been happy to give it. It is part of being an admin.
• Unless Collect's Rfc resulted in consensus that he was stalking you, it has no bearing here. It is like dragging in that the opposite party in a lawsuit about right of way once got a speeding ticket. It makes you look silly to be bringing it up; it has nothing to do with your other accusations. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply

• I shall gather diffs in due course, but you can see what happened in the meantime by looking at the histories of the Herbert L. Becker pages (talk and main), the Ian Plimer pages, and the Resurrection of Jesus page. It is quite clear what's going on.
• Gwen's less-than-stellar history is germane here. There is a pattern re-asserting itself. Leopards cannot change their spots.
• If you guard over Sarah Palin's article, may I ask if you are of a conservative bent? Because I am not, and I find admins from the other political spectrum less than sympathetic to me (despite their protestations of fairness and disinterestedness). If your answer is yes, I must immediately stop this interaction because I may not get a fair hearing.
• Collect's RfC shows how he has caused problems for many editors and continues to edit tendentiously, causing me irritation and annoyance. If you cannot see the relationship of his history as shown by the RfC to this issue, then I am at the wrong talk page. ► RATEL ◄ 02:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can look at histories, but I have other things to do. It is your complaint; you gather the evidence. If you plan to complain about Gwen, make that a separate issue; it is most certainly not germane to whether Collect is stalking you or not. My politics, like my gender and my religious beliefs, have absolutely no bearing on my editing or how I handle my admin duties. They are irrelevant, as are yours. Collect's Rfc shows a history of edit warring, not of stalking, and the two are not related. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Just noticed this. Ratel has a major beef with Gwen [10] seems to address your position clearly. I happened on Becker as a result of seeing an 8 hour old edit where he was introduced in the Copperfield article. Hard not to look at both articles in such a case. I have now been active on well over eleven hundred articles -- many of which have been minor edits (IIRC, I added "Ascension Sunday" to the Resurrection article -- hard to call that one "stalking" for sure <g>) Thanks! Collect (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud, Collect, that was BLP and she unblocked him later. I recently added Simon Dodd and the Lorax to the SP notices, on the probation page, and neither of them bear me a grudge. Its clear he's not happy with her, but the only rationale he's given is that she is too responsive to your requests for assistance, and if he considers you a stalker, then that is, if not entirely justifiable, at least understandable. Don't stir the pot. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speak of the devil, and he doth appear. Thanks for proving my point, Collect. Quod erat demonstrandum. To KillerC, you seem a good sort, fair-minded and quick to understand. I don't want to take to much of your time, so I'll bow out now and start collecting diffs and what-have-you for the seemingly inevitable showdown with this duo at some sort of arbcom. ► RATEL ◄ 03:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I try. FYI: Collect has my talk page watchlisted. I have his watchlisted, along with 3,039 other pages. Many of those are pages of editors I warned; if I recall correctly, Collect is one of those. Scroll up, and you will see Auntie Entropy commenting in the thread "Merger" - no one told her about it and she isn't stalking Dodd; she's had my page watchlisted for over a year. An even better example is in the section Graph isomorphism, where Verbal tries to help explain things to an editor - and he begins his post by explaining that he watches my page. All editors of any duration here end up have a lot of what we call "talk page stalkers" or "talk page watchers" and we are glad to have them, because they add input and revert vandalism and answer questions for us when we are offline. Do not read from Collect's post here that he has stalked you here; a perusal of his and my talkpages will show past interactions. This is normal, and does not indicate stalking. In this particular case, it might indicate a very mild form of trolling, but also as he was trying to give me pertinent information it might not.

IN short, its not "Quod erat demonstrandum" it is more a case of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", a logical fallacy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this were the only time it'd happened, you'd have a point, but clearly Collect is browsing my contrib history on a daily basis. There's no other way to explain his "accidental" appearance on the pages I edit. If you look at the histories, you'll see he appears right after I start editing a page, and it's his first edit there. So there is no reason for him to be there other than my presence there. This is simple vanilla stalking, no two ways about it. Caio. ► RATEL ◄ 03:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) that may be, but this page he's been on before, so don't add it to your evidence. That's all. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y} Point taken ► RATEL ◄ 03:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I found this thread through this edit.
