This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I followed a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidya and found it had been deleted. Your comment on the delete was that it "Has been transwikied", I gather this means you have moved it to Wiktionary, which makes sense to me.
My question: should the orginal page now redirect to the Wiktionary page, as part of being moved?
Cross-wiki redirects are not generally done; so far as I know, they are not done at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Reporting Vandalism....
Kindly visit this page..[1]..
Check out his edits on Prithviraj chauhan where he has completely erased the page and in "Muhammad of Ghori" article he calls Ghori an ediot and an egg sucker...Kindly explain How to stop him...I gave him a warning on his page but somebody called BoomerAb reverted my warning....Plz Help...!!! Adil your (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
How to deal with vandalism: First, of course, revert or undo the vandalism. Second, you must warn the vandal. I see other editors have done this for this vandal. You can find the templates at WP:UWT. Then, following the directions carefully, report the vandal at WP:AIV. The important things to know about reporting vandals there is:
The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism.
The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop. (Usually three, unless the vandalism is blatant)
Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent. (Today, last vandalism within the past hour and preferably as soon as possible after the last instance of vandalism.)
And what if I prefer my conversations fragmented? Huh? See? I win! Guettarda (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Pblghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So there! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
"Hovind law"
Saw that revert of yours, how ironic is it the editor didn't think the word "theory" was good enough for Hovind's woo...I loled...srsly. :P Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Well at least he didn't change it to Hovinds Immutable TRUTH as Revealed by God Hisownself!!!! So we can relax, he is a reasonable editor. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for your warm welcome! :))
I am new here to be sure :)
I'm sorry if I did something inappropriate, I wondered about taking out the Alternative Diagnoses category. I didn't wonder about the Pseudoscience one not applying but am sorry if I missed some protocol.
Can you please explain to me the etiquette here?
You ask me to make a case on talk before taking down the cat Pseudoscience. Did someone make a case on talk before putting it up?
I can imagine there might be a little edge given to those ideas that are posted first. Which I can see that. Someone put some time and thought in putting something up so it would be common courtesy to discuss things before taking it down. Whereas, if you come and put something up, you're really not taking away anyone's time and effort. Is that it? So you would put some reasoning on the talk page, and leave it there for how long without a response (if there was no response) before going ahead and making the change?
And to whom am I making the case to? Is there someone in authority here? Do you, or some other users, have more authority than I or any other user has? If so, what is that please?
I believe I understand that Wikipedia represents a consensus, well maybe not even a consensus. I think it represents a collection of different points of view on a particular topic, representing each point of view the way that point of view might represent itself (within reason)? Or better yet, putting out facts with a neutral point of view.
Pseudoscience cat page says: A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not. ...generally considered pseudoscientific by the scientific community (such as astrology)...have very few followers and are obviously pseudoscientific (such as the modern belief in a flat Earth)...
Let's look at "appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not."
What makes something scientific, or not? How is something determined, in fact, to be scientific or not scientific?
The conventional definition might sound something like..."double-blind placebo controlled studies in a peer-review journal." But there are sometimes some things that are decidedly unscientific about the peer review process. It could be argued that much "mainstream peer-reviewed medicine" is pseudoscience because it is appearing to be scientific, when in fact, it is not. It all depends on one's POV.
In any case, in the U.S. medicine is regulated based on standard of care. The standard of care is based on "specifies appropriate treatment based on scientific evidence and collaboration between medical and/or psychological professionals involved in the treatment of a given condition." Medicolegally, standard of care is not determined just by "scientific evidence." Treatments can become A standard of care when there is a significant minority of like-minded professionals involved in the treatment of a given condition.
I do not feel that Wilson's Syndrome (WS) does not fit in the Pseudoscience category because:
An uncontrolled study was published in a medline medical journal. The editors of the journal found it sufficiently scientifically reasonable to publish it.
WS has been taught at CME approved (scientific) medical conventions for over 15 years.
It is taught in the endocrinology (scientific) departments of all 4 accredited Naturopathic Schools in the country.
Well over 150 trained and experienced good faith physicians have signed a consensus statement to document their professional like-mindedness on the scientific validity of this condition and its treatment. The insurance, legal, and medical regulatory areas of our society recognize this as being sufficiently scientific to be a standard of care.
That's why I don't feel that the category of Pseudoscience is appropriate for Wilson's Syndrome.
So I've put this on your talk page, would it be better if I put it up on the Wilson's Syndrome talk page? What happens now ?
Thanks again KillerChihuahua for your help and thoughtful welcome :)) MedBoard (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, long post - I will try to address all of your concerns and comments but I don't have time to cover it all right now, so I'll just hit some high points, hope that's ok.
You're right about removing something being different from adding, although in the case of unsourced content removing sometimes gets precedence. Biographies of living persons are treated differently from other articles - the preference is to err on the side of Do No Harm, basically. Read the linked pages for more details.
The scientific method is fairly well established. In addition, there are standards published by some organizations, as well as one I believe recognized by US courts - but for this situation, it might help for you to know about this: the Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Now, you're talking about US standards, and we prefer to attempt a more NPOV rather than US-POV. Also, you mention an uncontrolled study - which is decidedly not scientific, by definition. 150 physicians is so small a group it is statistically below insignificant, surely you realize that. finally, your claims are unsourced. Please see WP:V. I think this article is "obvious", "generally considered" or "questionable", but that can be discussed on the article talk page.
Who you are talking to when you make a case for a desired edit is the other editors of the article, unless there is a content dispute you cannot resolve, in which case we have many options available to us - third opinions, mediation, article Rfc, etc.
You asked about levels of authority. It depends on the context. All editors have the same authority as editors, but also the same obligations to follow the policies and guidelines. Failing to do so can have unhappy results for one's editing privileges. More experienced editors are generally more knowledgeable, so I suggest you continue to listen and learn to those with more experience than you until you have learned your way around. Also you will find you are reading a good bit, to learn the policies. Just because someone cites a policy does not necessarily mean they fully understand it, so read it when pointed to it - you may find they are misapplying the policy and you can help them!
Your arguments, along with any sources (make sure they meet the WP:RS guidelines), for any content edits you wish to make to the article should be placed on the article talk page. This extensive post, which was primarily about How Things Work Here on Wikipedia, was correctly placed here. :-)
You are more than welcome for the welcome message, and I hope I have helped a little bit in your introduction to editing Wikipedia!
Please let me know if I missed anything you still need answered - thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 03:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Ohk, I see you're an administrator
A trusted user with access to tools like blocking users and deleting pages. I recognize and your authority and appreciate your help :)) MedBoard (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm back again, and happy as hell you're still active :) Doc Tropics 02:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Your comments would be appreciated
As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Noah's Ark FAR
I have nominated Noah's Ark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Unblock request of Writegeist
Hello. Writegeist(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who was blocked because of attacks on you, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from the blocking admin. He may value your opinion about the merits of the unblock request as well. Regards, Sandstein 09:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks much for the notification. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your earlier post on my talk page.
I am using Huggle and there doesn't appear to be an option for giving a bv warning.--Katieh5584 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered using Twinkle instead of Huggle? You get a drop-down selection of warnings. Twinkle also has RFPP, Prod, NPA, etc, as well as Afd, Mfd etc. Twinkle actually has a Vandalism Only option these days, which I didn't know until just now when I checked it out to be sure I was telling you accurate features. You can enable it via your Preferences/Gadgets. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll have a look. Thanks.--Katieh5584 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Writgeist talk page gaff(e)
Killer. I just noticed an edit summary on my watchlist about me that refers to an edit conflict that may have happened this morning...quite early...5AM, Chicago time. As I recall the incident, when I went to save a supportive paragraph or two about Editor:Writegeist I found that I was in an edit conflict with another editor that, almost unbelievable, was at the same time posting a non-supportive entry. Since I have as little to do with this other editor as possible, rather than retry, I decided to cut and paste from the edit conflict page and post another time (maybe even day). I am quite sure that I did Not delete any other editors offerings. Only my own which were lost and I could not find them anywhere since I did not use the Save option.
I am also quite sure that if you can use your Admin capacity to retrieve the edits of this early morning (which I could not) you will see that, if I deleted anything, it was limited to MY OWN offerings in defense of Editor:Writegeist. If I am wrong and I inadvertantly deleted another editors work please know that it was 100% unintentional and only due to possibly cutting and pasting too wide an area. If I have stepped on another editors toes please let me know and I will apologize.
Anyone who looks at my editing history can plainly see that I come here to edit not to war. I have my opinions about certain editors that are not forwarding to that effort. But I keep them to myself. I do my best to stay away from their domains. I have created Wikipedia friends to be sure...Editor:Writegeist is one of many. When, in my opinion, they are mistreated I come to their defense. What are friends for if not mutual support? But I do not use sabatoge or deleteing talk page content as a method of support. I invite you to "check me out". You will see that I am not an edit warrior.
What ever happened this morning was either a glitch or a mistake on my part...nothing more! If in the future you question any thing I've done as a Good Faith Editor please feel free to let me know before your misunderstanding sits as a beacon in edit summary as a chastising of me. It's untrue and embarrasing--Buster7 (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to accept that your gaffe (not gaff) was an "oops" and not intentional. You are in error about what occurred. You removed the posts of two editors, CZmarlin and Collect. I imagine both editors would appreciate knowing this was accidental and not intentional. Your edit is this dif[2]. You made no supportive addition; any you typed was never saved. If you wish to make supportive comments you will need to re-post, as there is nothing on the Wikipedia servers to retrieve. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out my spelling error. Should you ever make a similar mistake, I'll be sure to return the favor. As I said, if I deleted talkspace of other editors, I apologize. That was not my intent. I make that apology here and now. One editor I don't know. And the other, I do. Both will need to be satisfied with this post.
I'm still not sure why you commented within the edit summary rather than come to my talk page? --Buster7 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You didn't delete my post, and so far as I know neither of those editors watch my talk page. If you intend to apologise for your error, do so - I even linked their talk pages for you in my post, above. Don't talk about it here, that's just spamming me with your intentions. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. Didn't mean to "spam"..(whatever that means?)...--Buster7 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned a comment you made about AJL's edits to William M. Connelley's main space article. I didn't mention your name specifically but I thought you might want to know. OlYellerTalktome 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Mediation? Arbitration?
