Misplaced Pages

This is a Misplaced Pages user discussion page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.

Talk to the Puppy To leave a message on this page, click here. If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there. *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )

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

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

• How not to respond when an administrator warns you not to harass another editor:

  Thank you. Mr. WikiCop. Now it would be nice if you weren't being so persnickety about meaningless things like this, and instead help out on new-page patrol to clear out the endless stream of pure vandalism and attack pages, articles about bands that were formed last week, and spam of all flavors. If you don't want to help, then get out of the way while the rest of us get down to work. (It would also help if you addressed the issue of borderline spam in the article that started this whole affair.)

Deletion of Skanderbeg's review

Hi there. The reason why I brought for deletion Talk:Skanderbeg/GA1 is that this user (Euzen) inappropriately took upon review this article which I had brought to GA last month , without stating that it is upon review there. Note that his number of edits was around 20 (twenty) when he started to do a review on a very complex article, such as Skanderbeg. When he started to make a mess in the review, I responded to his concerns and asked some questions while letting him know about it . Euzen not only completely ignored my comments but deleted them . This was disruptive and I asked him to revert himself : In the meantime I retired the nomination , it's too early anyways, there is lots of writing, copy editing and referencing to be done. I asked for a speedy deletion because the person is deleting my comments, completely ignoring me and most likely he is a sock anyways. In fact I would like to ask you, how do I go about asking an SPI: I've never filed one: And I have no clue whom to ask for a checkuser. --Sulmues 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot simply go on a fishing expedition for a sock. If you have no editor you think Euzen is a sock of, then its a waste of time to file a sock report. However, removing your talk pages posts is serious: warn with templates {{subst:uw-tpv1}} thru uw-tpv4, each time linking to the dif of him removing or re-factoring a post - this would be new posts, not ones he's changed int he past. If he's been warned before, skip ahead to the appropriate number. If he persists, then post on AN/I - be sure to provide difs of each removal or re-factoring he's done, plus difs of the warnings/attempts to talk to him about it that you and others have done. Let me know if you have questions or feel this is not addressing the issue. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I warned. About the SPI, that's exactly what I was concerned with. However, now that I have retired the nomination of the article, shouldn't the page by default be deleted? The review was hastily done and under heavy conflicts. --Sulmues 19:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of questions: you nominated the article for GA and then withdrew, is that correct? KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, but what's the second queston? --Sulmues 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Second question is, are submissions normally archived if the submiter withdraws the nom? I'd check and see how precedent is - we rarely delete such pages, but I don't spend any time around GA so I'm not sure precisely what their procedure is. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about who would have the rights to be a reviewer. I have seen an article fail GA and then realized the the reviewer was a sock. Take a look at Enver Hoxha's review (Talk:Enver_Hoxha/GA1): If anybody can be a reviewer, then the page should not be deleted, but the current reviewer is not behaving like an experienced wikipedian, which is what a reviewer should normally be. Besides technically Euzen never started the review, because he should have notified the community by putting the entry "on hold" or "under review" which was not done as per this version, one edit before I retired the nomination. As a result I don't think he can claim he ever seriously reviewed it for the two above reasons: never formally put the article on hold or under review, and deleted comments to his review. That's why I ask for deletion of that page. --Sulmues 21:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please look through the deleted history and find out who created it? It was created and deleted twice, so I figured that whoever recreated it could have been a sock of the original creator. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, close - but even more blatant. It was created both times by the same user, User:Freshbrownies - who apparently has done nothing else. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 01:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

KillerChihuahua, I've proposed some minor tweaks to reduce the length of the text. Could you drop by and have a look? --JN466 21:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks, brt. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by, and for your comments. --JN466 15:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: NPOV discussion

With respect to this section - Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#.27equal_validity.27_warning - you still have not provided a valid reason for reinstating this section or issuing me a warning. I'll give you a day or so more to justify your actions, but if you refuse, I will be forced to begin a discussion about having you de-sysopped. That will probably fail, granted (we both already know the list of editors who will spring to your defense, and they will probably prove sufficient to prevent a consensus forming even if there are a number of other editors who agree with me), but I think it's important abuse of sysop powers (even mild as this is) gets appropriate community attention.

This is your choice: do the right thing and make a reasoned argument for the section's continued inclusion, or don't, and we'll take this mess up in other arenas. --Ludwigs2 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not in that fight. You made a significant change to a key policy and were edit warring to try and make it stick; I restored the consensus version and warned you. Your transparent attempts to reframe this as though I were involved will hold no water. You're being disruptive and edit warring and I was nice enough not to simply block you. Posturing and threatening me now is not helping your case with me, Ludwigs. I am patient but my patience is not endless. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, for one thing, there cannot be any abuse of sysop tools here as there was no use of sysop tools at all. Reverting and warning are not sysop tools. Secondly, when I had a look at that discussion, it became clear to me that you are indeed cruising for trouble with your current attitude of "I won't drop this until my issues are addressed". Some people did address your arguments (arguing they were not correct), Jayron, for example. Carrying out a one-user struggle against a section of policy in a hostile manner (yes, it is hostile, even if only mildly so) is just not going to go anywhere and, if you continue to edit war (and possibly even if not), will be disruptive and will cause undesired results, I can pretty much guarantee that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Heimstern:That will be something for the greater community to decide, if it comes to that. To my mind, sysops get held to a higher standard, meaning that they either need to take care to examine the issue properly or take care to avoid appearing to take sides (that's why we have that 'always protected on the wrong version' joke). I can deal with petulant reverts from normal editors (defined as reverts where people lack the time to explain their actions, but find the time make threats/warnings/insults) because they have no power to enforce their petulance. But KC didn't do due diligence this time: he reverted to his personally preferred version - it's not like I haven't had this discussion with him before - without reading the discussion and with obvious misstatements (no, KC, you'd know it wasn't the 'consensus version' if you'd bothered to read the talk page), and then backing it up with a formal warning. That's sketchy behavior for a sysop.

Personally I'm still holding out that you (KC) will give a decent explanation of your actions in talk, which will solve the problem admirably from my perspective. Is that likely?

plus, Heimstern, you're failing to understand the process of consensus. "I don't like it" comments are not reasons, they're reactions, and "I didn't hear that" behaviors are generally to be avoided by everyone. I may be hard-nosed, but I always listen to reason, I always try to use reason, and I always expect reason from others. I do realize that can be aggravating to people in some circumstances, but do you actually have a meaningful objection to it? If so, tell me what, because I am currently under the impression that wikipedia discussions ought to be resolved to reasoned discourse. --Ludwigs2 16:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there KillerChihuahua! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC).