Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
And you're not talking about removing an album cover, so please stop with the false analogies. Take this off to the article talk page. I'm not in your edit war; you're arguing with the wrong party - and for what its worth, you are also not persuasive. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And you're not talking about removing an album cover, so please stop with the false analogies. Take this off to the article talk page. I'm not in your edit war; you're arguing with the wrong party - and for what its worth, you are also not persuasive. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:I acknowledge your request at Talk:Intelligent design. It will be several hours before I am able to comply. When I can, I will post here the rebuttal you asked for. Best wishes. --] (]) 16:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:I acknowledge your request at Talk:Intelligent design. It will be several hours before I am able to comply. When I can, I will post here the rebuttal you asked for. Best wishes. --] (]) 16:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::Please in the meantime see ] where two other admins have supported my actions. Basically, I intervened (admin hat) to warn editors who were inserting nonfree material whose legitimacy had been challenged, and for which there was no demonstrable consensus in article talk, after Damiens raised the matter at AN/I. At that time I would have had no problem in blocking if I felt the situation demanded it. I then made one revert on the article myself, after which I recused myself from taking admin action on the matter, as I felt that by the very strict interpretation of ] that I hold myself too, I would no longer be considered strictly uninvolved. You will note that I did not after that point warn anyone that ''I'' would block them, for this reason. I can search out diffs if you seriously want me to, or you can check for yourself from my contribs that everything I say here is true. It shouldn't be too difficult. If you insist that I provide diffs, I won't be able to do it until late this evening PST as I am at work. The problem as I see it is that there is a group of editors who have so closely identified with this controversial (and decent quality) article to such an extent that they can't see they are supporting or enabling a policy violation in maintaining decorative fair use images. The question remains, what are we going to do about it? --] (]) 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, I'm honestly finding your comments more disruptive than anyone elses at the moment. You're either not involved in the discussion or the edit war, or you are. You can't have it both ways. Either stop pretending to have some kind of "uninvolved" status, or stop commenting. ] (]) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, I'm honestly finding your comments more disruptive than anyone elses at the moment. You're either not involved in the discussion or the edit war, or you are. You can't have it both ways. Either stop pretending to have some kind of "uninvolved" status, or stop commenting. ] (]) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:Further, I'm talking about removing a book cover. A book cover is pretty similar in its purpose to an album cover, and, according to policy, should be treated in the same way. I'm trying to demonstrate that, just because an action is unpopular, does not make it any less necessary or policy compliant, and nor does it suddenly mean that trying to enforce it against a group of enraged regulars is a "content dispute". ] (]) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:Further, I'm talking about removing a book cover. A book cover is pretty similar in its purpose to an album cover, and, according to policy, should be treated in the same way. I'm trying to demonstrate that, just because an action is unpopular, does not make it any less necessary or policy compliant, and nor does it suddenly mean that trying to enforce it against a group of enraged regulars is a "content dispute". ] (]) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
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.
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 ( ~~~~ )
KC - I like you a lot. I have a lot of respect for you. I believe in most of what you say, and have faith in the rest. However, I believe that the RfC being prepped will only escalate a conflict that can simply be resolved through communication, direct talk, and simplistic negotiation. I only see drama resulting from standard Wiki procedures because people put more faith in the cold system that allows for opportunists to push them the wrong way than in direct conversation and negotiation.