I am more than willing to submit to mediation. After 6 months and thousands of hours and dozens of talk pages with dozens of editors working out a carefully constructed compromise on Palin, it saddens me that two editors are busy quietly deleting all our hard work, including some really good footnotes. When I try to restore some semblance of balanced POV with undisputed facts backed up by hundreds of media articles, my restorations are automatically reverted. No attempt at compromise. No attempt at discussion. Automatic reversion. Some editors claim the section of Palin on the bridges is "too long." So they delete critical (and only critical) material without any attempt at compromise or tightening to retain the material but use fewer words. (My attempts at doing this were automatically and unceremoniously reverted.)
Whole issues (like the Knik Arm Bridge, which has been in the article from at least the time Palin was chosen as Vice President until yesterday) are removed entirely so that anyone reading the encyclopedia would not even know the issue was controversial. It leads to strange sentences like "Congress approved two bridges at a cost of $400 billion. One bridge was Gravina Island at a cost of $200 million." (The other $200 million bridge isn't even mentioned because we don't want to let you know about it because then you might go to its sub-section on wikipedia and find out some have criticized Palin for that bridge too. Some consider it "bad POV" to even mention the second bridge!) I happen to think a controversial bridge in an article on Palin is more important than Palin's participation on the track team.
Sadly, it's about a lot more than Knik Arm Bridge (which some have also called the "Bridge to Nowhere") or the "Road to Nowhere" which Kelly also removed. I remember pages and pages of discussion over what to label the bridge caption. Dozens of editors participated and argued vociferously. Then Ferrylodge (who I often disagreed with on Palin but at least was willing to undertake compromise) came up with a compromise change on the caption. The discussion stopped. People were happy. It stood the test of time. Then a few weeks after the election, with no discussion whatsoever on the talk page, Collect changed it back to his own personal version. I would have preferred he make his case on the talk page before making the change back over an issue that he hotly contested and lost then.
Collect also removed an entire paragraph of criticism of Palin's use of the bridge in the campaign that had been worked over by dozens of editors, again without any discussion or mention on the talk page. (He will no doubt accuse me of "personalizing" this. I don't want to fight. And I don't want him and Kelly to seek to bar me from editing again. But I can't pretend that this is not a disagreement between primarily two editors and myself.) I could cite several talk pages where dozens of us agreed on the compromise that Collect -- when no one was looking -- went "snip, snip" to. As Collect was around when the original compromise was made, he should have known that his deleting an entire paragraph would be controversial. But the people that were watching before the election aren't watching any more.
Look. I'm aware that Collect and Kelly have a big advantage over me. They watch the article every day to water down any criticism of Palin in the article. I don't have countless hours to protect balanced POV. One of the reason why I have focused 90% of my attention on the bridge section is that even though I'm aware that Collect and Kelly are protecting Palin in all the other sections as well, I've become a bit of an expert on the bridge section. I know its history. And I can quickly find the sources in the history when Collect and Kelly delete our well-constructed footnotes. Thus I have provided a service to other editors who focus on other parts of the article but also agree with me that balanced POV is a good thing, even if it makes the section a bit longer.
If it is the consensus of wikpedians that Collect and Kelly have the right to insert a pro-Palin POV tone throughout the article and remove issues where some have criticized Palin, then fine. I'll leave. There's no point in me, once more, fighting for hundreds of hours to get consensus on a balanced POV with dozens of editors only to know that three months later, all our hard-earned work will again be deleted in a puff of cybersmoke. It's an asymmetric fight. I spend hundreds of hours. They spend five minutes. I can't win that and I know it and so do they. I'll just accept the fact that the pro-Palinites get to have this article because they're more dedicated to watering it down than wikipedians are to fight them with a neutral POV. Maybe I'll just fight to have a "non-neutral POV" tag since folks refuse to address compromise, much less attempt it. It's sad, of course. I believe in compromise. I believe in neutral POV. I believe in wikipedia. But sometimes you can't fight City Hall.
Is there such a thing as content mediation? I belive that my arguments will win the day -- as they did prior to the election when more editors were watching this thing and they were resolved after intensive compromise with dozens of editors over dozens of talk pages.
If not, I would request that Kelly and Collect NOT automatically revert all of my changes (all designed to bring us back toward the glorious Election Day Consensus) but to explain why they dislike any individual piece of either the Election Day Compromise or my shortened version. One of the things that most bugs about me the two editors who disagree with me on content is they almost never respond to my arguments and reasoning on the talk page, nor will they address the wording of my changes. It's just "snip, snip", goodbye, often with one-word reasoning. Kelly says "POV" and Collect says "BLP". As if three letters were enough to dismiss the hard work of myself on behalf of the dozens of editors that crafted the Election Day Compromise. They should tell me WHY they don't like a particular sentence and we can work together. But their simply saying NO and SNIP, REVERT is why I'm seeking mediation.
And Kelly is an administrator. I would think an administrator would have more wiki-ethics. And yet Kelly is the one who says that my arguments on the talk page are too long. So Kelly refuses to read them and reverts my changes without even reading my reasoning, much less addressing it. It's an unequal fight. I can't fight an administrator. It's too bad that if ordinary wikipedian disagrees with a wiki-administrator on content, the wiki-administrator always wins. After all, Kelly can resort to all kinds of procedures I've never heard of to try to get me banned as Kelly has done before.
So if no one cares to take what I say seriously, then I won't fight. I'll just leave. This will be my last hurrah. It just ain't worth it, if their persistence beats my reason without them even addressing my arguments.
As you can see, I'm crying out for help. Any suggestion would be greatly welcomed.GreekParadise (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I wrote the above before I saw your synthesis of our views on the Palin Talk Page. Thank you for your help. It is GREATLY appreciated. Unless you want to do otherwise, I'll make any further comments there.GreekParadise (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Palin article
Hi KC, I appreciate you trying to be a voice of reason at the Palin page. Just remember that no good deed goes unpunished around here :) Seriously, I made a comment on the talk page agreeing with Kelly's interpretation of his/her version of the bridges and then did my reversion. I believe that was the first edit I have made on that page in a month or two and my last for now. I will probably only comment on the talk page, because I do not want to edit war, ect. I hope this eases your concerns that I need to be topic banned or blocked for this behavior. Is this acceptable to you? Anyways, good luck with sorting this all out and cheers, --Tom(talk) 16:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup, that's all I ask for - for the edit warring to cease while people hammer out an agreement on the talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Having tried to "understand" the dispute better, my head is going to explode :) Anyways, good luck. --Tom(talk) 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Noooo! Do not let your head explode! It will interfere with your ability to edit Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Citation needed. MastCellTalk 20:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Discussion about Ferrylodge's 1 week ban is now at ANI. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
What Ali'i said. This notification is superfluous though, since you indicated that you would be watching my talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've commented at ANI. Your patience and care in mediating is admirable, and Ferrylodge can doubtless find other more useful things to do until the current negotiation has reached a settlement. . dave souza, talk 08:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Timecheck
18:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Mediation for Ferrylodge
Hiya KC. Ferrylodge has agreed to mediation with me (you are the other party), and I'd like to restructure the bans in place vis-a-vis the Sarah Palin article. He's agreed to switching the article ban to indef (rather than the arbitrary "week"), and I'd like to rescind the ban on the talk page. At least some of the editors have expressed dissatisfaction and/or confusion about the talk page part of the ban, and I think it would be a case of good wheel greasing to rescind it. Are you comfortable to oblige? --SB_Johnny | talk 19:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I'm more than willing to rescind my one-week article ban for your indef article ban, if it works for you and it works for Ferrylodge and it (hopefully) will remove concerns about the "wrong admin". I'm unclear on what you think there would be left to "mediate" between us at that point. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you two have much more in common than you don't... at least when it comes to creating encyclopedias :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 19:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I clearly should have read this more carefully. Your email to me said "Fl has agreed to mediation, and is willing to accept an indef ban on the article. " and did not mention rescinding the talk page ban, I thought you were transferring it to you rather than from me. I missed your addition of rescinding the talk page ban in the post above. I've agreed now, my error in not reading your post more carefully, but do note it was his tendentious arguing to insert an OR synth into the article, which dsitracted from and derailed the discussion regarding the core content dispute. I expect him to drop that utterly; and focus on the core dispute and cease arguing for non-supported trivial edits regarding funding. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
My understanding from this discussion is that SB Johnny will be using full mediating skills to ensure that no further talk page disruption occurs. If Ferrylodge makes any further talk page posts suggesting deviations or disruption of process, I'd archive them promptly and await resolution of the issues under constructive discussion before allowing any discussion. Certainly hope that won't be necessary . . dave souza, talk 19:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I would have more confidence in this if Ferrylodge had made some kind of commitment not to disrupt the mediation in progress by introducing other conflict, but if SBJohnny wants to move straight to rescind I trust he will ensure such problems are no longer an issue. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously the 2 ton spool of rope FL's rec'd already has not been sufficient. Oh well. •Jim62sch•dissera! 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
True Story
In an east village bar last night. And a very hot, absurd example of a new russian (famously described by P.J. O'rourke as a breed that "looks like they stripped naked, slathered themselves in Elmers glue, and then ran through a versace store and bought whatever stuck.") walks in with two pooches (a pomeranian and a mixed -- dachsund and something else -- the pooches smelled of the same shampoo as a very rich upper east side girlfriend of mine used). She fusses over the dogs, gets them on a couch, and proceeds to attend to the unloved pool table by herself. Girl could shoot (went through 2 racks with only 4 misses). Dog lover that I am, i amble over to deal with the pooches (one a puppy who was misbehaving). Girl comes over between shots to coo at the lapdogs and jaw at me. I spend 10 minutes -- then give up when she won't let me work with the dogs and help them get over their separation anxiety (as soon as i had them focusing on me she sprinted over). I went back to my friends. A new york hipster (a Tyson Beckford look-a-like, wouldn't be surprise if he was a model himself) who had been watching comes over to our table on the way to the bar. "How long did it take you to figure out she was crazy?" "Oh, no," I said. "I knew she was crazy the moment she walked in. I just really have a thing for dogs." My friends and Tyson erupt in incredulous laughter. But true none-the-less. Consider this the bali ultimate barnstar of good sense.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow. I don't watch TV and had no idea who Tyson Beckford was. Dang... he's easy on the eyes. So much for my good sense; I'm distracted by the pretty man. *grin* Thanks for the story, Bali. Good dogs are always better than crazy bitches, of course. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. This comment works on many levels. But had no one else to tell this mildly amusing dog tale too. Tyson? I'm not a woman and I'm not gay. But he's disgustingly beautiful. I hate him. (in all honesty, the disruptive puppy was male and not yet snipped.)Bali ultimate (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have time
