::::Is it the truth that the entire Christian Bible (KJV) includes the word "God"? Is there any way the truth can be "No"? Do you think we should include a RS that says the answer is "No?" Is that the kind of nonsense you want in WP? If it is, then you can help make a horrible Encyclopedia. Truth is not inherently subjective, because there are absolute truths regardless if someone doesn't believe them. If someone doesn't believe the KJV has the word "God" in it, that may be their belief, but that is objectively false and foolish. WP must be about truth to have any worth, even if it's just implying the truth is that these are the various views of the controversial issues. If WP is not about truth, then the site should be closed, and readers should not be led to believe what is written is true (whether statements of fact or statements about different views). Truth matters in life, it matters about God, and it matters on WP. What a an awful excuse for an Encyclopedia if it doesn't care about what is true. I can't convince you, maybe. I can pray for you. You talk about conflating truth and (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,fact) fact...I hope you help make a great Encyclopedia. [[User:WalkerThrough|WalkerThrough]] ([[User talk:WalkerThrough|talk]]) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Is it the truth that the entire Christian Bible (KJV) includes the word "God"? Is there any way the truth can be "No"? Do you think we should include a RS that says the answer is "No?" Is that the kind of nonsense you want in WP? If it is, then you can help make a horrible Encyclopedia. Truth is not inherently subjective, because there are absolute truths regardless if someone doesn't believe them. If someone doesn't believe the KJV has the word "God" in it, that may be their belief, but that is objectively false and foolish. WP must be about truth to have any worth, even if it's just implying the truth is that these are the various views of the controversial issues. If WP is not about truth, then the site should be closed, and readers should not be led to believe what is written is true (whether statements of fact or statements about different views). Truth matters in life, it matters about God, and it matters on WP. What a an awful excuse for an Encyclopedia if it doesn't care about what is true. I can't convince you, maybe. I can pray for you. You talk about conflating truth and (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,fact) fact...I hope you help make a great Encyclopedia. [[User:WalkerThrough|WalkerThrough]] ([[User talk:WalkerThrough|talk]]) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is a verifiable fact that the Bible contains the word "God" and is largely concerned with the doings and pronouncements of the Christian deity. That is all that matters here on Wikipedia; please do not spam my talk page with more polemics about Truth, real or perceived. If you do I will remove them. Please confine your posts to questions about policy, which I will do my best to answer. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::It is a verifiable fact that the Bible contains the word "God" and is largely concerned with the doings and pronouncements of the Christian deity. That is all that matters here on Wikipedia; please do not spam my talk page with more polemics about Truth, real or perceived. If you do I will remove them. Please confine your posts to questions about policy, which I will do my best to answer. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Since you mentioned issues of policy, I thought it would be appropriate to point this one out from WP:VNT: "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean that Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court devalues truth. What Wikipedia devalues is not truth itself, but assertions of truth that are not supported directly by reliable sources." I just wanted to point out the seeming contrast with your statement: "I don't care (speaking as a wikipedia editor) if its true or not." However, I'm sure you can clarify. :) I hope we can all greatly value Truth and respect it. [[User:WalkerThrough|WalkerThrough]] ([[User talk:WalkerThrough|talk]]) 00:36, 30 September 2011 (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 ( ~~~~ )
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.)[1]
Well, you're right, that's the wrong tag - they're not "subpages" although they are arguably "subtopics". If we look at speedy deletion criteria, we find that the articles probably best fit under the A7 criteria - except that does not cover fictional characters! I suggest trying PROD, unless they are recreations of pages deleted due to deletion discussions on Afd (G4) or hoaxes (G3). KillerChihuahua?!?Advice19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, KC you have declined the CSD on Marat Terterov with A claim is made (and wrongly linked) of notability. This is a good reason to decline an A7, but mine was a G12 copyright infringement! Maybe speed reading.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey KillerChihauhua, hope you have had a good day. I noticed you changed two articles, Mike Clarkson & Matt McFadden from speedy deletion. However, seeings as the editor recently created 10 articles advertising his webs mini series - which has hardly any views on youtube - didn't that meet one requirement - given the context? Here is the the contribs from the editor - [2]. There is an issue that the stubbed character articles are a blatant hoax (which being familiar with the actual series, I know they is) - but for an outsider, because in two of the character articles created, they used fairly well known actor names as the portrayers. A google search proves they do not play these characters. I'm not sure we should have to wait seven days for them to be deleted. Also, as you may be better at dealing with deletion issues and so forth - is there any way to have them all removed quicker?RaintheOneBAM20:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the fast reply, I shall do that then. If I provide search results on the talk pages afterward, that should help the admin decide?RaintheOneBAM20:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(N.B. I also posted this to admins User:Mbisanz, User:Lifebaka and User:Elonka earlier today)
Hello there, you are listed as an interested admin on Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log.
Firstly, a declaration of interest: I proposed deletion of the page here (which was unsuccessful), and my name appears on the page as an editor that has been warned of sanctions.
The page is stale. If this page is to remain I think it should be maintained. As such, could you please either:
Remove your name from the "uninvolved admin" list, if you do not want to maintain the page
or
Update or delete the "Other recent editors" section. I would suggest deleting it, and
Delete the "No action by admins" section by User:QuackGuru. This editor has been topic banned for one year, and that section was disruption by him, and
Remove "Shell Kinney" from the list of uninvolved admins. I believe she has retired from Wikipedia, and (done by Lifebaka)
Include a wikilink for each warning given in the "Editors notified of restrictions" section with the date the notification was given.
I have formatted and updated the notifications table, and now that Elonka has added the info on the first four names there[3], the section is up to date. All other issues have been resolved, I believe? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice14:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks!! I also appreciate your following these disputes as I appreciate your opinion, especially here. At the Bible page, one of the first things Walker Through said is something like "this is the truth" and when I said WP is about verifiability not truth, he replied that no, WP should be about truth. So I hope you follow the discussion on the Bible talk page because i am sure that over the next few days other people will need this basic point explained to them clearly, as you have done. But the she thing - I am not always consistent, but it really is the approach I have tried to take for many years here. I sure am glad that Nil Einne commented, too. Slrubenstein | Talk12:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steaua in Europe
The current version of FC Steaua București in Europe is the wrong, please edit back to version from 06:06, 27 September 2011. Current page has no aesthetics, please look at the page of Chelsea, format of Steaua is very bad, a small table, large table, then a small, large table... Another example: Every change are making is changing from a direct link (like Budapest Honvéd FC) to a redirect (like Honved FC). Since the title of the article is Budapest Honvéd FC, we should match that in the article. While it's okay to have redirects in an article, there is no reason to intentionally change to redirects. In addition, many of those names are governed by our policies like WP:Article titles and WP:MOS, and so they may need to remain in their current version. Jjmihai17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry I protected m:The wrong version. No wait; I'm not: Administrator policy requires that I protect whatever version is there when I get there. Sorry, but you have two weeks to hash this out on the talk page; if there are uncontested edits, whether spelling corrections, policy edits, etc; you can request the changes to the article by using the {{editprotected}} template. Hope this helps! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{editprotected}} Please fix the spelling in the first sentence from "Hello, Dollie" to "Hello, Dolly". ~~~~
Of course you must replace my example desired edit with what you want done - take out the "Please fix the spelling..." part and put in the edit you want. The four tildes (~~~~) will add your signature and a date and time stamp. The {{editprotected}} will automagically turn into a request for an admin to come look at the edit you want made. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice13:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo's talk page is an inappropriate venue for discussing this. He wasn't involved in the request or denial of the requests. I see that Chzz has already answered your query there.
The ?!? in my sig links here, as this is where you'd put your questions (?) and complaints (!). The other link is to an essay, which gives advice. That's why the link reads advice in stead of talk to me or similar verbiage. Many editors have links in their sigs to essays. You will find that other editors have far more obscure linking in their sigs; you must apply common sense. Elonka, for example, uses the sig --Elonka -- the el links to her user page, the on to her talk page, and the ka to her contributions. You should generally leave messages for people on their talk pages, or post messages on the appropriate article talk page or noticeboard. Leaving a message for someone on an essay will not generally be considered helpful. I hope this information helps you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice12:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you have probably now realized from Jimmy's comment, he has been involved in similar discussions before. We have now reached the tipping point, and imo it requires a broader discussion as I stated. As for your signature, I was under the impression such links belong on User pages. I have not seen such strings added before, and was indeed surprised at where I ended up. However, I am aware some users use multiple names but want all comments directed to one place. So, I posted there. I then navigated to your Talk page from your User page and posted there as well. I posted in both places to make sure you found the message and link. If you (and Elonka and any other of your Admin friends) insist on needless complication and confusion, I really don't think you're in a position to complain and get snarky when people get lost. imo Admins exist to be helpful and accessible. You are doing the opposite. Your actions, comments and general attitude aren't helpful, but I don't think you need me to tell you that, do you? 99.50.188.228 (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, ROFLMAO at the idea of Elonka being my "friend". We're more like civil enemies. We disagree on almost everything. I don't think she should be an admin, and she once spent a week writing an Rfc on me. I picked her as a random example because her sig confused and annoyed me when I first clicked on it, so I remembered it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice14:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And seriously, if you're going to take simple explanations of things as being "snarky" or "complaining" you will find that you are misjudging people, and you will miss out on a lot of helpful info. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not on this page, because we're already here. Check the "on" in Elonka's sig on her talk page, and you will find the same thing. But on other pages, it will link you here. Please let me know if you have any further questions. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice15:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. With all the concurrent discussions I forgot which page we were on. I still don't understand why someone as uncivil as you have shown yourself to be would link to an article about uncivility, unless it's to communicate that we're all supposed to ignore your uncivility because you're 'special'. Perhaps you think you can say whatever you like, as long as you 'close' each post with some boilerplate sentence. Not true. Now here's some advice for you: if you don't know a fellow Wikipedian really, really well, then treat that person as you would your grandmother or grandfather. Perhaps great-grandmother and great-grandfather. iow, respectfully rather than flippantly. Helpfully. No snark, no sarcasm, no insults, no ridicule. Assume good faith. Try to be as helpful as possible, no nasty little snide comments. Wikipedians are from various countries, of various ages, and with various cultural backgrounds which includes different definitions and expectations of acceptable communication and attitude. At least, that's who we would like to include. Instead, the vast majority are now young boys and men who insist on treating everyone else as if they too were young boys and men. You clearly don't see this as a problem, and believe everyone should put up with whatever you feel like doing, blaming others for their understandable reactions. That isn't how the world works. If you insist on acting in a way which others consider rude, they will of course consider you rude. No ridiculing on your part for their 'misinterpreting' will change that. As an Admin, 'outsiders' consider you to be representing Wikipedia in some sort of official capacity, even though the rest of us know it's only a fancy term for 'janitor'. You don't seem to appreciate that, but I expect you soon will. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) You are in error. I consider incivility a huge, huge problem. You have no idea. However, what I don't see is that complaining and escalating serves any purpose. I think AGF is the best ever advice given; I didn't write the essay I link to in my sig, but boiled down it advises not to take offense, not to escalate, and not to let someone else dictate your approach (ie, don't let someone piss you off and drag you into fights.) It also says some people are trolls and don't give them satisfaction, if I remember correctly, and that isn't such bad advice either. I try to follow that advice, and I think there would be less drama, arguments and self-righteous hurt feelings if everyone followed that and AGF. I am very rarely (almost never, actually) accused of being rude. Perhaps I'm off my game today; my aim is always to be clear, concise and helpful. I never intend to be rude and if I am unintentionally rude I generally apologize. However, I sometimes do not apologise when I'm not being rude, and the other party is simply determined to take offense, to use a common phrase (eg, trolling). I have not ridiculed anyone who has misunderstood my meaning; this is common in text and I expect misunderstandings and am always happy to clarify if I have been unclear in any way. FYI, your condescending phrasing and judgmental approach to what you have erroneously decided are my views is unhelpful and a bit insulting. Its interesting that you feel qualified to lecture me on how I think and feel, and don't see the irony in the rudeness of your unasked for and misplaced (in the sense that you're dead wrong on my views) lecture. As I've been an admin for over 5 years now, I don't know when you expect me to "appreciate" what an admin on wp is; I'm fairly confident I'm clear on my understanding at the present time. And lastly, I have no idea what you intended to accomplish by your post. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is why I don't do that kind of thing. And remember Durova's great misstep? I don't remember you being confused with Spade, though - even I would have known that was a bad call. :-D KillerChihuahua?!?Advice19:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I first showed up in '05, I apparently had too much clue and not enough cowardice. So clearly I was an established user making some sort of point. Of course, being accused of socking wasn't as much of a big deal way back when.--Tznkai (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Yeah, but Spade? Your edits are nothing like his. Of course, now the imp in me wants to add something about socks to your page.. maybe the Army of rabbit socks thingy that MoP has on his user talk page. Only linked to confirmed sockpuppets and not Army of rabbit socks. :-D Don't worry, I'll resist the impulse. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Killer, I think we got off to a bad start. I was not aware of some WP policies and I can understand that you were unhappy with that, and therefore me. I was also in a disagreement with your friend Slru, which I think did not go well with you. I can also see how you may want to follow me around everywhere and ensure that I do follow policy. Please allow me to reassure you that I do want to follow WP policies, as I realize that it is necessary on WP. At the same time, sometimes I feel from you an inclination to resist me, even on minor things. I would appreciate it if we can work together as editors and not against each other. I don't want us to be opponents, and I hope you can agree. Kindness and support would certainly be appreciated. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say "we got off to a bad start" nor would I say I was "upset" with you. Nor am I, or have I ever been, your "opponent". I would say, rather, that you got off to a bad start. I have merely tried to offer you help and advise you of policies, which you have frequently dismissed and/or ignored.