I'm not in the position to advise you. I have no clout to support me, nor do I have a position to stand on. You can and probably should just ignore this anyway. I apologize in advance if I have wasted your time in posting this. Sincerely - Ottava.Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that one of the problems is the level of rhetoric. Use of terms like "unacceptable", "problematic", "abuse", etc, are terms of finality and ultimate consequences. What we should do is focus on future actions and compromises instead of worrying about who did what problem when. ArbCom measures are, after all, preventative, not punitive. Everything here is preventative. I think that you and Elonka need a mediator of some kind to serve as a way to lower the levels of rhetoric and get straight to the important matters. What matters is that there are problems with pages, that there are sanctions put about because of a concern, and that we need to make sure that people stay on task and try to avoid the problems. Language seems to get in the way of that and I think the language is leading to a lot of bruised egos on both sides. I've been called every name out there by many, many people and have been dragged about as Misplaced Pages's Satan for over 7 months now. If you need a go between who doesn't care about being insulted and is willing to listen to both sides regardless of the abuse, then don't hesitate to ask. I would like to see it in which both sides are respected and both sides are able to come to a point in which the situation is toned down, even if it would require that I, instead of others, became the object of hatred.Ottava Rima (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, to the best of my knowledge none of those terms were used in the discussions Elonka and I had today, altho I'm not going to search for them. I'm not seeing your point. She started a page; she and I edited most of the day; and mid-discussion she deleted the whole thing, with only one thing resolved - that I hadn't wheel warred. I don't want you to subject yourself to abuse; and more to the point, I'm not sure what good it would do. KillerChihuahua06:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm referring to the back and forth between both sides that has been happening for a while, not specifically you and her. I'm focusing on the big picture right now. :) But yes, if I can step in between you two to make sure that you don't feel that -she- is attacking you and she doesn't feel that -you- are attacking her, I will gladly take any of the heat and attacks from either side.Ottava Rima (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to help her understand policy and that she's too involved in ps articles to be helpful there, and she's ignoring concerns and attacking me. I really really don't see where you can help. KillerChihuahua16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
See views that you are going after her and you view that she is going after you. Regardless of the reality, merits, etc, there is a mutual feeling that the other is opposed. It would probably be best if someone serves as a medium between you two as the interactions are to a tense level and communication is strained. We all make mistakes, and we are all imprecise. We also have opinions that other people aren't able to keep up with for whatever reasons. Its human. Sometimes we need someone who is removed a bit to be able to filter things out and pursue interests. An advocate of sorts? A mediator? Whatever word. I feel that it would be more appropriate right now.Ottava Rima (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently I think SV is having a go. At least eight experienced editors currently are making attempts on her talk page with variations of Disengage from the pseudoscience articles. Others have tried as well. She is not listening. KillerChihuahua23:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a last comment then I will leave - above is "disengage from the pseudoscience articles". Perhaps this could be applied to multiple people involved? Sure, some people may unfairly target OM, but everyone jumping in will only hurt OM in the long run. It seems like there are a lot of invested editors on both sides over a simple dispute that should easily be solved if it is taken just to the correct forum and dealt with normally. Regardless, my offer to help is out there. You do not wish it. I will stop persisting with it. I do not see this amounting to any good and just leading to a larger drama filled process that will lead to ArbCom with them seeing that there was an escalation over something that originates in a (minor) wrongdoing by the original subject (OrangeMarlin) that could have been dealt with better.Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
And this didn't start with OM; that's one incident among many, and not the beginning of the saga. Read Risker's comments on Rfar. KillerChihuahua00:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for adding, as I said I wouldn't - just a little note - the "involved" above was meant to talk about it being far beyond just OM and the content disputes and s iblossoming into other problems involving many editors.Ottava Rima (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
No need to apologise, but do understand - Elonka's singling out of OrangeMarlin did not start this - the list started the furor, and that was well before the warning. I'm agreeing that its grown. If Elonka had listened to the 20 or so editors who told her the list was a bad idea, and removed it, we wouldn't be here. But instead she said her list ws protected by the SV ruling about AE. Well, ArbCom has told her it isn't, now, and she told evryone else they were wrong, but ArbCom she has said she will reluctantly listen to - the phrase she used was "willing to respect" - she says she thinks they are wrong, too, btw - and that's the issue. OM and ScienceApologist are just more symptoms of Elonka pursuing editors unevenly and not seeing that she is involved and should step back. Now how the heck do you think being a mediator is going to help? Go help SlimVirgin, also trying to talk sense to Elonka. Go help MastCell, also trying to talk sense into Elonka. Don't help B; he made a couple of clear statements and has given up this lost cause. Ottiva, the attacks Elonka is making on OM and SA and now me are simply because we have all disagreed with her on some point or other and she is attacking us. That's it. Except they disagreed on articles, and I've told her flat out she's wrong about the policy she's citing to back up her little ax-swinging forays. And guess what? She is wrong, but instead of saying Oh heck, ArbCom has spoken, guess I was mistaken - she says Oh heck, KC is a wheel warrer and an edit warrer and blah blah blah. Nonsense, and transparent attacks because of her ego. KillerChihuahua13:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Outdent - (sorry again) - reading the above makes me feel that a simple solution is having someone balance out with Elonka, or replace Elonka, in the matter. Nothing more or less.Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose "balance out" Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. If there is a problem with party a (not stating there is in this case), the solution is not introducing problematic party (-a). It's either getting rid of "problematic" or asking party a to recuse. Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hipocrite - "getting rid" of someone is against the "Not a Battleground" philosophy, and your level of rhetoric is exactly contradictory to that. We are all supposed to try and work together. That is what consensus means. KC does not hate any user, and she has enough good faith to believe that anyone can contribute as long as the system is fairly structured and that people are willing to treat each other with respect. I am sure that she would welcome such a system as the appropriate solution and that I am sure that she does not wish to "get rid" of any user in such a destructive kind of way. Her RfC appears to be frustration at a broken system and not animosity towards another.Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
