| Revision as of 02:51, 24 February 2013 editSlurpy121 (talk | contribs)374 edits →Re:Your recent edits← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:06, 30 September 2024 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,851 editsm Reverted edit by Problematic-usurnaim (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot IIITag: Rollback | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{not around|3=February 2022}} | |||
| {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | ||
| {{Administrator|number=1}} | <!--{{Administrator|number=1}}--> | ||
| {{OTRS topicon|number=2|extra_offset=2}} | {{OTRS topicon|number=2|extra_offset=2}} | ||
| {{User talk:KillerChihuahua/Header}} | {{User talk:KillerChihuahua/Header}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 25 | ||
| |algo = old(14d) | |algo = old(14d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| {{cent}} | {{cent}} | ||
| {{-}} | |||
| == RfA: thank you for your support == | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 20 March 2023 == | |||
| <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-03-20}} </div><!--Volume 19, Issue 6--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script (]) --></div></div> | |||
| KC, thanks for your strong expression of support during my recent RfA. It meant a lot coming from an established editor like yourself. Regards, ] (]) 11:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:JPxG@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1144887209 --> | |||
| :You are welcome; be sure to read the Nuetral and Oppose views carefully, and learn from them. Whether you decide to try again in the future or not, improving oneself is always a good thing. ]] 20:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 03 April 2023 == | |||
| == Response to note about Abortion and Mental Health == | |||
| <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2023-04-03}} </div><!--Volume 19, Issue 7--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * ''']''' * ] * ] * ] (]) 16:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC) </div></div> | |||
| Hi, | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Bri@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe&oldid=1147436351 --> | |||
| 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 | |||
| == Administrators' newsletter – April 2023 == | |||
| :I do appreciate your message, and your request for discussion and know we have a shared goal of keeping Wilkepedia accurate.] (]) 22:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I didn't leave you a message, unless you are a sock of {{lu|Ste11aeres}}. ]] 22:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] from the past month (March 2023). | |||
| == Apology, explanation of non-malicious intent, and description of resolve not to repeat offenses == | |||
| {{Col-begin}} | |||
| I did have two accounts. I had set up one, then later, another with a name I preferred, but with no malicious intentions. | |||
| {{Col-2}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] '''Administrator changes''' | |||
| It should have been obvious that if I created a second account this could easily happen. I should have thought it through. | |||
| :] ] | |||
| :] ] | |||
| {{Col-2}} | |||
| 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. | |||
| ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 04:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ] '''CheckUser changes''' | |||
| 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. ]] 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :] ] | |||
| {{Col-end}} | |||
| == R&I article == | |||
| ] '''Guideline and policy news''' | |||
| As 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.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 01:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * A ] is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving ] should be referred to the ]. | |||
| :I'm not sure you're counting correctly. I'm certain I'm considering my edits. I'm not sure why you are posting on ''my'' page about keeping the discussion on content, as it was Guettarda who began the discussion about behavior. ]] 02:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Here: . It does seem you have not made as many reverts. Black's recent revert means he now has one more revert than you. However, I wouldn't consider five massive reverts instead of six to be any big mark in your favor. Particularly when some of your reverts involve multiple deletions over several edits. As to why I am not leaving a comment on Guettarda's page, you have made several edits and comments beyond just that talk page section that are of concern. Plus, it is not ''explicitly'' forbidden to create talk page sections to discuss the conduct of other editors rather than content, though I would say it is generally frowned upon.--] <sub>] ]</sub> 03:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, I'm not interested in taking a straw poll to determine what percentage of editors think such discussions should be frowned upon, prohibited, or ok under certain circumstances, or ok under all circumstances. I seriously doubt it would be worth the trouble. That said, it still puzzles me why you're talking to me about it, since I didn't start it. I don't think you should bother anyone about it, actually, but as long as you are, I don't see why you chose to post here instead of on the usertalk page of the person who actually did start that section. You already know from my talk page comments that I don't see any serious issue with it, so you can hardly be expecting me to go talk to him about it. Your approach is confusing to me, and seems rather pointless. Regarding the edits, they were not all reverts, although BH's were. Now, I think we've said about all that can be usefully said on the subject. ]] 03:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Technical news''' | |||