Hi puppy, I've noticed you've been quite busy but if you have the time to read this article which is short The talk page too might be of interest for an overall idea of things. This article was up for deletion twice. I voted to delete but an editor said he could write a good WP:BLP from sources that are no longer available on the net by using the information from the subject of the article. The editor started to but apparently s/he has left the project before finishing. The subject of the article is doing a heavy push to get editors to improve the article as can be seen at the talk page and his users talk. Sorry, babbling a bit here, but what I would like to ask you to do is read up on this situation and give your opinions if possible. I don't know how to use sources that are not available on the net by using the subjects listing of the information on his facebook page. I was interested in seeing how to do this when User:Sarcasticidealist said he would do it. Others have attempted to improve the article the best they could but now I see no real WP:Notability in this article along with other policy problems. Anyways, if you have the time and/or interest, I would really appreciate any input you would have. Thank you for your time, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC) PS: I just noticed that you had already been to this article and talk page, sorry for missing and/or forgetting this. I would still like to hear your input since things have changed since your last involvement, thanks. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Arrgh. Well, I think he's in the Local Character category, which makes him NN so far as I'm concerned but he got enough press to satisfy the notability rules-lawyers. My advice: trim what you can, source what you can from the newspaper articles he has online, and for heaven's sake get rid of the peacock phrasing. Good luck and let me know if there is anything else I can do for you - I honestly think that article is vanity fluff, but its survived a couple of Afds so I'm outnumbered. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions which I happen to agree with. I've tried to be patient to see what User:Sarcasticidealist was going to do with the article since I think that people voted to keep because this excellent editor was going to do a rewrite. Now that he's left the project, at least last I saw, I don't see anyone stepping in to take care of the article anymore. I know that there has been some good faith attempts to work the article but Sarcasticidealist apparently got some of the refs via snail mail or email. I think maybe with a little more time passing another attempt might be appropriate to delete it if no editors can source it for notability. I really don't see the notability in all of this which is what I have been hoping a rewrite would show. I haven't done anything mainly because of the pushing going on at the talk page and attempts by others have not been well received. How long of a time should pass before another attempt to have it deleted should happen? Thanks --CrohnieGalTalk 14:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Minimum of three months; six is better, twelve better still. Seriously, this may be hard to deal with, but realize that its a low-traffic article, and if its not blatantly bad then Wikipedia is not harmed much by its existence. So set a calendar reminder and go forth and edit other articles for a bit. This will give you distance, perspective, and hopefully prevent ulcers and stress. It will have the added benefit of your time being spent improving other articles rather than imitating Sisyphus, too, which is all to the good. You may wish to keep it on your watchlist on the off chance that someone else will either a) Have the fortitude and skills to try to fix it, or b) re-nominate it for Afd. If you do wish to try to follow in SI's footsteps, I can only suggest you email him and ask about his sources. If he doesn't answer, try emailing the primary. Hope this helps, dear. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll just keep it watched and continue on with other areas that I do. I'd really love to see how an article is written without access to the refs on the net, oh well maybe another time. :) Thanks for your patience with me, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Its written exactly like one which uses references on the 'net, only the refs cite print sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm!
Are you ever coming back to Wikiversity? Or IRC? Or both? :D Or is that too much to dream of? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW...thanks for the parenting at the Talk:Sarah Palin page...sometimes we act like a bunch of rowdy school kids. In fact, a new editor has entered the school yard and insists on having his way. At least 5 reverts about the same topic....Levi Johnson. He also is insisting on arrest records of a Sarah relative. Im sure both sides of the aisle agree on keeping it out.--Buster7 (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Ye gods, can we be more gossipy and trivial? FYI, my email is enabled. It may be faster to email me, if only to say Sarah Palin, see your talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh and User:Gwen Gale said she'd be on call for Sarah Palin shenanigans also, if I am not available. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Y'all are just trying to suppress objective data and the best strategy you can come up with is go after the term "baby daddy" a recognized term in Wikipedia, redirecting to "father" long before my first use of the colloquial former term. I don't know why you have a beef with me for editing the Sarah Palin entry. Maybe where your real problem lies is with Wikipedia's "father" entry and various redirects to it? Maybe you should edit that page rather than monitor the Sarah Palin page to prevent the addition of legitimate information on Levi Johnston and even closer members of the Palin family. After all, a sitting governor of a US state, Sarah Palin issued a formal press release on Johnston's Tyra Banks interview. Doesn't a sitting governor's press release make this relevant? And is it really 5 reverts, as you claim, when I continually added new sources such as AP and UPI, as well as referenced the governor's own statements on Johnston, to bolster my additions, when, no matter how I posted them, they were deleted anyway? So the real question is, why can national news about Johnston and the governor's sister-in-law, arrested in the commission of burglary with the niece of a sitting governor with her in the commission of the crime, not be relevant when the governor comments on them with releases from her tax payer funded office? I think maybe what we've got is a coordinated effort to suppress information.Ozarkhighlands (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I know Puppy doesn't like content disputes on her talk page, but a quick correction to your claim - there were no press releases, official or otherwise, from the governor's office. Meg Stapleton, a spokesperson for SarahPAC, made a brief e-mail statement on behalf of the Palin family, which I interpreted to be from Bristol Palin, not the Governor. Kellyhi! 12:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that makes perfect sense. It cannot possibly be an honest disagreement about the relevance of this material to an encyclopedic biography. I have no doubt your insistence on the term "baby daddy" would be mirrored if we were working on Encyclopedia Brittanica or another such serious respected reference work. This is clearly an effort to suppress information, coordinated by people who are known to work in lockstep, like User:KillerChihuahua and User:Kelly. Anyone who is incapable of spending 3 seconds Googling "Levi Johnston" or "Palin baby daddy" will be unfairly deprived of their Constitutional right to the personal details of these two private figures. Keep up the good work and thorough research. MastCellTalk 05:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Following my initial modification to entry and the questions that arose about the term "baby daddy," I immediately revised the information I had added to say "baby's father." That, and each and every other revision was deleted, no matter how many references bolstered the new information, and without any regard for my responsiveness to comments on terminology. This stopped being about "baby daddy" by the second revision, when I made the change to "baby's father." So why was everything deleted since then too? And as a point of order, KillerChihuahua made the first entry on this page about me. I should get a chance to respond.Ozarkhighlands (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
edit conflict on my page, here's the list, along with when I reported the violation
Reverse chronological order
(times are listed in whatever format I have set to view them, if yours are set for different times the numbers may be off, but the chronology is the same)
---> Esasus says that he has contacted all voters 18:00, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Esasus (Re: Dan Schlund
---> Contacting of the no voters:
17:48, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:ThuranX (Dan Schlund)
17:47, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Darth Mike (Dan Schlund)
17:44, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Reyk (Dan Schlund)
17:43, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:THF (Dan Schlund)
17:42, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Smooth0707 (→Dan Schlund - Jet Pack)
17:40, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Crusio (Dan Schlund)
-->Arcayne posts to his talk page asking if he contacted the delete voters (instead of just looking himself to see he hadn't - probably an attempt to tip him off to correct his mistake) 16:47, April 5, 2009
--> I point out what he was doing at 16:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
---> Initial round of notifications:
09:52, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ricky81682 (→Dan Schlund: new section)
09:50, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Arcayne (→Dan Schlund: new section)
09:49, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Lawrencekhoo (→Dan Schlund: new section)
09:48, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Shunpiker (→Dan Schlund: new section)
09:48, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Artw (→Dan Schlund: new section)]
09:47, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Collect (→Dan Schlund: new section)
09:47, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Untick (→Dan Schlund: new section)
09:46, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Colonel Warden (→Dan Schlund: new section)
09:45, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (→Dan Schlund: new section)
09:45, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:MikeWazowski (→Dan Schlund: new section)
09:44, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:LinguistAtLarge (→Dan Schlund: new section)
09:43, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Umbralcorax (→Dan Schlund: new section)]
09:42, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mr Beale (→Dan Schlund: new section)]
09:40, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dean Wormer (→Dan Schlund: new section)]
09:39, April 5, 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fordan (→Dan Schlund: new section)]
In other words, if an admin had been on top of things, he should have been blocked at the time I made my report. DreamGuy (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I just finished myse4lf. You're right that he canvassed; probably right that he should have been blocked, but of course now he has corrected his error. I posted the minute I saw your note on your page; I am sorry I did not see it when you posted it. Other than to note that Esasus is somewhat unethical but can learn the rules, there is little I can do at this time. However, it is at least documented clearly now. We don't block punitively, you know - at least, that's the idea, and I strive always to keep to it (I know your experience has been different, and I am sorry for that). KillerChihuahua?!? 19:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the thought. I'm getting used to the punitive blocks and the attempts of people to try to get me blocked for purely personal reasons. Once I figured out that getting upset about it was exactly what they wanted I just chalked it up to an unfortunate side effect of editing here. It'd be a shame if they wikilawyer their way into a victory, though, which is why I agreed to a 1RR prohibition... it'll be harder to get caught up in the heat of things if I have to think about every single revert. DreamGuy (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You and Giano should get together for a few drinks sometime and commiserate. :-( Your approach is wise; you could work a bit more on your phrasing at times - your "if an admin had been on top of things" does read like all the admins were lying down on the job; kindof accusatory and I'm sure they just didn't see your notice. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, sure, most admins don't just look at my talk page randomly to see what's what on reports of bad behavior, but the ones who popped by at the exact same time because of the block/unblock notice/arguing about how I deserve my blocks could have taken a look. It's not like the section header was ambiguously worded or too small/far away to see. :shrugs: DreamGuy (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It would have been nice I am sure, but I'm going to AGF and presume they simply had their minds focused on whether they felt an unblock was appropriate or not, and simply failed to notice the section. At any rate, it is in the past and cannot be changed now. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah... and I didn't say otherwise. I'm explaining the "on top of things" comment, not asking for a magic wand nor assuming bad faith. DreamGuy (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Nods, sorry if mypost sounded argumentative - merely mentioning how some content can sound harsher than intended is all. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Re:comments on my talk page
That is what I thought until I was checking the history and I noticed that User:Download had been reverting blankings by QuackGuru. However, thanks for clarifying. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Download was warned because of reverting. Thanks a lot for letting me know about the policy. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
You are more than welcome! KillerChihuahua?!? 21:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
List of diseases that may cause miscarriage
Why was it deleted? It seemed to contain useful information, and has left some redlinks behind. Oh, I see...[3]. Well, even with Ferrylodge's apparent track record, it was useful!! Shame to see it disappear into the Wiki ether without the info being included in Miscarriage. Fences and windows (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I presume for the reasons given in the Cfd. FL userfied it, then placed a speedy request on the page. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Per your instructions of early April at Talk:Sara Palin, I don't want to derail the bridge discussion with editor bickering. BUT, Ferrylodges recent changes to my preferred version of FRcreid's bolded version was VANDALISM. Plain and simple!