At no point do I refer to getting rid of someone. I refer to "getting rid of problematic" - that would leave "party a." I am sorry that you misunderstood me. As such, I ignore the rest of your comment as not valid. Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(after EC) I'm not sure I follow your entire statement, Hipocrite - although I have asked Elonka to recuse from pseudoscience articles and explained my reasoning (to a limited degree, I didn't want it to be an essay.) I believe that is what SV is asking as well. Elonka seems resistant to the idea that a) she is perceived as involved and biased, and b) whether she is or not, that harms her effectiveness. Combine that with her unique interpretations of policies, which she also rejects feedback on, and it is a problem. Regarding balance, I think if there is a problem article which needs admin attention, whether covered under AE or not, it can often help to have more than one admin involved. I'm not sure that's what you meant by that, though. And I'm not sure what Ottava meant either, so I'm unable to comment intelligently on that. KillerChihuahua16:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand Hipocrite, Ottava. If someone is causing harm, they are indeed "gotten rid" of, and this prevents battles. See block, ban, topic ban, and many of the ArbCom remedies. KillerChihuahua16:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the solution is a topic-ban for Elonka. It's a viable option for pseudoscience articles. She's being disruptive. It shouldn't be a big deal for an uninvolved admin to topic-ban her under the AE guidelines, should it? Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
But do we really need blocks or bans? This isn't a run of the mill trolling problem. Its two sides who both think they are right. You might think she is wrong, but you can acknowledge that she at least is acting in the way that she thinks the rules should be interpreted, right? I think it is best if she backs off in terms of not using administrative power, but I feel that all people should be involved in discussions about the matter as a whole. I would like to see multiple people working the enforcement in a way which they discuss with each other before taking action, and any warnings are done directly and personally in a way that would not publicly embarrass someone or be seen as a threat.Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right, its not a trolling problem, and you're right, its "two sides" - sort of like a vandal and everyone who is trying to get them to stop is "two sides" - Ottava, if you cannot be troubled to read the background of this, then really you shouldn't be trying to offer solutions. You clearly are misreading the entire situation and its history, and have been from the beginning, Props for trying to help; but you need to either learn what's going on or recuse yourself from this discussion. All your suggestions have already been tried, multiple times, by multiple people. KillerChihuahua17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read the background. I have discussed this for a long time. The hostility above by Hipocrite and your recent interpretation of my understanding seem to only reinforce my view that you are currently blowing things out of proportion. I do not wish to be attacked any further, and I will withdraw myself permanently from your talk page.Ottava Rima (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I see no hostility by Hipocrite; none whatsoever,a nd further he has a very strong reputation as a very even, calm person. I really fail to see how anyone could "blow out of proportion" simple straightforward facts such as clear misunderstanding of ArbCom decisions, as clarified by ArbCom; clear misunderstanding of the term Wheel war; clear misunderstanding of Edit war; clear and easy to find concerns by muliple editors about Elonka's involvement in Pseudoscience articles. You are viewing a number of long-time respected admins discussing a serious issue, and you see hostility and over-reaction? That is troubling. KillerChihuahua18:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, I like you, and you're a nice guy, but I think you just want everyone to be Happy and Get Along, and that's nice, but not always realistic. When you have a crooked cop beating people up, you remove them from the situation and/or you take away their billyclub. That's not hostile; that's protecting those who are being hit, and the city or town where the beatings are occurring. KillerChihuahua18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
(TO THE LEFT!)(ec) Not to be overly disruptive, but I citation needed the 'fact' that I have such a reputation. I think I get angry and fall off the wheelbarrow to easily oftimes. I can also see where my unclear statement above could be misread to make it seem I wanted to eliminate editors, which I don't. I also believe a topic ban on Elonka is unwarranted. If I were to take the strongest possible stance against Elonka that the evidence could possibly warrant, the most a restriction could read was "please stop enforcing stuff on articles about psuedoscience, broadly interpreted." I do not support such an imposed restriction at this time, and I do not think that the evidence demonstates that the strongest possible stance is appropriate at this juncture. There is a solution to this problem that can and should be reached amicably. (after ec) PS - above analogy is probably overboard. It's just a website! Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah my analogies tend towards the overstated, dunno why. I think my subconscious wants to paint a BIG picture so my listeners/readers get the point. I could try one with hall passes, but it hardly seems worth the trouble. Regarding Elonka, I have been trying to address concerns directly with her; she responded by accusing me of wheel warring, edit warring and so on as I have explained below in this section to Johnny. In other words, classic defensive attack posture. I'm not ruling out topic ban for admin and/or editing; I don't think I'm ruling out anything for consideration at this point. There is a problem; it is not addressed, and it needs to be. And citeneeded? Well, we havent' worked together much (ok, never that I remember) but every time I see you on a talk page, you are calm, rational, measured. Very Wu wei. KillerChihuahua18:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Not yet, and I'd prefer not ever. Synopsis... hrm.