| == SuzanneOlsson == | |||
| * Some older ]s will not be able to use ] on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of ]. ({{phab|T178356}}) | |||
| * The ] has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default. | |||
| * A link to the user's ] page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on ]. This was voted #17 in the ]. | |||
| ] '''Arbitration''' | |||
| A couple of weeks ago you blocked {{User|SuzanneOlsson}} 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. --] (]) 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * The '']'' case has been closed. | |||
| :Topic ban; editor is too close to the subject to edit neutrally, having written a book about it and having a website devoted to it, and continuing to promote a fringe POV unaccepted by serious historians, combined with personal attacks on editors who have tried to explain policy, specifically NOR, FRINGE, UNDUE, RS and V. Please feel free to quote me and link to this edit on ANI, I'm going to bed and won't be available to comment there. ]] 03:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * A case about ] has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023. | |||
| ---- | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| {{center|{{flatlist| | |||
| * ] | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 05:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| == I doubt you've seen this SPI about us == | |||
| }}}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| ]. ] (]) 10:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| -->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)</small>}} | |||
| :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) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Dreamy Jazz@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1146829295 --> | |||
| :Why on earth did they rev/del??? Also, pity I missed this. This is what happens when I take the weekend off, darnit. I miss the really weird and fun stuff. ]] 00:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Happy First Edit Day!== | |||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| == Hi, could you help investigate a potential behavioral issue? == | |||
| {{ombox | |||
| | name = First Edit Day | |||
| 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) | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| :Ack, not tonight (EST) but I can in the morning. ]] 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | imageright = ] | |||
| :What a mess! Of course, the TPM article is a contentious article, and although I have considerable experience on contentious articles I don't think I have ever edited the TPM one. To which I'm inclined at this moment to add, Thank Goodness. It appears to me the charges against you spring more from the frustration the other editor feels over a content dispute than from any actual tendentious edits on your part. IMO, it is best for you to ignore the allegations and proceed with trying to discuss content. Then again, I'm the last person to block anyone for incivility and I rarely even bother if it is serious personal attacks; if the attacks are against me I don't recall ever blocking, or reporting. I find confronting this kind of hostility is difficult to do without escalating the situation. If the situation deteriorates, you may wish to ask another uninvolved admin for a second opinion. As a side note, I noticed a key bit of the content debate was whether to utilize content about something which did not mention the TPM. If a source can be found which ties the event to the TPM, it can be used in the article. Otherwise, it is OR and/or SYNTH to so use it, however "obvious" it may be to the editors of the article. | |||
| | style = border: 2px solid CornflowerBlue; background: linear-gradient(60deg, MistyRose, AntiqueWhite, Ivory, Honeydew, Azure, GhostWhite); | |||
| :You may wish to try a one line statement such as "I reject your allegations, and prefer to keep the topic here on content." and then be done, no matter how much more is said. If you wish, I will attempt a discussion with the other party regarding this. Let me know. ]] 16:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | textstyle = padding: 0.75em; text-align:center; | |||
| ::Yes, I would appreciate your help. — ] 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | plainlinks = yes | |||
| :::Ok, I'll see what I can do. ]] 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | text = <big>'''Happy First Edit Day!'''</big><br />Hi KillerChihuahua! On behalf of the ], I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made and became a Wikipedian! ] (]) 02:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Well, I tried, but it seems that although he has no compunction about posting paragraphs of vague accusations, including three posts to write and copyedit his to me, he can't be arsed to post even one diff, so I advised him to cease with the unsupported accusations. Let me (or another uninvolved admin) know if he starts it up again. ]] 20:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :::::Thank you very much for your help. — ] 20:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society == | |||
| :::::: You're welcome; I hope my efforts ''were'' helpful. ]] 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ] Dear {{PAGENAME}}, | |||