Ferrylodge is a knowledgeable editor. He has been at the Sarah Palin article since before she was nominated. He knows what he is doing. Why he would vandalize another editors talk in front of 3 administrators is beyond me. How can we have a working relationship if one editor is going to change the expressed wishes and wikiedits of other involved editors??? And at such an important time.
His re-write of dialogue history is anti-Wikipedia. I think he should be BANNED from further involvement in the bridge discussion. If I didn't have the habit of re-reading previous discussions, his vandalism would have passed un-noticed.
I will not make an issue of this (ANI,etc.). I hope it is not ignored, but I will understand if it is. I'm sure you are aware that there are cabals on either side that want their POV's expressed. IMO, one side uses dirty tricks such as this. The other side (my side) are not angels but we have a sense of honor.--Buster7 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
As Buster knows, I apologized for the misunderstanding.[4]Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, an "oops" after the fact is hardly acceptable, especially if the wronged party is unconvinced that the error was, in fact, an error. I can hardly intentionally wrong you, then say "Oops, my bad" and make my transgressions disappear. Further, AGF notwithstanding, you made edits to two different versions, neither yours, on the talk page, which Buster correctly notes made nonsense of the discussion which followed. You were banned for a week from the Sarah Palin article; that this was lifted is not a free pass to break TPG and run roughshod over other editors. I have blocked editors for less; one editor I know was banned by ArbCom and a very strong piece of evidence was that the editor had modified other's posts. This is a serious wrong, you know it, I know you know it; your "Sorry for any misunderstanding" is hardly sufficient. Give your word that you will not modify other's posts in the future; and that you will proceed on the Sarah Palin article and talk page with deliberation, not haste - had you not "assumed" and rushed to edit others posts this would not have happened - and I will consider this incident closed. You are on thin ice, however, making such a serious transgression less than a week after your week long ban was lifted is not reassuring. It seems you are not trying your best to avoid discord and disruption. Buster, I would appreciate it if you also will consider this incident closed if FL complies. I will understand if you do not. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It was not intentional. As you can see from the diff Buster has provided, I was editing identical language of another editor's comment at that other editor's explicit request, I correctly understood the other editor's request, and in the process I simply made an understandable and innocent mistake.
For the second time, I give my word that I will not modify other's talk page posts in the future; and I will proceed on the Sarah Palin article and talk page with deliberation, not haste. I cannot remember any time in my many years on Wikipedia where I have gotten into any trouble for modifyiong another user's talk page comments. It's pretty obvious that I had absolutely nothing to gain by the extremely small edit involved here. A la prochain.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I will not pursue any administative action at this time. I accept your apology although I do not beleive you are being forthright. I will not go thru the trouble of investigating 50 long involved pages of archives at Sarah Palin. But, I was there from the beginning of her campaign...if not as an active participant, at least as a very interested observer. I'm sure I can find many dozen's of incidents in the archives where you stepped over the line of propriety either by your own actions or in support of one of your cohorts. I have better things to do! As KC requests above...this incident is closed. <Brove zien,eh>. Except for one final mention below......
As I requested, just for the sake of transparency and dialogue history, as we rebuild the new bridge section lets show editorial concern for properly acknowleging Each change. Even now, as editors support one bolded para over another, they are also offering their slight changes...which is confusing. Are they supporting the para as is or with the changes. If so, they really should recreate the para with their changes. We can title or number them. Currently we have three....FCreid, Buster7 and A'lii's...(sp). If I agree with a suggestion, or my para receives little support, I have the freedom to change it and put it before the group for consideration. The way it is now, changes are made, support is given, new changes are suggested, made, supported but the support is for the para that existed yesterday but was changed last night (twice) and is not the same as it was the day before (2 changes suggested but only one implemented) since then when it was quite different than what I was when I was ready to support but didn't have time until this afternoon. And. in addition to this already confused mix, an editor has gone in and changed what was said and discussed. Confused????? That's my point.--Buster7 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Buster, if you'd like to discuss anything further with me, or if you would like to make accusations of dishonesty or bad faith or impropriety by me and my "cohorts", please do so at my talk page. If you do that, I will probably continue to try to admit mistakes when they seem like mistakes, and will also try to deny false accusations if it doesn't seem like I made any mistake. I may also reciprocate with some complaints of my own. But maybe we can let this drop now. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, he said he's consider it closed. There was absolutely no reason for you to get on your high horse and try to keep the dispute going. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: the DG/Esasus kerfuffle
Hello, KillerChihuahua. You have new messages at Arcayne's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Don't have time to check your page right now, will do so as soon as I can. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, did you happen to add that 1RR bit to the AE sanctions thing for DG as of yet? I seem to recall you mentioning that you would do so. Even though it is for only three months, it would only assist both DG and other editors should the matter arise. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 14:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
You are in error. I have had nothing to do with, not even to comment, on DG's AE sanctions and/or 1RR. That was someone else. If you want to remind them, check DG's page, that's the likely place to locate such a statement. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, it appears I am in error. As I am not usually paying attention to DG's page, I simply noted the Deacon's agreement to unblock him under the condition of 1RR. You might have mentioned it or something, and I rolled the two together. Sorry about that. Btw, you have new comments on my usertalk page. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, KillerChihuahua. You have new messages at Arcayne's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry, i was away all day, and didn't have time to reply to your message left there. I've since replied. - - Arcayne(cast a spell) 02:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have accused Collect of Bad Faith on the Palin Talk Page
I just did it on the talk page. I do not accuse an editor of bad faith lightly. Please read what I wrote that describes why I did so. If you think I have gone too far or should not have done this, please let me know how it can be or should have been addressed. It bothered me that Collect was once again boldly asserting something he knew to be untrue. I have argued with Collect since September 2008 and he has said the same thing umpteen times (that there are no reliable sources when he knows I've shown him sources that few would doubt are reliable (the AP, the ADN, and the Wasilla Mayor)). I only accused him of bad faith to get him to, once and for all, stop making arguments he knows to be untrue and to prod him to provide his own sources supporting his position if he knows of any that exist other than his OR.GreekParadise (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me that you were coming here. So far I found zero sources from 2005 for the claim that Wasilla commuters were a prime beneficiary of the proposed Knik bridge, which appears to be GPs prime focus. As for a source saying that there are no sources <g> I fear that is where his problem lies. Collect (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason I came here was to see if KC thought I went too far and to alert KC to something I thought was a strong allegation. Collect, do you ever read any of the sources I cite? Do I have to spell it out yet again? Here it is again: http://community.adn.com/node/131399, quoting the Mayor of Wasilla in an AP/Anchorage Daily News article: "Dianne Keller, who succeeded Palin as mayor in Wasilla, has said the new $600 million crossing could lower traffic congestion in the fast-growing community. A Federal Highway Administration study shows the project would cut down some area commutes, but could add to others as more people move to the suburbs. The average commuter trip to work for Wasilla residents is 34 minutes, compared to an average of 25 minutes for the rest of the United States, according to 2000 Census figures, the most recent available." Your claim, There are no reliable sources for the bridge being proposed for commuters from Wasilla is just false. Why was the Mayor of Wasilla saying it would help Wasilla traffic congestion in an AP/ADN article? Please read the article, and if you disagree with its conclusions, it's irrelevant. If you disagree that the article is a reliable source that says that the bridge helps some Wasilla commuters, please say why. But don't say that the article doesn't exist. I've shown this specific source to you too many times over the past 8 months. Perhaps you are saying that you never read the sources I send you? That would be bad faith as well. Or you forgot to read this one even though I've sent it to you so many times in the past and again in this recent discussion? Did you ever wonder what KC and I were saying when we mentioned the AP and the Anchorage Daily News and the Mayor of Wasilla? Did you ever think to ask us what we mean? Or do you never read what anyone else writes? All I ask is that you never EVER claim again There are no reliable sources for the bridge being proposed for commuters from Wasilla.GreekParadise (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Now could we please move on? Do you have a single reliable source that backs up your OR that disagrees with the AP/ADN/Mayor? If so, please disclose it. If not, just admit it and we'll move on. I have asked you this on the Talk Page and you have not responded. Perhaps you'll answer if I ask again here. I hope so.GreekParadise (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
How about a whole slew of them (from T:SP) (out) We already have specific campaign articles. Including all campaign rhetoric of whatver value is simply not needed in a BLP, especially when the claims are contentious (that Palin "continues" to support a project which has been officially halted, that the KAB in 2005 was intended to help Wasilla commuters, even though the proposal dates to the early 50s and before -- when the population of Wasilla was? 97. [17] Yep -- I bet 2000 of those 97 people commuted to Anchorage. 1960? Too small to hit the published census as near as I can tell. By 1980 (long after KAB was proposed) it was up to 1,559 population. As an argument that its commuters would use the KAP, not very strong. Commuters? [18] "The number of commuters using MASCOT's bus service to get to Anchorage jumped to 66 each day in September on average from 35 a year earlier." For the entire Mat-Su valley. And this is in 2008. More on "commuters" from [19] "Neither Eagle River nor the Matanuska-Susitna Valley is developing at a density that would support or foster any mode of transit. Such low densities would make successful transit or commuter rail development difficult." Is the current traffic bad? "Commuters from Wasilla and Eagle River experience nearly free-flow conditions on the freeway segment of the corridor (east of Bragaw Street)." All of which seems to bolster the position that the KAB was never intended for "commuters" at all in any incarnation. So what did the 2005 article say? [20] ""Basically what it would do is access hundreds of square miles of agricultural land for development," Boutin said. " Right again -- not a word about "commuters." Not a word about "Wasilla." [21] "The bridge would span Knik Arm — part of the Cook Inlet — and link Anchorage with Port McKenzie and the remote Mat-Su Borough. The project is estimated at $600 million total." Not a word about "commuters." Not a word about "Wasilla." Heck -- let's even use "Salon" [22] "The other span, nicknamed "Don Young's Way" would cross an inlet, connecting Anchorage to a rural port. " No commuter. No Wasilla. Even in Salon. ADN says [23] " For example, would people move from within Mat-Su, swapping homes in Wasilla for new ones at Point MacKenzie? Or would most new residents come from places like Anchorage attracted by bigger lots and cheaper homes?" Which implies the KAB would be a negative for Wasilla. Collect (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (posted here in response to accusation above) Collect (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Guys, please keep this on the SP talk page. There's absolutely no reason to make a duplicate of the argument here. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
RE: "Thanks for telling me that you were coming here" Collect, I have documented dozens of times that you have talked about other editors on other editors talk pages and you have never alerted them once. This is yet another example of a double standard which is the reason why there is a RfC about your behavior right now.Ikip (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The Bridge to Nowhere Has Gone Nowhere
Johnny and KC, I need your help...badly. On my talk page, I have posted something I wish to post on the Sarah Palin talk page. I know it's critical of individual editors, but I've given up any hope of compromise.