Short synopsis (with disclaimers) of the general backstory at - the last post is the one with the synopsis.
ArbCom is requested to clarify, specifically, is Elonka mistaken that she can cite SV decision and AE and her edits are sacrosanct? (she's mistaken) + Should admins doing AE (such as Elonka) heed feedback they receive (yes)
User:KillerChihuahua/CopyofWork1 and User talk:KillerChihuahua/CopyofWork1 - Elonka deleted these but the conversaion is fairly clear. Only thing resolved was, is Elonka mistaken that Wheel warring denotes any warring by admins? (she is) and is Elonka mistaken in her assertion that KillerChihuahua is guilty of Wheel warring (she is mistaken)
- and that's where it is right now, complete with absurd accusation on two ArbCom statements by Elonka that I have edit warred on ps articles, as well as the same accusation on her user talk page. She didn't like the feedback I gave her, and now she's accusing me of wheel warring and edit warring, and its childish retribution to someone (me) who only ever wanted to get her to understand the ArbCom decisions and policies, and to distance herself from the pseudoscience stuff where she is pursuing similar harassment campaigns against OrangeMarlin and ScienceApologist. She is involved and won't admit it, and she's attacking people on very flimsy grounds. As with OR, I don't see where you can help, although I am open to ideas. KillerChihuahua16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've restored it, but I think you should reconsider the awards project you seem to be trying to get going there. there are a LOT of awards already, and the Ribbon with Star form is fairly specific to the Service set of awards. KillerChihuahua11:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not spending any more energy on it, tbh. I have better ways to spend my time (this is supposed to be a hobby, right?), and am tired of getting flak from it from certain WV folks. --SB_Johnny | 14:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for chipping in there... it will probably be open for a week unless snowballed (most of the sane folks have abandoned the WV project due to the dramas).--SB_Johnny | 16:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
don't be doing this
Don't be leaving stupid messages on my talk page. You are nothing but a simpleton and you don't know who you are dealing with. You have been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.102.139.239 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Please try to avoid uncivil edit summaries. This was unnecessary, especially on a page which is intended to provide advice for new administrators. --Elonka20:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Pointed yes; uncivil, no. Elonka, I've discussed the concept of perception with you and you have failed to get it. However you choose to see your actions, KC is merely highlighting the perceptions of your actions shared by many. Also, warning someone with whom you are in conflict is bad form. Use AN/I instead. •Jim62sch•20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I was civil. Elonka, you were advising new admins to follow in your footsteps with the kind of behavior that has earned you an Rfc, a recall, and I have lost count of how many people telling you your methods at dispute resolution are counter-productive, and you're actually full of enough gall to come here and complain about my perfectly acceptable edit summary? Perspective much? Common sense much? Your DR is at the very least controversial, and far stronger words could be used. Don't go trying to teach new admins your bad habits, please. KillerChihuahua22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I ask for a volountary Everyking/Snowspinner resolution on your part? That is to say, for the time being, you'll simply ignore Elonka completely, I mean. However well founded (or not, he says with a fence-post squarely up his bum) your reasons may be, your evident frustrations are impeding communication.
