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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself.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.)

Puppy!

Hey hey! Bishonen | talk 23:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

Awww, sorry to hear you has stuffies, please don't be upset by harsh comments from person who seems to be the sort to pat you on the back in front of your face, and cut your throat behind your back. You has true frendz here, dave souza, talk 20:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Shantu berry buch. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For your username, what you've posted on your userpage (including but not limited to the 'AGF is not a suicide pact' and the Abraham Lincoln quotation), and just on general principles. I considered using the Surreal Barnstar but decided I preferred this one, mostly because it's supposed to rain soon.

Thank you so much!!!! I will treasure this! KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
• If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

• You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Ashbery

No worries. Best wishes for the weekend. Spangle (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you as well! KillerChihuahuaAdvice 13:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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)