| Revision as of 11:16, 18 February 2013 editDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,102 edits →I doubt you've seen this SPI about us: clarify← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:58, 18 February 2013 edit undoGoethean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users40,563 edits →Hi, could you help investigate a potential behavioral issue?: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
| ]. ] (]) 10:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ]. ] (]) 10:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :BlackHades managed to find an old failed proposal that said accusations of meatpuppetry should be made at SPI, but then devoted the whole thing to me. Now rev/del'd by another Admin. ] (]) 11:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | :BlackHades managed to find an old failed proposal that said accusations of meatpuppetry should be made at SPI, but then devoted the whole thing to me. Now rev/del'd by another Admin. ] (]) 11:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| == Hi, could you help investigate a potential behavioral issue? == | |||
| Hi, Killer. I have been of tendentious editing at ]. I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at my edits and telling me if I am in violation of Misplaced Pages behavioral policies. Thanks. — ] 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:58, 18 February 2013
Userpage | talk | contribs | sandbox | e-mail | shiny stuff 8:09 am, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
24 - 23 - 22 - 21 - 20 -19 - 18 -17 - 16 -15 - 14 -13 -12 -11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 -4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Archives Centralized discussion 
AbrahamYou're accusing me of introducing a Christian bias to Abraham? That's a new one for me, I'm usually seen as a godless atheist :) PiCo (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
IPv6Hi, you recently blocked 2602:306:ced4:270:488a:159:ef1a:8710 indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. However, since this is actually an IPv6 IP address, not a user account, and thus will likely be shared among multiple users, I have shortened the block to 31 hours. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Your edit on my Talk pagePlease tell me that what you put on my Talk page is a hard-coded template, because otherwise you came across as extremely condescending. RNealK (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
More funWould you mind having a look at this and advise? I'm also not sure if the editor's user name is within policy. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Already mentionedTaron has already got a Misplaced Pages article about her and is already mentioned by name in the article on Swartz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.5.186 (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:SocialismGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Socialism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 11 February 2013
RfA: thank you for your supportKC, thanks for your strong expression of support during my recent RfA. It meant a lot coming from an established editor like yourself. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Response to note about Abortion and Mental HealthHi, My edits were made after reading the actual statements made by the Associations in question. I was not attempting to convey my own opinions,within the article, but merely repeated what the APA actually said. The statements of the APA, the same words I referred to when making my edits, were not according to my own beliefs on the matter, (which I do not care to discuss on Wilkipedia) and I made the edits with a view to increasing factual detail and accuracy. These are the actual words of the 2008 Executive Summary of the APA's findings "In considering the psychological implications of abortion, the TFMHA recognized that abortion encompasses a diversity of experiences. Women obtain abortions for different reasons; at different times of gestation; via differing medical procedures; and within different personal, social, economic, and cultural contexts. All of these may lead to variability in women’s psychological reactions following abortion. Consequently, global statements about the psychological impact of abortion on women can be misleading." retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/executive-summary.pdf
Apology, explanation of non-malicious intent, and description of resolve not to repeat offensesI did have two accounts. I had set up one, then later, another with a name I preferred, but with no malicious intentions. The purpose was not ever that one account would manufacture support for the other. I was not doing it to provide support for one account under another account name. The posting on the talk page using the other user name was by accident (as you can see by the use of first person pronouns in that comment) My purposes were not any of the ones listed as "innappropriate uses of alternative accounts." The appearance of such a misuse was an accident, where I believed I was writing under the appropriate account, but was accidently signed in under the other. My wish to maintain honesty was shown by the fact that after I realised I was signed in on the otehr account, I exited and signed in under the other to sign the post with the actual more honest name. The whole thing was a mistake, but I truly did not do it with bad intentions. It should have been obvious that if I created a second account this could easily happen. I should have thought it through. I offer sincere apologies and emphasize that I will not repeat anything like this in the future. I do wish to add that the edits about the American Psychological Association, and the UK Royal College were in order to correct the factual innaccuracy that was and is present on those pages. If you would folllow the links I had read, and read the actual statements by those two organizations, you would see that is the case. This is not ideology, this is about the accurate description of what those two associations actually said. The APA said that there are so many different experiences, that a global statement may be misleading. http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf The Royal College explicitly said that the data is inconclusive. http://www.nccmh.org.uk/publications_SR_abortion_in_MH.html The current paragraphs on Wilkipedia are innaccurate. I trust, that you are a person of integrity who will take the time to go to the actual statements and reports by those two organizations and see that is the case. I hope that someone other than me will edit the page for greater acuracy. Rivka3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Look, you socked, then you lied about it. I sincerely do hope you don't do it again; but if you do someone is likely to block not only this account but all your accounts. Have one account and be done. And don't lie; next time there is a question people will be far less likely to believe you. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC) R&I articleAs you note the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, you should consider your own conduct in this matter. You have made just as many reverts as Black, but have contributed much less to the talk page discussion. Many of these reverts have involved extensive deletions. In addition, you have contributed to the excessive personalization of the dispute in several ways. Try to keep the discussion on the content. You should also avoid further reverts and deletions without discussion since it makes it difficult to discuss every change when you are making them so rapidly.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
SuzanneOlssonA couple of weeks ago you blocked SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) for a week. Since returning she has continued her poor behaviour, including badgering and insulting other editors on talk pages. Perhaps you could take a look at her recent edit history and see if another block is appropriate, or whether we should consider taking her to ANI for a proposed topic ban. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cinema of Andhra PradeshGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I doubt you've seen this SPI about usMisplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/KillerChihuahua. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, could you help investigate a potential behavioral issue?Hi, Killer. I have been accused of tendentious editing at Tea Party Movement. I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at my edits and telling me if I am in violation of Misplaced Pages behavioral policies. Thanks. — goethean 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||||