Please place trust in your fellow editors, and just find something else to do? If there's something that Elonka contributes that you feel simply cannot be ignored, you can always place a note on my talk, or a subpage I'll watch. I'm offering quasi-defact-mediation here, mate.
fyi, I had the school pages watchlisted from their inception, and her addition showed on my watchlist. Not sure if that makes any difference to you, but there it is. KillerChihuahua03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Redacted
I've just altered a signed comment of yours, attempting to decrease heat. Please consider carefully before reverting. - brenneman01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries - I was going to do that myself, got called away from the pc. Thanks, and thank you for your courtesy in leaving me this note here. KillerChihuahua03:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Could use your eyes here
I think it's safe to assume you're not likely to have much of an opinion on this, but this has been going on for a month or so now and could use some monitoring: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)#section_break. I'm not perceived to be neutral (though frankly I don't care much... this sort of thing is why we have redirects IMHO). --SB_Johnny | 14:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
oh dear. I do have an opinion; I'm missing why people are arguing to be wrong. I have far too strong an opinion about this to be unbiased, sorry. If you want someone to mediate between those who know what they are talking about and the ignorant masses, you'll have to look elsewhere, sorry. KillerChihuahua17:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you've neutrally contributed to it in the past, I thought you might want to look in once more on the article's present state and current RfC. (That is, if you have the time... you seem to have a lot on your plate.) arimareiji (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thank you
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikiversity project on Misplaced Pages and the 2008 US elections
Hi, sorry to read above that you aren't feeling well. I can totally understand you not being able to spend time here until you are feeling better. I would like your opinion on this and please feel free to take your time as it is in no way urgent. I came across an editor user:Naegele who seems to be advertising himself. He is adding entries about books and articles he's written to a variety of articles. Though these types of edits are concerning, it seems that he has also added an article about himself to Misplaced Pages. To me it reads a lot like an ad, ie: lots of links to books he's published. Anyways I thought I would bring this to the attentions of someone like you with more knowledge about whether things here are hokey or not. It just doesn't look right when I saw his contibutions and checked a few of them. Here is a sample of some of the difs I just looked at; an article he wrote, an article he wrote about himself, here is an article Naelgele wrote but then he also adds his own personal website to it. You can check all of this out with his contibutions. This all seems over the top with WP:COI along with I'm sure other policy problems. When you feel up to it, would you mind taking a look. I could be very wrong here but to me something just doesn't look right here? Thanks, and feel better soon, --CrohnieGal12:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
He will almost certainly re-create it; in which tag for speedy using G11 (advert) and/or A7 (nn). If that is declined, list on Afd and let me know. Sorry for the brevity of this reply; I honestly don't mean to be rude and hop you understand. KillerChihuahua15:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey no problem, I totally understand not feeling well so don't worry. I didn't expect you to get to this today. As for him getting the notice today on his talkpage, there shouldn't be a problem because his other stuff he added about himself he was told about COI and that it was inappropriate. Hopefully this will take care of the matter. Thanks for your quick reply. If there is a problem about this please pop over to my talk page because I too didn't notice the date on his talk page about it. I don't know anything about how to speedy delete or any of that as I have never done it so I don't understand how to. I am very limited on my knowledge here do to the meds I take for my own medical issues. That is why I brought it to someone I thought would know how to handle this, you! :) Thanks again, feel better soon, --CrohnieGal18:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
First, I too am sorry that you are not feeling well, and hope that you feel better. Second, I have read the comments of User:Crohnie above, and they need to be addressed, respectfully. The changes to the following pages were made to insure their accuracy, completeness and to reflect what actually happened in history: an article he wrote, here is an article Naelgele wrote but then he also adds his own personal website to it, contibutions. Third, nowhere on the "Violence against women" page does it reflect that approximately 2 million women were raped by the Soviets at the end of WWII, in the largest mass rape in history. Fourth, nowhere on the "Violence" and "Mass murder" pages do they reflect the fact that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million men, women and children—his own countrymen; and that Mao Tse-tung was directly responsible for an estimated 30-40 million deaths between 1958 and 1960. These are colossal omissions; they are not merely minor oversights. Fifth, you or User:Crohnie might argue that I should provide the original sourcing for my article; however, with due respect for both of you, I do not have the time to go back and do so, because the files are in dead storage. I assure both of you that it is totally accurate, inter alia, because one group representing the victims contacted me and praised me for writing the article. Sixth, the changes to the Greenspan page involved another article of mine in the American Banker, which is also cited to give readers an accurate description of what has been happening as the economic tsunami takes its toll globally, which is the result of Greenspan's policies at the Fed that are producing economic chaos and hurting millions of people globally. Seventh, the page in my name is thoroughly sourced; and notwithstanding your comments, we have never been contacted by anyone from Wiki, ever, except with respect to (1) some minor edits that we agreed with, and (2) the requirement for better sourcing/backup to substantiate the entries at the page, which was accomplished by more than 20 footnotes.