My goal is not to rile people up. My goal is to use wikipedia policies to allow some notable, verified material that is admittedly critical of some choices Palin has made as Governor, on the site, along with all the material that praises her choices (even though some of it, like her being on the track team in high school is, I think, far from notable).
And this hold-up is stymying the entire bio. Those who oppose me admit that they don't want things in the bio that are "just political rhetoric" (as Paul put it), even if true, verified, notable, and well-sourced. I was even willing to put the material in a footnote, but I don't think it's fair to hide it from the bio entirely.
So:
1) Is it OK if I post what I wrote on my Talk Page on the Sarah Palin Talk Page?
2) Can I at least add a POV tag to the article until the controversy is resolved? That may encourage compromise where there presently isn't any now. And it's fair, because the current version is not NPOV. (In fact it weirdly mentions both bridges and doesn't say what the second bridge is.) I can't even get into the entire bridge campaign paragraph that Collect deleted months ago without talk page discussion, because, after six weeks, we can't get past the first paragraph of the bridge section! Much less the other stuff in the bio...
3) Is there any process of formal arbiration I can utilize? Or could either of you be more active mediators?
KC, you tried to mediate this, but I haven't seen you in awhile. I've given up any hope of doing this without some formal procedure. What's next?
Should I just go away? I frankly have better things to do and we're going nowhere.GreekParadise (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Those of us working on the Bridge Project have officially given up and admit defeat. We all agree compromise is impossible. There is no point in us repeating the same arguments again and again ad infinitim. I believe that dozens of accurate, verified sources should trump original research even if others believe the sources to be unfairly critical of Palin. Others, disagreeing with the conclusions of the verified research, believe these facts should not be included in the bio, no matter how qualified with facts demonstrating the opposing view. All those who agreed to compromise have backed off. We have tried for six weeks and no one thinks compromise is possible. I would like formal arbitration. How precisely does that happen? And is it OK with you if I place a non-neutral POV tag on the section pending that arbitration? I will send a note to Johnny as well.GreekParadise (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
RFC on Collect
Given your experience at the Palin article, you may wish to comment hereSlrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
I saw that you were listed in the Coaches for reconfirmation section of the admin coaching status page. Could you please update your status, and if you are still interested, drop me a note on my talk page? Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 14:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Robert House
This page has been deleted. The deletion log for the page is provided below for reference.
21:01, 26 September 2008 KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) deleted "Robert House" (A7 (bio): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person)
Robert House actually is a real person, please put the page back up. If you want proof, try looking at page 479 of Management 9th edition by Griffin, ISBN-10: 0-618-76795-9
It's near the bottom of the page by path-goal theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.51.201.254 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you reinstate the page and take it to AfD, please. The coverage of him in reliable sources has changed/increased since the RfD discussion. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I decline to reverse myself on a clear BLP violation. Getting a girl pregnant is not notable; Levi is only "notable" as a 2-off - not even 1-off, that'd be Bristol - of Sarah Palin. I take enforcing BLP very seriously. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
So do I. What part of BLP was violated? The aritcle passed NPOV, V, and OR. Your arguments would go well in an AfD, by the way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this should go to AfD. It's not for KC alone to decide whether the peson, who's appeared on TV many times, is notable. That's a decision for the community. I don't see any part of the biography that violated BLP. If KC won't restore it then this should be brought to deletion discussion. Will Bebacktalk 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
not a tabloid paper from the intro should cover it, but also read Presumption in favor of privacy, and more specifically, WP:1E: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Given that this individual was deemed, by Rfd, to be only barely ntoable enough for a redir if his name remained at Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 13, then the next step is not to ignore that Rfd; it is to take it to Drv. Feel free to do so.
To Will: I didn't "take it on myself"; I am following policy and the Xfd which has already occuirred. That others have created a speedyable article about a deleted BLP redir cannot be laid at my doorstep. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Levi Johnston. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Will Bebacktalk 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Following most of the discussion at Palin's talk page I've seen more than ones how some editors tried to "pin you to the wall" for what I saw as straight out POV reasons but could/would you consider that you might've overstepped a little bit by being just to close to the subject (and by that I mean looking over the article)? I assume nothing but good faith in your decision but there would be no blame in stepping back and let other admins decide. Best regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You will note I am refraining from even voicing an opinion in the Drv, which I have stated I believe is the appropriate venue for the decision. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
If this response is also directed at me I must say I'm really confused. Can you separate the two of us, please? You can place my response under a new title if you wish and furthermore I would appreciate [even so I'm surely not demanding it] at least some answer to my comment/question. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Levi Johnston talk page
KC thank you for letting this go through Afd. As the article was underconstruction, and there was an ongoing dialogue on the talk page, can you please restore the talk page as well? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh darn, forgot to do that. Doing it now. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
continued from AfD
My intention wasn't to "attack or insult you". Since I seem to be misunderstanding what you mean, please lay your viewpoint out clearly here. Ironholds (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
If I was certain I was on undisputed clear ground with A7, I might have simply deleted the darn article myself. However, I didn't. I raised the question on the Afd. I have seen, over the five or so years I've been here, multiple admins deleting similar articles under IAR as well as CSD. Recall that when CSD started, it was not written as it is now - CSD has evolved. Then, CSD for no assertion of notability did not even exist - that was added later and originally only covered vanity articles - which had been deleted by admins with no Vfd for months prior to that addition. Over the years, practice precedes updates - see here, noting the summary "3 new cases so the policy matches the current practice" - this is how CSD (as with most policies) evolves. Sometimes, more now than in the past, discussion is held before updating a policy - but for years, and still now to a slightly lesser extent, changes to policy reflect, rather than dictate, how policy is being enforced. Precedent is how it is done not how it is written. My observation - not merely my practice - is that Admins routinely delete articles with no assertion of notability regardless of whether the specific instance is mentioned in CSD A7. Your examples of products are specifically excluded, whereas *events* are not mentioned as included or excluded. My view, my understandng, is that if not excluded, presumption is for inclusion of similar situations, i.e., events are included by implication. I had already, before your insult, placed the question on the CSD talk page. I may well be in error. But my stating my understanding of the application of CSD A7, in practice, by multiple admins, is not even close to me saying "its how I say it is" or "screw you". "I understand it this way" is all I have said. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense. I don't, however, recall having said "screw you". Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Not verbatim, no. You compared what I said to "screw what the policy actually reads as"[5]KillerChihuahua?!? 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly, which isn't the same as saying you said "screw you", which would be implying a personal attack on your part. Ironholds (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Point taken. In explanation, I have found that "screw policy" is often read as "screw you" to those attempting to enforce policy. I'm not sure that's always incorrect, either. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I hate to bother you, but may I request unprotection for this article? I've found significant reception and still more coming to satisfy notability, just need it unprotected to rebuild an article there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
rfa
Am I missing something with this edit? The rfa is now in Category:Wikipedia bot requests for approval? :) Garion96(talk) 18:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh bother. Puppy grabbed the wrong template. Thanks for letting me know! KillerChihuahua?!? 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
AGF
I notice that you've repeatedly made assertions about my motives on discussion pages related to Sarah Palin. Others have noticed this too. While it should be unnecessary, let me remind you that the topic is under article probation, and that a failure to assume good faith is grounds for a topic ban. Please stop commenting on my behavior in in appropriate locations such as article talk pages. If you have a problem with my editing then my user page, ANI, or other dispute resolution procedures should be used instead. I assure you that I am editing with good faith. Will Bebacktalk 12:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Will, when you make spurious accusations and attacks on me, badger me, or otherwise insult me, it renders agf rather superfluous, as that only applies so long as one can plausibly presume good intentions. You have done so repeatedly, and only recently on any Sarah Palin articles. I don't know why you don't like me, I have no idea why you continually belittle, insult, and attack me, but its low level enough that I can ignore it for the most part. Your low-level harassment and clear dislike of me cannot possibly be grounds for a ban of me on articles which I do not edit. Your attempt to twist the fact that your continued ill-will towards me has resulted in my calling you on it into wiki-lawyering me out of your way, however, is reprehensible. I suggest if you have an actual grievance with me you name it and discuss it with an intent to resolve differences and mend fences, and stop trying to escalate your inexplicable (to me) dislike of me. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have never intentionally attacked, belittled, or insulted you. In fact, I've given you little thought until quite recently. If you really bleive that I have shown you disrespect then I invite you to present the evidence. Otherwise I request that you desist in making empty allegations. I've had no personal issue with you in the past, but you seem to be picking a fight now. Will Bebacktalk 12:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Will, I fully accept that you're doing it unintentionally, but starting a DrV with an unfounded and ill-conceived accusation that an admin maintaining article probation is "involved" does show disrespect. Had you shown good faith and set out the DrV on its merits without these accusations, I'm sure that the issue would have been resolved amicably. Now suggesting that any attempt to set the record straight is "picking a fight" shows the same unintentional attitude, please stop. . dave souza, talk 15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