| == Notifications That You've Received a Message, if Not Written on *Your* Talk Page == | |||
| Hey, 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? | |||
| ] (]) 05:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| # If I see it, it's my business. I'm an admin. | |||
| # I watch your page. Learn how at ] ]] 13:19, 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''> — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 14:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Wow, you just insulted me, my r/l husband, Doug, and <s>hen-pecked</s> husbands everywhere. Oh wait... do you speak from experience? There, there.... just because ''you're'' whipped doesn't mean you aren't ''valued''. ]] 14:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: ;-D ... Wait. You're ''r/l'' husband's name is Doug too? OH MY - I do so love irony in life. Actually I did marry very young, but divorced in the late 70s. I've come close to a second try a couple times over the years, but it just never seemed work out. I would like the chance to be a <s>hen-pecked</s> good husband again, but with each passing year I figure it's less likely to happen. Personally I very much admire a strong and intelligent woman (must also have a great sense of humor; given my twisted way of thinking), so being "whipped" wouldn't really be a problem. (I have selective hearing issues anyway .. lol) Anyway - please convey to Mr. Chihuahua that I meant no offense. Have a good one KC. Cheers and "woof" — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 14:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, you turkey, you insulted my r/l husband ''and'' Doug, not my r/l husband Doug. :-P Sorry your attempt to become hen-pecked didn't work out for you. :-( Mr.Chihuahua doesn't do Misplaced Pages, so he'll never even know you insulted him AND called him "Doug". So all is well. ]] 15:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I did a double-take on "your husband Doug" as well...which was especially puzzling, since I know someone who claims to be your r/l husband, and his name's not Doug :) ] (]) 15:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Please comment on ] == | |||
| Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the ] on ''']'''. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see ]. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from ].'' <!-- Template:FRS message -->— ] (]) 17:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 18 February 2013 == | |||
| <div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-02-18}} | |||
| </div><!--Volume 9, Issue 7--> | |||
| <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> | |||
| * ''']''' | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] (]) 18:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0465 --> | |||
| == Respond == | |||
| Hey, hey. :) I ], but i didnt want to be too broad about this, as it is mostly unrelated to the request in question. Anyway, all best... --<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]<sup>]</sup></span> 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == SuzanneOlson == | |||
| Hi, 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, ]] 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent, that's how I read it, and that's what I said on her talk page. Just wanted to verify. Thanks - ]] 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Nado158 == | |||
| Dear 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--] (]) 14:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| # I've read all your comments. | |||
| # You should keep your discussion about this on ] and not here. | |||
| # This isn't about "punishing" you; it is about protecting the encyclopedia. | |||
| ]] 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == AE Nado158 == | |||
| I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the ''']''', an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Misplaced Pages project for twenty years or more. ​ | |||
| With regard to the exact parameters of the proposed topic ban, please see my comment at ]. --] (]) 15:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :The parameters are already set by ARBMAC; ''The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia case and the ] case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Misplaced Pages, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted.'' - Kosovo includes ''The locus of the dispute is Kosovo and closely related articles, chiefly regarding the characterization of its constitutional status and relationship to Serbia.'' - and it is, as you can see, very broad. We can probably specify when we close, I usually do, but then I'm not sure I'll be the one who closes. ]] 15:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: OK, if you mean the entire topic area, that's fine. DeltaQuad mentioned just one particular part, and when you replied to them, you didn't discuss that bit. --] (]) 17:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: We generally tack on the words "broadly construed" when topic banning, and we construe fairly broadly. Back in Oct 2011 I ] on a ] topic ban "''You joked about bird articles in the AE case; I tell you now, if you change a category on a bird article from Birds of England to Birds of Ireland, I'm not at all sure it wouldn't be covered. You need to edit something that has nothing to do with Ireland or the Troubles in any conceivable way.''" You can also read archives of AE to see how it is applied. ]] 18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Hmm. Does this wording then mean they're prevented from writing about e.g. Serbian football clubs? That would seem excessive. IOW we've gone