:::No, its [[WP:EW|edit warring]] to insert [[WP:V|unsourced]] opinion, which is not good but also not vandalism. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
:::No, its [[WP:EW|edit warring]] to insert [[WP:V|unsourced]] opinion, which is not good but also not vandalism. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
::::Ok fair enough thanks for the help [[User:Marknutley|mark nutley]] ([[User talk:Marknutley|talk]]) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.
Wikimedia Foundation
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 ( ~~~~ )
And I still see people ranking their personal interpretation of WP:CIVIL above everything else. Above NPOV. Above V. Above NOR.
Oh wait, those are the Simplified Ruleset, aren't they? The basis for all of Wikipedia?
Silly me. Here I thought we were here to write an encyclopedia, and that while a civil environment furthers that aim, the Civility Police are generally counter-indicated by the chilling effect and escalation to which their actions usually lead.
I happened across this today and remembered a note you'd sent me a while back.
A poem
There's way too much red tape on wiki
Sometimes that tape is rather sticky
You wouldn't be wrong, not by a particle,
To say we each should write an article
Instead of having to engage
In drafting one more policy page
Which (we lose sight of this) is very
Clearly something ancillary
Can't we all straddle this wide fence
With just a bit of common sense?
—(excerpted from a longer piece by Newyorkbrad)
Please stop referring to Wikipedia as "wiki". "Wiki" is either a Hawaiian word meaning "quick" or a type of software. Wikipedia is a wiki. It would be like me referring to you, randomly, as "editor" and expecting everyone to know I meant you, specifically. Its nonsense. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems there's a bit of leeway there. Out of respect for you and unknown editors who may object to the apocope "Wiki," I have since made a point of using "WP." However, you may want to consider that many people quite innocuously say "Wiki." Regards, Yopienso (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. First of all, it's synechdoche, not really apocope. And second... seriously? You've been chewing on this picayune perceived slight for more than a month? Actually, never mind, you'll fit in perfectly here. MastCellTalk03:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martin note
You are experienced enough to know you are warring on the Martin article, I have reverted to the version that has been stable for three months, I have also asked you more than once that if you want to change the article that you would please ask for a RFC and get some community opinion, also please stop calling my good faith NPOV edits about a man that I have no personal opinion about at all as a whitewash. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if you're going to warn people about edit-warring, you (a) need to do it before you hit 3 reverts, and (b) you can't do it in conjunction with a revert. Or you just look silly. Guettarda (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely one of the all-time best names. My purpose, however, is to provide you with this link about Andy Martin, which I also included in the eponymous talk page. Flatterworld (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seen and commented on, thank you. As the only person who holds the rather bizarre view that what a person is notable for should not be in the lead if its not a Happy Thing is Rob, and all others agree that it should be in the lead, and he has, rather than showing any inclination to work with fellow editors has instead turned this into a series of personal attacks on me, do you think an editor Rfc is indicated? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) I'm a little concerned that the AE concerning Supreme, Verx, and myself are merging w/ the one concerning Gatoclass. I'm worried some of us might miss your Supreme or Verx might miss the fact that you are commenting about them on a different AE.
2) Following your comments, I hope it will be noted that I've already apologized for the "Zionist Lobby" comment.
I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but otherwise it is unclear that there are no admin conduct Rfcs. I'm an ooold admin, this is how it was when I was a noob, back when we had horses and buggys. Feel free to revert me. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So old that maybe your memory is going? =) This is a relatively (since Nov 2009) new way of publicizing RFCs... I'm not even sure separating admins and editors is necessary, but I don't think that just showing an empty list is really necessary. Otherwise we'd have to show the empty bot list too... Which I've just unhidden. Notice the extraneous vertical space it takes up at WP:ANI... –xenotalk16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) Now, now, you young whippersnapper! Show some respect for your elders... err, what were we talking about? Oh yes! Was formerly the practice, when such semi-headings were used, to leave them in place. This facilitates ease of use for the people adding to the lists, later - who may not realize such headings even are used, and also provides at-a-glance confirmation that the category, to use the term loosely and in a non-WP manner, is empty. As I said, arguments can be made either way, feel free to revert me - and feel free to have to Clerk everyone who adds an Rfc to that page. You might want to add to the instructions, if you're planning to leave it off the page. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really that bothered one way or the other. Again, I think it should all be lumped into one and none of this "Admin RFC" and such. An RFCU by any other name... –xenotalk16:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
+ Dang, I forgot this was mucking up ANI these days too. Not to mention all those other Noticeboard pages which have grown. You know it used to be AN, right? No ANI, no BLPN, no NPOVN, etc. Then htere was that brief stint with the Sanctions Noticeboard, that was a CF.... come sit by the fire, sonny, I'll tell you stories of Olden Days. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am under i 1r restriction, is it ok to break this if an article is vandalized like it is in that diff? I am also unable to bring an RFE against WMC so am stuck for what to do here mark nutley (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a content dispute, and the second is not vandalism, let alone "blatant" vandalism, which usually looks more like this[5]. I suggest you attempt to work this out on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice20:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering the the comment made by wmc one right-wing(nut) US senator I have been doing rc patrol so i know what massive vandalism like that diff is :), but is inserting something which is pure POV with no refs and then reinserting it after it was removed not vandalism? Cheers mark nutley (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