KC is involved in the topic, in a role she calls "enforcer". I never before seen the word "involved" characterized as a personal attack or an insult. It certainly wasn't meant as one. I apologize for hurting KC's feeling by using the term, though I think that Truman's line applies: "if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen". Will Bebacktalk 19:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Now, this is getting transparent. You know that enforcing probation is not the same as involved. You also have been accusing me of being "involved" since Apr 3 at least, in an apparent attempt to discredit me. You continue trumpeting this, implying I am not only biased but abusing my position, and then you are surprised when I act displeased with this character assassination. How can this possibly make sense to you? You accuse me of wrongdoing, insult me, and then complain when I call you on it. Now you are feigning innocence as well as pretending it was the use of the word "enforcer" which led you to that conclusion. As far as the kitchen is concerned, "standing the heat" means being able to deal with trolls, vandals, and disagreements, and so on - not lying down and letting gross misrepresentations of me or my character go unchallenged. I assure you, I can take the heat. I just don't see why you are trying to flame me. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The probation solely covers editor behavior, so if you're making decisions about content then those aren't based on the probation. I don't see how anything in the probation concerns the creation of the Levi Johnston article, for example. Can you point to the part of the probation notice that you think covers it? Also, do you think probation applies to every editor, or are you excluded from having to AGF, as the probation specifically requires? Will Bebacktalk 19:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Please strike your Loaded question "are you excluded from having to AGF, as the probation specifically requires?" KillerChihuahua?!? 19:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It appears to me that you are not assuming good faith. If probation and its AGF requirement apply to you then I'd ask you to please comply with it. Will Bebacktalk 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
AGF applies to everyone. I am not violating any probation or policy, and therefore have no need to "please comply" as I am already doing so. as you are now implying (yet another example of you attacking me.) Are you going to strike your leading question, or not? If WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA apply to you, then strike it. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it appears to me that you are not assuming good faith in my case, and that you are making assertions about my behavior and motivations that are not borne out by any evidence. If we both agree that AGF applies to you then please comply with it. I'd be happy to strike the entire discussion if we can arrive at that point. Will Bebacktalk 20:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I have already stated AGF applies to everyone. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Then please extend it to me, and stop making unfounded accusations about me. Will Bebacktalk 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to rephrase my last concern: Will, perhaps you are unaware of how your post could be read, but telling me to "please comply" contains within it the presumption that I am not complying. This is tantamount to an accusation of me; that I am not following policy. I know you did not mean to imply that, so I will appreciate you striking that and being more careful in the future. Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Let me make it clearer. I do not believe that you are complying with WP:AGF, due to your numerous unfounded accusatoin that I have posted personal attacks against you. I don't care about the past but I'm asking that, going forward, you please extend AGF to me and stop making these allegations. Will Bebacktalk 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you saying that you disagree that your injunction to please comply can be read to insinuate that I am not complying? Please clarify. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
As I wrote at the top of this thread, please assume good faith on my part and please stop making unfounded accusations that I am posting " trolling and baseless attacks", that I "continually belittle, insult, and attack" you, etc. etc. If this still isn't clear I'll try to engage other editors to clarify it. Will Bebacktalk 23:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to repeat my question: are you saying that you disagree that your injunction to please comply can be read to insinuate that I am not complying? Please clarify. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I answered your question already: "Let me make it clearer. I do not believe that you are complying with WP:AGF, due to your numerous unfounded accusations that I have posted personal attacks against you. " In case that isn't clear enough, you are not complying with AGF when you make unfounded acusation of bad faith on my part. All I'm asking you to do is stop. Will Bebacktalk 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You are asking me to stop something I disagree that I have ever done. When you make spurious accusations and attacks on me, badger me, or otherwise insult me, it renders agf rather superfluous, as that only applies so long as one can plausibly presume good intentions. You may either cease, or I will continue to complain when you do so. Doing such is no failure of AGF on my part, but rather a failure of civility on yours. I am now done with this subject. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have never made any personal attacks against you. When I've asked you to support your statements to that effect you've ignored the question. I have never been uncivil towards you.If you think differently then supply the evidence. Making unfounded accusations is itself a violaiton of WP:CIVIL. I'm happy to let this drop so long as there's no recurrence. Fare thee well. Will Bebacktalk 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, we disagree but are dropping this and burying the hatchet, yes? Good idea. There will certainly be no recurrance if you remain civil and AGF in your comments to and about me, so it is entirely up to you.
Question: Please dont' take this the wrong way, but "fare thee well"? Are you quoting something in particular, or just using an archaic phrase (for effect?) ? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Paranoid and unhinged
Seriously. You need to cool it with your breathless overreactions and indignation. A very quick peek through your edit history reveals that you have trouble handling disagreements without chalking up everything to a personal attack, harrassment, etc. It's clear you have a few allies in the community, but I can assure you that to the rest of us, you only make yourself look paranoid and unhinged. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
KC knows I am perfectly willing to disagree with her, and do so quite civilly. On the other hand, I would agree were she to find "paranoid and unhinged" to be less than civil even if you disagree with her. Collect (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't know who is being describes as "paranoid and unhinged", but it's a clear personal attack and my advice to Bdb484 is to strike it immediately. . . dave souza, talk 15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
that would be Bdb484 attacking me again, who has escalated from criticism[6][7] to outright attacks and harassment, which I have already noted[8], so he was aware he was harassing me before he came here to call me "paranoid and unhinged". He's been having fun complaining I'm failing to AGF every time I note an inappropriate post, uncivil comment, or personal attack.[9] Ironically enough, most of his links involve my disputing Will's character attacks and mischaracterizations of my position(s). KillerChihuahua?!? 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've asked you to either document these supposed character attacks, or to stop making the accusation. This is a recurring example of failure to assume good faith, and repeated accusations can be a form of harassment or even a personal attack. If you have a problem with me please take it to dispute resolution. Will Bebacktalk 19:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
First step in dispute resolution is to attempt to resolve with the other editor. This is dispute resolution, Will. I thought you knew that, at least. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That's why I came here, to resolve this. But you're not even answering my basic question, which is where have I insulted you? Will Bebacktalk 20:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've ansswered it multiple times. If you cannot comprehend me, perhaps you missed this, which explains at least one rude insult on your part. Your predilection to insult me and then play the wronged party when I call you on it is disingenuous at best. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If you respond
If you respond, it responds. This does not help anyone. The only way to stop it is to not respond. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently received almost identical comments via email. thanks, sometimes I am a slow learner (hopeless optimist?) It just seems so rude to leave such blatant misunderstandings uncorrected. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt,MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Eh.... what?
You appear to have left a message on my Talkpage but a) I can't find you in the page's history and b) I have no idea what you're talking about. Have the Wikipedia servers mangled things? Yintaɳ 21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you're after this. rootology (C)(T) 21:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, BQZ's spammessage was formatted oddly, I think he's fixed it now (I hope he has.) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Correct, it's gone now. That had me seriously puzzled for a moment. Yintaɳ 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There's still something weird with this thing. When I tried to delete it from my Talk, I actually deleted BQZip's template. Try this: click the edit link on the "Thank you for the feedback" line above. Then, in edit-mode, just click 'cancel'. See where you end up. Yintaɳ 23:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
He didn't subst his template. That's why. Subst on your talk page and it will fix all. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Carefully entering the world of WP:SUBST. And thanks for the prinksbriks drinks[10]! Yintaɳ 23:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Anytime! Remember Wikipedia is world-wide, so its always happy hour! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I could not fail to disagree with you less! Cheers. Yintaɳ 23:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies all around... — BQZip01 —talk 00:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Was error, which is why I removed it. It was meant to go on another page. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Was YOUR error actually, please subst your "User:BQZip01/RfA Oppose & Neutral". KillerChihuahua?!? 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
NPA
Thanks for the sarcasm. Please note, I am not "new" to wikipedia, and see WP:Regulars. I know what an attack is, and I know I was attacking. I also apologized, almost immediatly after, at ANI. Drew Smith What I've done 14:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
That was not sarcasm, that was a warning. If you are not new, then you know better. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? I find it hard to believe you didn't post that with a bit of malice in your intentions.Drew Smith What I've done 15:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I assure you, I have no malice towards you or any other editor here. My interest is only in warning you that if you continue to attack other editors, you may be blocked. I suggest you attempt to AGF a little more. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I just love repeating that lame joke. Anyway, yes, there were several editors doing stuff all at the same time, and I hadn't realized the complainant had un-archived it, which is kind of bad form, but it's also bad form to close a discussion too soon. However, it's clear enough to me that the complainant is wasting his time, to put it charitably. I advised him to find another topic to edit. We'll see if he takes that good advice. 0:) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 15:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my thoughts precisely when I Ark-hived it to begin with, and while I agree he's wasting time and should move on, I certainly wasn't going to edit war over it. Hopefully the thread will now simply die of dis-use. :-) Thanks for your attempt to help, and your courtesy! (the lame joke, now...) KillerChihuahua?!? 15:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes my attempts to help are not met with universal approval. But I still try. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Im discussing it here, where I know you will see it.
Why shouldn't I split the discussions? you did it on my page.