from too narrow to too broad. --] (]) 22:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Yes, it does. They cannot write about anything Serbian, whether football clubs or terrorists or history or anything else. That is what a broadly construed topic ban ''is''. They are free to write about other things. Very little of Misplaced Pages is Serbian and Kosovo related. Hit "random article" a few dozen times, and I'll be surprised if you hit a single article which is covered under the topic ban. ]] 22:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I know that we have the ArbCom rulings to cover it, but the point I was trying to make is that including the whole topic area seems excessive for one article in the topic area when there are articles in that area that the user can contribute to properly. I was looking for something a little smaller than all of Serbia topic ban, because I didn't see enough to feel that the whole topic area ban was justified. -- ] ] 02:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Ditto. --] (]) 10:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: I disagree, obviously. Here is the issue (and I speak as someone who has been at AE quite a bit): If we do not outline a broadly construed topic area, then the editors often skirt the fringes, still repeating the behavior which led to the topic ban. Let's look at sports, for example. How easy would it be to slip in an ethnic slur, or bias, such as we saw in the AE evidence? No, we make it broad for a very good reason. This is standard practice. If he does well and learns to keep his personal bias out of articles, and not misuse sources, he'll come back to editing this topic area with the knowledge he needs to avoid further sanctions. This generally does not happen in topic areas which the editor has shown he has very strong personal views about, which he has not kept out of his editing. He can learn this in topic areas which have nothing to do with the problem topic area much better. If he merely chooses articles from ], he can edit ten hours a day and still have work to do before the year is out. He can edit. But in my experience, allowing leeway leads to troubles. I prefer to avoid that. ]] 20:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :May I edit at least sport articles please?Thank you--] (]) 20:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)--] (]) 19:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: Not Serbian/Albanian/Kosovo, no. You can edit other sports articles, but not if any of the players are from the restricted topic area, and not if the article touches on the topic area in any way. ]] 20:46, 23 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.--] (]) 21:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no other interest area here and I had to wait a year to get back to improve Serbian sporting articles or update.--] (]) 21:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You probably should have thought about that before you transgressed our policies so seriously and ended up at AE. Sports can be very controversial, especially if ethnic slurs or source misuse is involved. Tell you what: Pick any two redlinks (nothing which violates your topic ban) from ] and write articles on the subjects. I expect actual articles, not stubs. Then come back and see me in two months, and we'll discuss it again. ]] 21:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Best regards, ] (]) 02:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:Your recent edits == | |||
| {{clear}} <!-- Template:Twenty Year Society invitation --><span id="The_Herald:1719628742029:User_talkFTTCLNKillerChihuahua" class="FTTCmt">— ] (]) 02:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| I already left a message to Bishonen, asking if the correct word was the one Bishonen applied, Bishonen said yes. The problem is solved. (] (]) 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| :No, the problem is not solved unless you actually read ENGVAR and cease edit warring over UK.US spelling differences. It is '''not''' just about that one single word which Bishonen had already told you several times was correct. It is about not edit warring and violating ENGVAR. If you understand that, then yes it is "solved". If you think it's about that one single edit war, then no, it is not solved. ]] 20:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I read ENGVAR, the problem is '''solved'''. (] (]) 22:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| :::And as I've already said, that is only half the issue. Did you also read ]? ]] 22:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes I did ;). (] (]) 23:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)) | |||
| :::Excellent. Now I consider it "solved". :-) ]] 23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ♥. (] (]) 02:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:06, 30 September 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. KillerChihuahua has not edited Misplaced Pages since February 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Userpage | talk | contribs | sandbox | e-mail | shiny stuff 2:19 pm, 8 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 
The Signpost: 20 March 2023
The Signpost: 03 April 2023
Administrators' newsletter – April 2023News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Happy First Edit Day!
Invitation to join the Twenty Year Society I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Twenty Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Misplaced Pages project for twenty years or more. Best regards, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) |
||||||||||