• I was watching Talk:Herbert L. Becker owing to this edit. I commented on the talk page. There are BLP worries, KC is dealing with them.
• See this, an outgrowth of this 48 hour block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Collect promised not to edit war anymore, so I unblocked him. Later, Collect broke his promise not to edit war, but I wasn't made aware of that until it had all gone stale.
• Ratel, as I look this over, Collect does seem a bit keen on your edits, I don't know if it's stalking but either way, it may be a worry.
• In fairness to you (since you're unhappy with me), I won't comment anymore on your edits having to do with Copperfield-linked BLP issues. If I stumble into a thread and do so by mistake, let me know and I'll strike the comments. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GG. Maybe I judged you too harshly. Sorry for that. ► RATEL ◄ 15:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to explain my thoughts a bit. I find it extremely unfair and disrespectful that any attempt at good-faith discussion is dismissed as "badgering" or such. The opposers are allowed to throw rotten tomatoes and the candidate isn't allowed to defend him/herself? Badgering is a widely misinterpreted term, and I'd like that pattern to end. Badgering means to harass or pester persistently, and I'd say it's safe to assume that no candidate has the intention of harassing the voters, oppose or otherwise. Moreover, if an editor has enough evidence to prompt an oppose or support, they should be able to justify their vote if questioned. I strongly believe RfX is a discussion with characteristics of a vote, and I will continue to utilize it as such, both as a candidate and a participant. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it inappropriate for you to argue with oppose views. You may quibble about my choice of terminology if you will, but your continued pursuit of this is badgering me, and I will thank you to stop it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on sort of pursuit against you, or anybody for that matter. Please stop making false accusations. Thank you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye gods, Julian, you just won't allow for differences of opinion, will you? I think you're being too aggressive on your Rfb. You argued on the Rfb page, and have now pursued me to my talk page. I ask you to stop the pursuit to my talk page, and you accuse me of lying? wth??? You're HERE, that is pursuing this subject to my talk page. Are you completely losing it? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage differences of opinion, but we can't have differences of opinion if you're prohibiting me from posting. This is a talk page; it is used for discussion. I will gladly stop posting here if you wish, but I'd like to be able to communicate with other Wikipedians. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which, oddly enough, I didn't request, and I note you have not struck out nor clarified your accusation that I'm lying. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed you're lying. There's a significant difference between lying, which is made with malicious intent, and incorrect accusations, which are more often than not a result of simple misunderstandings. You claim that I'm on some sort of aggressive campaign, and I assure you I'm not. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your definition of "false allegations" is that its Good Faith? and you are referring to my concern about you badgering, to use another editor's phrase, oppose views? I don't think you realize what a chilling effect your relentless arguments toward opposes has, and you clearly don't understand why I find it inappropriate. I do; this is not a false accusation but a strongly held principle. Your disagreement does not automagically render my view "false". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: by "pursuit" I was referring to you bringing this to my talk page, thus pursuing the disagreement to another venue. Hope this clarifies. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this to your talk page to avoid cluttering up the main page with our personal back-and-forth. Nothing unreasonable about that. As an aside, I've sent you an e-mail. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable enough; doesn't make my characterization of "pursuit" as in "pursuing this across multiple pages" a "false accusation" so much as a difference in how I used the word, and how you interpreted the word. Your email has not yet arrived; I will watch for it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm trying to keep this discussion on one page for that exact reason, but fair enough... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still have not received email, are you certain it 'went' and there was no server error? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd... will try again shortly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, both came in at same time. :-/ You've gotta be kidding. You're asking for me to betray trust of someone who was intimidated by you? Wow, you must think I'm total shit, that you think I'd be unethical enough to hand their email over to you. You already knew I'd asked them if I could forward to a 'crat, what are you asking for it to be sent to YOU for??? this is unbelievable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking for confirmation, whether it be from an uninvolved bureaucrat or otherwise. Please calm down. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to forward the email to you. The answer is no. If they wish to email you, they can do so. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ← I saw your post on Roux's talk page (I have it watchlisted), and I respectfully ask that you stop accusing me of "arguing with the opposers". If I've come across that way, I sincerely apologize, but I always strive to be fair and reasonable, and not argumentative or aggressive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not agreeing with them. I haven't seen a single oppose where you say "Yes, that was a poor decision on my part; I will take your comments to heart and improve". You're not being neutral, merely responding, that would be "Your objection has been noted" You're arguing, telling them why they are wrong, or mistaken, or there has been a misunderstanding. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What about User_talk:Geometry_guy#My_RfB, for instance? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see it. Not on the Rfb; I'm not stalking you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but again, all I'm asking is that you do a bit more research before accusing me of being aggressive or biased or whatnot. But I feel this conversation is not longer productive, so I'll leave it at that, and hope we'll next meet under better circumstances. Regards, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're aggressively defensive on your Rfb. This is my opinion, and I stand by it. Where do I need to "do more research"? This is nonsense, Julian. I'm glad you're at least listening enough so that you're offering a disclaimer when you question the opposers[11]; I consider that a positive result of this. But overall, you are calling me a liar and wrong, whereever we disagree, just as you are your opposers on the rfb. You are not appearing at all open to the possibility that a view which does not align with yours might have some validity. This is unprofessional and dismissive, and troubling. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. You need to understand that just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm calling anybody a liar. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that. I have no idea whatever gave you that idea. You said to me "Please stop making false accusations" which is accusing me of lying about you; that's what "false" means. That's the only instance of lying or accusations of such that I am aware of. Have you accused anyone else, and I missed it? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Julian, if you think someone accused you of something and they are wrong, but you are not assuming malice, you say "You are mistaken" or "you are in error". You don't say "you're making false accusations" - that is accusing them of lying. You've done that what, three times now in just this section of my talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is "You are mistaken" any different than "You are making false accusations"? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One is "you are lying in order to accuse me of something you know I didn't do" the other is "oh, oops, you seem to have made an error". How clear can I make it? False=lie. Mistake=mistake, what a surprise. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False != lie. In the spirit of AGF, we are to assume incorrect claims come as a result of an honest misunderstanding or misinterpretation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, false means "lie". That's why "falsehood" is exactly a synonym of "lie". Synonyms for "false" include: untruthful, lying, mendacious, insincere, hypocritical, disingenuous, disloyal, unfaithful, inconstant, perfidious, traitorous. Check your dictionary. If you wish to AGF me, then don't accuse me of making false accusations. If you think I'm lying on purpose, then go ahead and leave all those accusations that I'm lying right where they are. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply incorrect. A lie is made with the distinct intent of deceiving others. A falsity is not. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falsity: Falsity (from Latin falsitas) or falsehood is a perversion of truth originating in the deceitfulness of one party, and culminating in the damage of another party. Look. you can argue semantics if you want. Or, you could have said, my error, I didn't realize that common usage equated that with an insult. Allow me to strike and rephrase, I certainly did not intend to accuse you of malicious lying". This is the kind of stuff which makes it hard to work with you, Julian: you argue until others would rather have teeth pulled than continue, yet never acknowledge you might have hurt them or insulted them, even by accident. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're again making incorrect claims. I don't argue, I discuss. I'm done here, since it appears you do not wish to have a professional and honest conversation with me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone link me to the discussion involved here? (I'm not stalking KC, honest! KC just showed up high on my watchlist for the last couple of days. ^^;; ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stalking either ! WP:BN#Query. –xeno^talk 17:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are, but its ok. Rfb/Juliancolton, collapsed conversation of b'crats noticeboard, and here; minor bit on Roux's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I totally am. –xeno^talk 17:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nods, I loves my talk page stalkers. I had to warn someone not to bite them earlier today[12] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you unblocked Ziggy, you commented on his talk page "No one seemed to care much." with regards to what account he got unblocked. Did you miss the 3 comments by jpgordon, shereth, and myself here? We all wanted him to use the Flameviper account. Multiple times he said he was willing to use the Flameviper account.--Rockfang (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I said "no one seemed to care much" and that was my read of the situation. I didn't count heads; I saw a couple of preferences stated but no strong rationale given - jpgordon said he thought he should have "an intact history" which seems rather counter to his trying to make a clean start. Flameviper is redirected to Ziggy; we all know Ziggy is Flameviper; what is accmplished by making him remain Flameviper (a hostile sounding name on the face of it) except ensuring he has a scarlet A on his chest? When I asked him, he said he preferred Ziggy. He was amenable to using Flameviper. I didn't force him to. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying.--Rockfang (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NP, it's all a group effort. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]