-
Wikietiuette says it is "where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors". It says nothing about outright attacks.Drew Smith What I've done 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The latter are a subset of the former. –xenotalk 16:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Your comment on AN/I
Since you were the only uninvolved admin to comment in the Woogie10w/Molobo thread saying you have not reviewed the case yet, may I ask you to review the diffs and comment again? You said that it is alright to call a bully a bully, and I certainly agree with you. But after reviewing my behaviour, do you think that I really am a "bully" and "POV pusher", "whitewashing Nazi crimes", and "the Jews and Poles on wikipedia" must "stand up and fight" to "defend Poland" against "that German"? Do you really believe it is alright to canvass users who "do react when hearing German language on the street" to do so? I cannot believe that this is something a wikipedia contributor has to endure, but except for you, not one uninvolved admin has commented so far. Please take your time and review my edits on the Holocaust article and the respective talk page to get an idea if the repeated attacks against me are in any way justified. I'd really appreciate some input, thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I will look into this, but please do not hold your breath for an immediate response. This looks very convoluted and sticky, and I want to ensure I don't get half a picture. I suggest that meanwhile, you take the stance of ignoring any and all personal comments and attacks, while logging them (I suggest offline, on a text file, with a link to the dif! - very important, that) and make certain your every post discusses the content, not the contributor. If another editor calls you Hitler, or a bully, or the Antichrist, you ignore it, but log it - ok? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
request to email deleted page
KillerChihuahua, can you please email me the page, User:Stmrlbs/SB_BC_History, that you deleted? This was intended to be a personal page, with notes on an ongoing content dispute and the past Wikipedia mediation about this dispute. Thanks.
--stmrlbs|talk 22:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I thought as much, which is why I offered to email it to you. Its on its way. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I just got it. --stmrlbs|talk 01:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:-) Nice working with adults (of whatever age). KillerChihuahua?!? 23:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Happy KillerChihuahua's Day!
KillerChihuahua has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as KillerChihuahua's Day! For being such a humorous and respectable administrator, enjoy being the star of the day, dear KillerChihuahua!
And why was I not informed? I came back to cite it, and I just saw it was deleted. KMFDM FAN (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
You having "heard the term" is original research. Had you bothered to put in sources, I would possibly not have speedied the page. The sources you list here, however, fail WP:RS. Your article is about a slang term of no significance with no reliable sources. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Your advice was to keep silent and log, and I did. Actually, a log is not really needed, a look at Special:Contributions/Woogie10w is sufficient. Woogie continued to make no secret of his anti-German prejudice and devoted most of his activity to stalking and canvassing against me. I did not respond to anything Woogie10w said. He focusses
on a SPI I filed against an account that turned out to be almost certainly operated by the same user who operates the user:Molobo account, Woogie10w's new-won friend from the Holocaust-RfC that triggered his obsession with me (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molobo)
Everywhere he goes he keeps on spreading that I want to somehow whitewash Nazi crimes, the same issue that led to the AN/I-thread. The utmost I can do here to AGF is that his campaign against me is not only based on prejudice, but also on a misconception of my edits (eg at the place of our first interaction, the Holocaust article, I wrote the sections Kristallnacht, and New methods of mass murder and Resettlement and deportation to colonies and reservations; and the article Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany is also largely written by me, except for the sections based on Communist-era sources (and I still strongly object using such sources unattributed to base half an article on them, which is one part of the dispute I have there, the other part was that I objected the removal of in-text attribution to all other sources also when used to cite estimated figures in fields scholary estimates differ significantly and to not use tabloid style but encyclopedic language).
Recent diffs to illustrate the above:
Here he boosts that his father had not taken (German) prisoners during WWII [11]
Here he is assuring Piotrus, whom he regards my "enemy", that he will come out and fight when needed: [12][13][14][15][16]. I must ammend that his regarding Piotrus my enemy is false - though Piotrus and me sometimes disagree, sometimes even strongly primarily in respect to Molobo's edits, we have also at numerous times collaborated very well. And in case you wonder what "interest I showed in J. Demjanjuk's welfare" - I added this line to the article and had a short interaction with someone on talk [17]
Here he enables his e-mail and notifies Molobo and Piotrus (noone else) about it, especially the message directed at Piotrus is undisguised canvassing [18][19]. Actually, it was Molobo's idea to get the discussion off-wiki, as he urged Woogie10w three times to enable e-mail [20] (sections "Hi" (both of them), section "Discussions")
Here he is at the EA board not trying to get editor assistance, but to discredit and canvass against me [21]
Last night, Woogie10w deleted some of his comments from threaded discussions where he had he stalked me before [23][24][25] - one can only speculate if this is already the result of an off-wiki advise to avoid obvious stalking.
I think prejudice, canvassing and battlefield mentality are obvious and in urgent need of administrator attention. You have signaled an interest to have a look, and you have experience in mediation - what do you propose how to proceed? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Since I was mentioned, I feel that I must comment. This whole argument is very depressing. As a young man forty years ago I knew Poles and Jews who survived the Nazi horror. I have zero tolerance for those who use sophistry to trivialize and whitewash Nazi crimes. With that said, I am assuming good faith and ask that the young people here take the time to become familiar with the history Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles. [26] I have no bad feelings toward Germans, I am in fact a German-American. I hold no ill will toward anyone on Wikipedia, I have only the wish to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. I am busy in the real world and have no time or patience to engage in petty disputes, but I will work to improve Wikipedia--Woogie10w (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Take W.'s appearance here, his edit summary and above statement ("I have zero tolerance for those who use sophistry to trivialize and whitewash Nazi crimes") as an illustration for the contineous stalking and bashing outlined above. And then he says he is AGF and too busy to engage in petty disputes? If that was true, there would be no complaint. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is constantly changing, you cannot control its content. What you see on a page today will be different a year from now. Your edits to an article do not finalize it, others have the right to edit, you cannot ban those you disagree with you.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Lockdown
dude i think you made a mistake when you locked with chiropractic article... i clicked on the lock and it says that semi-protection is only supposed to be used in certain cases such as when the article is subject to edit warring only from ip users and new users which wasnt the case so you should either unlock it or completely lock it because thats what the policy says 70.71.22.45 (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Email
Just wanting some advice. I sent you an email. Computerjoe's talk 20:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It would have been better had you not insulted me, then edit warred. You are not making friends and influencing people here. You are making it clear you have no respect for the system you are requesting assistance of. I asked you to provide difs and explain an assertion you made. Please note that at the top of the page in the big pink box are the instructions:
Please be aware that as a user requesting arbitration enforcement, it is your responsibility to supply all information required for administrators to determine whether enforcement is required, as described in the instructions. Your request may otherwise be declined without further action.
You not only declined to answer my questions, I asked one question 3 times and one twice, and your response was "You may ask questions, doesn't mean I have to address them".[27] You declined your responsibility; I declined the request. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thats fine, It was going to arbcom anyway. My only quam is that you failed to act on what was clear, You had enough evidence to block and chose not too. If nothing else Arbcom will be wondering why you didnt block for the abusive edit summaries that were clear and a one sided action by DG. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know that a second request for DRV on your close of this case has been requested by S_Marshall at the link above. Your input is of course welcome. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I do have to admit, he shows initiative. He doesn't just want you punished for your abuse, he seems quite unaware of how absurd are his demands that the article be immediately featured and placed on the front page. I don't recall that ever happening when I deleted something. Usually, I'm simply Wrong, often Abusive, but never so misguided as to have deleted the Best Article On Wikipedia. I wonder if I should give you a barnstar for this? It seems noteworthy. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi KillerChihuahua, since it looks like you weren't even consulted before the most recent DRV was filed (and I think we can all agree on what a disaster of sockpuppetry and bad-faith that was!), I was hoping a more direct (and rational) approach might get you to reconsider your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie. A little history here: I became involved in this because I closed the first DRV which endorsed MBisanz's closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie. The creator of that article had already asked MBisanz to reconsider, and MBisanz advised him to try and create a new, more balanced article that would overcome the NPOV concerns raised in the first Afd. After I closed the first DRV as "endorse", the creator came to me to protest my closure (see User_talk:Aervanath/Archive_9#2_different_cases_treated_differently), where I gave him the same advice. I also noted that three of the editors in the first Afd had suggested the same thing. After reviewing the new article, I thought it was different enough that it addressed the concerns of the first Afd, and therefore that it would not qualify for summary deletion. However, you closed the new Afd as superfluous based on the outcome of the old one. I don't agree with that, since I feel that the two articles were substantially different enough that the outcome of the first Afd wouldn't apply to the second. Would you object to restoring the Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie and allowing a full-length Afd to take place?--Aervanath (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is an idea: the bulk of the article is the list of songs. Have you considered a list for the songs? The Afd did close as merge; there is very little other content, and that could easily be merged (where it is not already a duplicate of what is in the primary article.) What do you think of that solution? KillerChihuahua?!? 09:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Can I nudge you to, as discretely and as dramaless as possible, nip this in the bud? If not, can you quietly pass this to another admin who can quash this before it gets too ugly? --64.85.220.164 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC) (I'm the same dynamic IP from the AN/I)
Hello...
Hi KillerChihuahua...
I needed some help regarding the Artcle of Prithviraj Chauhan. The editors there have developed a consensus and we have solved the problem regarding the story of his death. But some UNREGISTERED users keeps vandalizing the article and remove the referenced text... In fact I suspect its the same guy, who is may be using a Net Cafe or a Public PC to vandalize the topic from different IP addresses... How can we protect the article since we cannot carry out the entire process of warning every IP he uses thrice... What is the procedure of securing the article such that only Registered users can edit it so we know who is vandalizing the article and we can report or warn the user... Thankyou....Adil your (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The page you want is WP:RFPP and you are asking for semi-protection. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Curiouser, Again
I am aware of the section, and I am rather convinced you are incorrect. I do want to understand your point of view, and take steps to either adapt my behavior or to correct your misapprehension of it - maybe even both. I have to say, I am completely unaware of how I was "lying" and "unethical". You can either discuss the matter here or on my page. - Arcayne(cast a spell) 00:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I have already done so, at length. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but as I said, I think you are mistaken. I remain unclear how I am a "liar" and "unethical". - Arcayne(cast a spell) 11:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are not a liar, your are an equivocator virtuoso. I find that behavior unethical. Seriously, re-read the posts from your talk page history, and ask me a specific question. I see no point in repeating myself. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
So, let me see if I understand you correctly: you get to call me a liar and unethical, but you aren't willing to back it up, except to point to an old talk page discussion where you jumped off the Train of Reason? I am asking for you to clarify your character assassination, as I haven't the foggiest of what you are speaking of; I wouldn't have asked if I knew what you were talking about, and yes - I read our interaction, twice now. Are you saying that you do not want to help me understand you? . - Arcayne(cast a spell) 15:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not what I am saying. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
It sure sounds like that. I asked you a question, and you are replying with non-answers. Want to try something a bit more involved? - Arcayne(cast a spell) 19:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll ask again: are you preferring to stick with your determination that I am an 'unethical liar', or would you like to help correct either that assessment or my behavior? - Arcayne(cast a spell) 17:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I certainly will respect your judgment that this needs more input (though I have closed AFDs with 2 keeps before without any problems) but I should point out that the discussion had run for a full listing period of 7 days plus 3 hours. Your edit summery implied that I had closed it early. The reason why I closed it was because I often revisit the discussions I relist to see if the relist has generated enough additional comments to close. I felt that the 2 keep comments were sufficient.
