User talk:Killiondude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello there: Pep Guardiola[edit]

Hello there. I am an American, a park ranger who lives in Alaska. This User:Walter Görlitz user, as you know, does not take kind to any editing on projects which he considers his. I've attempted to add useful information-- being interested in language and geography-- only to have been take things out and quite nastily. I've pressed on with him, because with regard to Talk:Pep Guardiola, as you'll see, I do not believe he's answered the question as to why accurate and encyclopedic information should be removed. He could have a reason, he just doesn't seem to think that responding on the matter at hand with regard to this article is ... necessarily. I'm wondering if you have any advice. He seems to think I'm a Catalan nationalist. Yeah. No. I'm a park ranger from Alaska. I'm an American. No Spanish or Catalan background. It's very confusing to me. I've worked on controversial topics. This isn't one of them.RangerRichard (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read all the text on the talk page because there is a lot. I did some skimming and you make a good argument to include that specific information. Also, just because there is "precedent" on articles doesn't mean all articles on a given topic must be uniform in content/aesthetics, etc. For example, look at Good Articles or Featured Articles and you'll see that they vary based on the main author(s) and the team that does the review of the article in the GA/FA process. With this specific editor in mind, you've shown a lot of patience. I commend you on that. He's not easy to work with, and when you call him on it he deflects and refers to "comment on content, not on the contributor". While this is indeed a policy, so is working well with others, which he struggles with.
While not easy, I think it's important to take the high road. In this case, you might comment on the relevant WikiProject talk pages to ask for more thoughts/input to gain consensus. While this obviously takes more time and discussion, it won't allow him to unilaterally revert edits. Killiondude (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. I feel as if I'm telling tales out of school, but I recently found this on my talk page as a result of what I wrote to you. Again, I don't know what do. But this is how I responded. Is such a thing a basis for being block?

Recent Notice on my User Page[edit]

November 2014[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Killiondude. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stating that I consider any article on Wikipedia "mine" is a vile notion. Don't do it again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Walter, I alerted you to a thank you I received from someone unknown to me, an admin. I have no idea why he contacted me, except apparently he say something on your page which I wrote. I think I explained to him the crux our disagreement on Pep Guardiola, which centers around your insistence on putative "consistency," and my suggestion that geographic data in infoboxes be based on the specific needs of the article in question. This is not an attack on you. It's an explanation of the struggle that we are having, and frankly, given the many controversial topics I have worked on, I am at a loss to understand why this, of all things, is something where I am unable to work with you in a constructive way. You do very much have a proprietary notion about articles important to you. I never used the word "vile" or anything akin to that to describe you or my belief that this is the case, so please do not put words in my mouth. What's astounding to me is that continue to use the imperative mood, rather than to make reasonable requests, and to explain the basis of your requests to me. Without engaging in such explanations, and dealing with people in such a way, I cannot move forward with you and we will remain at an impasse. Do understand, however, that while confronting other people in the past may have run them off, and you may have simply gotten your way, I will continue to press diligently forward with what I believe to be a reasonable perspective to which you have offered no response with regard to the individual article in question. I don't mean to say that I cannot be convinced that you are right, I simply mean to say that you have not addressed the geographic needs of *this article* in any meaningful and thoughtful way, expect by means of "suggested" guidelines which as you well know are not followed in a myriad of circumstances. RangerRichard (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How tedious. In any case, it seems you copied some off topic discussion to the article talk page. What's best is to focus on the content (what goes on the actual article) and not on the motivation behind the editor in question's actions. I understand that you probably didn't know this wasn't apropos. I think an appropriate goal would be to allow the editor the space to do right, otherwise they'll have plenty of rope. Killiondude (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Former Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe[edit]

I re-created this category which i understand you deleted some years ago. I think that there is now enough material there to warrant its re-creation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I had only deleted it before because it was empty. You're were completely fine to recreate it once it was populated. Thank you for the note. Have a great day. Killiondude (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


An editor named John from Idegon questioned my use of that account, so I retired it never to be used again.The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

I've escaped to your talk page because mine is too long[edit]

But really. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]


I need you to provide me a copy of the deleted article on Cloverton (band), so I can see what was done on that article previously. Their new Christmas EP charted on three Billboard charts.The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

They're definitely notable now. It seems you have it at User:The Cross Bearer/Cloverton (band). Killiondude (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]