Thus, I respectfully request that you promptly reinstate the page as written. Thank you for your attention to this matter; and again, I hope you feel better. naegele (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Naegele Also, the deletion does not show up on either of the following pages: "Misplaced Pages:Deletion today" or "Misplaced Pages:Deletion yesterday," however, we assume that the page has been saved by you. naegele (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)naegele (talk
Hi, I just noticed all of this ending here and commented too. I won't comment anymore unless someone asks. I wasn't aware of any of this since my original comments to you since I too am having some serious medical issues at this time. I did want to drop off a note to you though that I am sorry I dragged you into all of this. I hope you are feeling better, --CrohnieGal11:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Timothy D. Naegele. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. naegele
Re:Intelligent design
I'm not sure where you got the idea I was even close to using my tools to do anything about the issue, but I can assure you that I have no intention of doing that- too many people are out for blood in these kind of "discussions", they would love to have me against the wall. This is a rather odd case- almost any other article on Misplaced Pages, myself and other involved admins could easily remove the images in an "admins enforcing policy" role. Here, because the regulars on the article rather like the images, and because they're used to fighting the good fight to keep rubbish out of the article, we find ourselves as one party in a "content dispute". Frankly, it's tiring, and I think other admins would be better off just stepping in and removing the images, rather than trying to act as referees. J Milburn (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And for crying out loud, its not "enforcing policy" when there is a dispute like you are having. This is fair use, and there are claims all criteria have been met. You can't just say "no they haven't!" and its all over. Consensus, remember that? Enforcing policy is for policy violation, and this violates no policy. KillerChihuahua19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the point I'm making. On any other article, it would be seen as enforcing policy. Here, it has been drawn out into a ridiculously long discussion- it's very clear that at least two of the images are in violation- the others have an argument, but not a great one. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
and I'm disagreeing with your "point". If its an admin enforcing policy on "any other" article, then either a) admins are throwing their weight around to win content disputes or b) there is a misunderstanding of policy or c) both. KillerChihuahua19:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So, every time someone disagrees with the removal of album covers from discographies, its a simple content dispute? The line isn't as hazy as people make out, but the vague wording on the policy leaves room for endless debates and "interpretations". J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And you're not talking about removing an album cover, so please stop with the false analogies. Take this off to the article talk page. I'm not in your edit war; you're arguing with the wrong party - and for what its worth, you are also not persuasive. KillerChihuahua23:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledge your request at Talk:Intelligent design. It will be several hours before I am able to comply. When I can, I will post here the rebuttal you asked for. Best wishes. --John (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Please in the meantime see User talk:John#Your partisan participation in an edit war where two other admins have supported my actions. Basically, I intervened (admin hat) to warn editors who were inserting nonfree material whose legitimacy had been challenged, and for which there was no demonstrable consensus in article talk, after Damiens raised the matter at AN/I. At that time I would have had no problem in blocking if I felt the situation demanded it. I then made one revert on the article myself, after which I recused myself from taking admin action on the matter, as I felt that by the very strict interpretation of WP:UNINVOLVED that I hold myself too, I would no longer be considered strictly uninvolved. You will note that I did not after that point warn anyone that I would block them, for this reason. I can search out diffs if you seriously want me to, or you can check for yourself from my contribs that everything I say here is true. It shouldn't be too difficult. If you insist that I provide diffs, I won't be able to do it until late this evening PST as I am at work. The problem as I see it is that there is a group of editors who have so closely identified with this controversial (and decent quality) article to such an extent that they can't see they are supporting or enabling a policy violation in maintaining decorative fair use images. The question remains, what are we going to do about it? --John (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, I'm honestly finding your comments more disruptive than anyone elses at the moment. You're either not involved in the discussion or the edit war, or you are. You can't have it both ways. Either stop pretending to have some kind of "uninvolved" status, or stop commenting. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Further, I'm talking about removing a book cover. A book cover is pretty similar in its purpose to an album cover, and, according to policy, should be treated in the same way. I'm trying to demonstrate that, just because an action is unpopular, does not make it any less necessary or policy compliant, and nor does it suddenly mean that trying to enforce it against a group of enraged regulars is a "content dispute". J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