BTW I have had closes reverted before but this is the first time by an "administrator" who IMHO should be the only ones reverting AFD closes. (though I will concede that a neutral non-admin could reopen a completely bass ackwards close under WP:IAR --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I did see that you relisted, along with a lot of other articles, which is appreciated. However, once relisted, you closed after the second view was posted - less than 24hr after relisting. I do think the article will eventually be a keep. I do think relisting after receiving only one person's input was correct. I do not think closing immediately after getting a second view was the best decision. Back in the dark ages (a couple of years ago) it used to be standard that when relisted, the Afd ran for another full seven days, unless it became a clear case of SNOW. It appears common practice has changed, and that's fine, but two views is still a rather pathetic show of hands. Had I seen your earlier closes after only two views I would have reverted them as well. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
True, lots of things have changed since the "dark ages". On relisting, the current guideline at WP:DELPRO says it may be subject to being closed once consensus can be determined, without necessarily waiting a further seven days.. That being said, one or two !votes would usually not constitute a "consensus" but it depends on the strength of the !votes. I've relisted a few debates that had no "deletes" and 3 or 4 "keeps" of the WP:ILIKEIT caliber and/or had SPAs. In the AFD in question, I felt that "Drawn Some" (who !votes "delete" more often then not) made a very good argument for inclusion but I didn't feel comfortable closing it after one !vote. Granted that's not the kind of judgment a non admin closer should be making so let's see what happens. Most debates seem to get their !votes within a day of the nomination or relist. That's why I like to revisit the debates I relist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Please let me why u did delete my page
hi,
I have listen wikipedia is the free Encylopedia where anyone can introduce his company and so on... here we can see a lot of persons profile exists... please let me why my page has been deleted please mail me at majmaliqbal (at) gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmal Iqbal (talk • contribs) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a host for your resume or curriculum vitae. Please see WP:BIO for why your article was speedy deleted, and and WP:COI for why you should not write about yourself. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Another warning?
Would another warning for uncivil behavior be warranted for DreamGuy (talk ? This doesn't seem very civil: [28].Faustian (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This AfD debate which you participated in, with 9 arguments in favor of deletion and 4 in favor of retention, was just closed by an admin as keep. I've opened a DRV on the matter here [29].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
welcome back
Everything ok? Drop me an email when you're able... I wanted to run something by you. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sent, let me know if you got it.
Where've ya been, if you don't mind me asking?--SB_Johnny | talk 00:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the wb - I got your email, and I'll tell you when my email is back up (I can receive but not send right now). Too much R/L info can be bad for your health, eh? Regarding other matters - if it looks like a duck, its gonna poop in the pond. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
This kind of language and attitude is over the line in my opinion and is doubly inappropiate considering you are an administrator, a member of a group that is supposed to set an example to other editors.
I would like to see if you are willing to undertake to not resort to this kind of behaviour and language again if you disgree with me (or any other good faith editor for that matter).
I look forward to your response. Exxolon (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
What is your desired outcome? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
As I said above, "I would like to see if you are willing to undertake to not resort to this kind of behaviour and language again if you disgree with me (or any other good faith editor for that matter)." - assuming you are willing to agree to this then I'm happy to consider the matter resolved. All I want is for you to agree to remain civil towards myself (and any other good faith editor), even if you disagree 100% with my (their) opinion. Exxolon (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Civility varies from culture to culture and individual to individual. I don't recall calling you an asswipe, or a shitbag, or anything offensive. Perhaps you wish for me to always check with you before I say anything to ensure it does not offend your specific ruleset on what is allowable? Or did you have something else in mind? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
By that response it's obvious that my good faith attempt to resolve this with you is not going to succeed. You believe your comments were within the bounds of civility, I do not. I can see little point in continuing this dialogue at this point, however I do feel it was important to at least attempt to resolve this with you. Since that is unlikely to happen I will solicit informal feedback from other editors at WP:WQA - please consider this message notification of that fact. Exxolon (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Dang, you give up easy, don't you? Must not have mattered much to you.
Don't presume to "read my mind". If you wish to know what I think, ask. Don't tell. I assure you I am more accurate than you on what I think and feel. Or to put it another way: "Please refrain from speculation regarding my opinions: the normal way of resolving that type of uncertainty is to ask for clarification." -- Durova --KillerChihuahua?!? 22:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: I left a note on Exxolon's talk page[31] suggesting he use more usual phrasing. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This has to be one of the lamest begs for an apology, ever. I seriously hope one isn't offended when I state that certain crybabies are being incompetent because they are of-so offended by the word 'obtuse' and 'clueless'. These are the same individuals that ran to the teacher during high school when they were called a bad, bad name. Time to grow up and grow some balls and thick skin. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Followup: reading into the background of the complaint that started this thread, it is well known that I take a hard line on civility generally. The context in which KillerChihuahua quotes me is not applicable; a clueful, acute, competent and mature reading of my wiki-philosophy would affirm that administrators should set the tone for appropriate conduct. Specific identification of problem behaviors is often useful in discussions; epithets are best avoided. DurovaCharge! 16:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Like "clueful"? Which tends to imply the reverse, that I am clueless. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily, although this is a context more suitable for quoting my statement from February. A bit more fully: "Please refrain from speculation regarding my opinions: the normal way of resolving that type of uncertainty is to ask for clarification. To presume a faulty understanding and then lecture an editor for the supposed shortcoming could be viewed as uncivil." DurovaCharge! 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If you tell someone that behaving like A means you are "clueful" then it implies that if they don't behave like A they are clueless. Your intent may have been otherwise, but frankly the meaning of the phrasing is precisely that. To argue otherwise is specious. If your meaning does not fit your phrasing, clarify. Don't try to make the phrasing mean something else. I have no problem with people saying "That came out wrong. Here is what I meant" - but I take issue with people insisting that "If you were smart, you'd kick the ball" doesn't mean "If you don't kick the ball, you're not very smart". I don't presume to know your intended meaning but I can darn well inform you of how your phrasing appears to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment on "The future"
It's very odd to come to this page and find KillerChihuahua quoting me--or demonstrating any type of respect at all--after the needlessly personal tone of this recent post.[32] Surely it's possible to disagree without insulting my judgment. Unless, of course, it was intended as an ironic demonstration of my thesis--in which case it's quite witty and deserves congratulations. My argument (expressed more fully at the discussion talk page) is that the setup has occurred in a way that discourages useful opinions which fall outside the hosting editor's paradigms. Rightly or wrongly, it's begun in a space that is known for hostility and aggression toward dissenting opinions. Would appreciate if you modified your post, either to remove the sting or to make the irony explicit. DurovaCharge! 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
After EC:I have reframed my view, per your request. That said, in my world, the expression I used was very slightly stronger than a very mild "huh?!" No disrespect was intended, and as for personal, I was, after all, commenting on your view, with your name. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You are more than welcome. Please always let me know if I accidentally offend you. I appreciate such candor. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Response
You said: "Anarchy among the trolls and POV pushers, with no structure or remedies at all? I think not. View is "as long as I can edit..." - how long would that last if the entire rulebook and all DR were tossed? Not long.".
My post was to say that it doesn't matter what system is in place as long as I continue working. It does not say that there should be anarchy, nor is the system we have now anarchy. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Then your phrasing certainly gave the wrong impression to me; specifically, the words "the rest of the place can do whatever it wants." implies anarchy. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Or not. I don't care what the government does unless it affects me. That makes me most people. Anarchy would affect me. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The stuff being discussed on that page would affect you, as well. I do not believe you are so obtuse as not to realize that, rendering your post at best nonsensical and at worst trolling. I am now done; please feel free to Have The Last Word. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Now you are making yourself look foolish. Not caring what system of government rules your life is not trolling. Your claims to the contrary are completely incivil. You get the make the last word, as it better be an apology for your blatant disregard for WP:CIVIL. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's not miss the slow pitches. ;-) Just a bit of snark thrown into the conversation. Though it does remind me that my memes page is missing an "admin abuuuuuuse" section.... --MZMcBride (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
be kind to me, I have a headcold and my brain is stuffed up. I *thunk* it were a joke, but I were not certain. Thankee for coming by and clarifying, I am a slightly less confused pup than I was a moment ago. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 18:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for finishing what I started on the AIV board. I got sidetracked by something else and forgot about it. OhNoitsJamieTalk 18:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries, glad I was right that was what you intended. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Rfa Question Questions
I have two questions regarding my RfA questions. I assume that "one-off" means an overlap? I'm not familiar with the term. My other question is: in the deletion question, are the merge and delete votes practically equal, or not? I'm a very specific person, I'd like to know. ceranthor 20:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The vote is split between "keep" and "delete or merge". There are in essence two parties. 50% say Keep, 50% say Delete or merge. "One-off" means child of a famous parent, or a similar relationship; this is where the "merge" views come in. Please let me know if this is at all unclear. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
So when you say one-off, you mean that it is part of a more notable topic, like a singer in a band? ceranthor 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Except that generally a singer can make a claim to notability outside the band - they have been in other bands, performed in musicals, or some such similar claims to notability. In addition, the membership in the band is notability of a sort. In this case, there are no further claims to notability other than the relationship to the main topic. A child or parent of a politician. That kind of thing. One -off; not notable for anything they have done except as regards their child, parent, company, etc. Otherwise completely a non-important person. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Pretend Stanley Dwight is alive and well and appearing on Letterman to talk about how it feels to be the father of Elton John. Stanley Dwight never did a darn thing notable so far as I know; he fathered the notable Elton John. This is the situation I'm talking about. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, answered. Didn't see your replies here so excuse me if that makes a difference in your opinion. ceranthor 21:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
