| Revision as of 06:31, 25 February 2013 editCMBJ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers13,994 editsm →RFCC: clarif. (edit conflict)← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:32, 25 February 2013 edit undoKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits Reverted to revision 540203168 by KillerChihuahua: Don't change posts after they've been replied to - write another post. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
| Regarding your comments , I would like to invite you to consider RFCC as an alternative. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''] </span> 02:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | Regarding your comments , I would like to invite you to consider RFCC as an alternative. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''] </span> 02:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :No, but it might be worth taking to RFAR. ]] 02:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | :No, but it might be worth taking to RFAR. ]] 02:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::Arbitration |
::Arbitration isn't much more than polite way of forcing specialized contributors into semi- or full retirement; it shouldn't ever be on the table unless all other options have been exhausted, and they haven't been here. <span style="background:black;color:white"> '''''— '''''] </span> 06:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::I'm not opening four different Rfc's on editors whose responses to an uninvolved admin warning them was either insults or in one case, asking that I be desysopped. It would be an excercise in futility. An Rfc presumes they care what people say; they clearly don't. I '''have''', however, taken it to RFAR; it is at ] if you wish to make a statement. ]] 06:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | :::I'm not opening four different Rfc's on editors whose responses to an uninvolved admin warning them was either insults or in one case, asking that I be desysopped. It would be an excercise in futility. An Rfc presumes they care what people say; they clearly don't. I '''have''', however, taken it to RFAR; it is at ] if you wish to make a statement. ]] 06:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:32, 25 February 2013
Userpage | talk | contribs | sandbox | e-mail | shiny stuff 7:19 pm, 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 
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)
Notifications That You've Received a Message, if Not Written on *Your* Talk PageHey, you "angry barking puppy," You recently put a notice on my talk page. I wanted to ask you here why it supposedly had to be you posting that, instead of just the supposed admin. who had already been talking to me. When and why did it supposedly become "your business"? (But the one thing I'm grateful for about that is that the warning was present, rather than just taking action without one. So for that one thing, thanks.) But then I saw that you wanted us to post replies to the place where the original message was posted. Well, obviously you get a notification that someone has put a message on your talk page, and I get a notification that someone has put one on my page. But how would you get a notification that someone has responded to something you wrote on my page? You wouldn't just keep checking it and checking it every day for a long time, even if some time went without seeing a response there, would you? So that's my concern about keeping the messages lined up on the same page. Yes, it's definitely easier to follow. But the notification system isn't very good. Right? What's your remedy for that, and how do I get it too? MaxxFordham (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
going back to the original ..."Meatpuppet" thing. Does this mean we can now refer to you as "Mrs. Weller"? baahaahaa. <Newspaper across the rump, and puppy-Ched yelps and looks for a table to hide under> — Ched : ? 14:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:DisambiguationGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation. 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) 17:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC) The Signpost: 18 February 2013
RespondHey, hey. :) I responded, but i didnt want to be too broad about this, as it is mostly unrelated to the request in question. Anyway, all best... --WhiteWriter 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC) SuzanneOlsonHi, the close clearly states "article edits" i.e. talk pages are OK. If they become disruptive then we can re-raise at ANI and look to spread the topic ban further. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Nado158Dear Killer, please wait. Please see also my opinion (and please read my all my comments above and check it). I think that I not deserve such hard punishment. Regards--Nado158 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC) AE Nado158With regard to the exact parameters of the proposed topic ban, please see my comment at User talk:DeltaQuad#AE Nado158. --Joy (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Please, i wrote about 98% Serbian sport, especially about football, but also basketball etc., I never had a problem with nobody. I improved a lot of articles, wrote about players and stadiums etc. I create also a lot of articles about sport. I get even a barn star. You can all see this on my Misplaced Pages edit history etc. Please allow me to write about Serbian sports. This have nothing to do with politics and is not a controvers topics. I'm only come because of sports to wikipedia, only the last months I am moved a little bit to other topics. But my main topic, my beloved topic is sport, this is a topic which interrested me 120%. Please allow me to write about sports in Serbia, why so a hard punishment. I made mistakes in politic topics, but I never hat a problem with sports. You banned me because of my mistakes about controvers politic topics, but why i banned also for sport, although i never made mistakes there and although I was never prosecuted there?I think its right to punish for things who someone done wrong, but I never made mistakes there and i was never prosecuted there. Please allow me to write about sports in Serbia.--Nado158 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
By all my respect, but I have not done with deliberate errors. I was not aware of the consequences of my error. Others get a warning or a ban on certain topics, and I get a ban on everything. That's not fair. In any civil legal system you will be punished for what you have really done and here? There was never porbleme on Misplaced Pages relating to sports, or business, agriculture, Serbian food or brands, nature etc. I've created stadium sites, player dates updated (goals, transfers, etc.), updated data, where is this controversy? I understand what you mean, but I do not edit the Albanian League or sports. Why do all my work will not be considered positive? Why all this is overlooked? I can not at all in conflict with Albania, because it has nothing to do with Serbian Sports. There is no Serbian-Albanian Football League, etc. Why is it bad if I edit about a Serbian dog, or football data (statistics), or write about a food stamp, or national parks in Serbia? about nature. This is absolutely not about those things for which I was punished. What's bad about it when I add Nemanja Vidić as a remarkable person in Užice because he was born there? Look please here i create for example this small article about Metalac Stadium, improved and create 80% of the Partizan Belgrade article till the section Club records, improved every article about almost evry club and their stadiums in the first and second league (you can ask the users there). I create a article about the Mlekara Subotica dairy. Here, nothing is bad KillerChihuahua. Please, Serbian sport, agriculture, Serbian food or brands, nature etc. have nothing to do with controversial topics with Albania etc. Please allow me, if anything were to arise, I would not take to it and report it to you immediately if you wish, but it will not happen because I think Nature etc. is not controversial. Topics like Organization for Respect and Care for Animals (which is from Serbia), Serbian Spruce, or the dog Šarplaninac and stadiums are not controversial. Please i have good faith intentions. Besied this, what you mean with not stubs? Thank you!--Nado158 (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
KC, I'd like to appeal to you once again to take two factors into account: we already have one Serbian user, User:FkpCascais, who was topic-banned similarly, but after several incidents (three previous smaller blocks over several years), and for only six months rather than a year. I agree that it's easy for them to cross the line, and indeed I was personally involved in a situation where FkpCascais at one point did exactly that, but User:WGFinley was still patient with them and I think the topic-banned user did not transgress further. As I recall, Nado158's behavior was not worse than FkpCascais', so I think it would be best to follow the same standard and at least make the two sanctions match, in order to avoid the impression he's getting treated in a manner that is less fair than someone else in a similar situation. --Joy (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I did not ignore the offer, but sorry, I didn't quite understand it, so I asked before what you mean with your statement ACTUAL ARTICLE, NOT STUBS? STUBS? Thank you!--Nado158 (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. All right, I agree with your proposal. Thank you!--Nado158 (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Re:Your recent editsI already left a message to Bishonen, asking if the correct word was the one Bishonen applied, Bishonen said yes. The problem is solved. (Slurpy121 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC))
You must claim this little green rosetta(talk)
What about this? A bit of a tautology, perhaps. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC).
RFCCRegarding your comments here, I would like to invite you to consider RFCC as an alternative. — C M B J 02:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
|
|||||