I will be blunt with you. I apologise in advance if my words seem harsh; please bear with me. I prefer to be clear rather than overly careful in my phrasing, so hopefully there is no misunderstanding.
My interest and focus is always to improve the encyclopedia. Your intent seems to have a less neutral bent; you are clearly ignorant of religions other than a certain type of Christianity and you persist in editing as though that were the "right" or "one, true" religion; you promote beliefs often held, sometimes ignorantly, by followers of that belief system. This is a violation of NPOV, as you are now of course well aware. That you are aware of it has only changed your methods so far as I can see. You are still promoting a fundamentalist Christian POV, but instead of doing so with a blunt frontal approach, you are removing anything you disagree with unless it has been cited to your satisfaction. You are running very close to violating WP:POINT, especially with your removal of such common knowledge from the lead of the article Bible as the extremely well-known fact that Islam holds the Bible to be a religious text of standing. This is about as controversial as the statement that butterflys have wings, yet you removed and demanded an RS be provided. I promised on WP:ANI when your indefinate block was reduced to 12 hours that I would keep an eye on you; you've done better than I thought you would but you still have a long way to go. You persist in arguing on talk pages that "a bunch of unbelievers have the controlling power over a page about the Holy Book of God's Word" - and "you won't be able to cover up the truth on the Day of Judgment when God judges you for your actions"[4] - a violation of CIVIL, NPOV, TPG, and probably half a dozen other policies and guidelines. You can't even seem to see that "I am helping present the truth in Wikipedia, which is in line with the Words of Jesus, who is the Truth, and Savior of the world. I can present that neutrally according to the rules of Wikipedia"[5] is problematic. You cannot "present the truth" AND be NPOV. The two are at odds. Our aim and goal is accuracy, not revealed truth.
All that said, I will help you as much as I can, whenever I can. This does not mean that I will cover for you, or bail you out, or take your side. I don't do that, for anyone. It does mean I will offer advice, and answer questions to the best of my ability. My first suggestion is to slow down. There are many complaints currently that you are filling the talk page, not following TPG - indenting incorrectly, etc. You should probably read through the policies carefully; especially all of NPOV and V and NOR. You must stop telling people they're going to hell, which is basically what you're implying when you say "you won't be able to cover up the truth on the Day of Judgment when God judges you for your actions" - that is a blockable post right there.
Regarding religion: You keep posting about yours, and speculating and commenting about others'. This may be the most important advice I can give you right now: No one cares, or should care. I don't mean this as in they don't care about you as a person, etc. I mean as Wikipedia editors they do not and should not care. Your fellow editors could be Christian, or Wiccan, or Muslim, or sacrifice virgin frogs at midnight to Cthulhu. It does not matter, and you should not comment on, or speculate, about it. Comment on the content, and not the contributor.
I am very appreciative for your offer to help me as much as you can, whenever you can. I hope that we can now consider each other teammates, and work together to improve WP. I do believe in truth. I think every statement on WP has some kind of implication to be true (even if it is just claiming it is true that so and so said something). I think your recent stance about including the statement in Islam and Bhai show you think that is true, and because it is true you spent time to find sources and back it up. We can just consider our first statement about the Bible being the primary religious text of Christianity and Judaism. Is it true? Would it matter if it weren't true? I don't know why people have a problem with truth. Whoever came up with this whole truth doesn't matter on WP, totally deceived some people. You may disagree, but I hope you can see my point about truth being implied in every sentence. If we want to improve WP, then I think the improvement should be telling the truth, not lies. If we said the Bible is the primary religious text of Hinduism, that would be a lie, and would not be acceptable, right? Again my point is, truth is under much of what we edit on WP, even if we don't acknowledge that. Again I hope we can see each other as partners to improve WP. WalkerThrough (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, read this, think it over, and try to understand this point of view: Truth is inherently subjective. My truth is not your truth is not someone else's truth. If I believe in reincarnation, that's my truth. If you don't, we can argue all day each thinking we have The Truth, but there will not be a resolution. But verifiable facts are different. There they are; if there are different views then standards can be applied as to whose view is verifiably more likely to be accurate - how to weight different views. For example, a nail expert's opinion is huge on the Nail article. He's the world's leading expert and is cited by everyone else who writes about nails? then his views, as published in leading RSs about nails, will receive much attention in the article. A Nail article in a magazine not devoted to nails? Let's see, is it about building materials? Metallurgy? If yes, then some weight is given. If its a magazine about something else, and nails are only mentioned in passing, no weight will be given - the magazine may be an RS for something else, but not nails. A blog post about nails doesn't meet RS and will not be considered. Your cousin George's opinion is OR and will not be considered, even if he's a contractor and knows a lot about nails. But Truth cannot be validated in this way. That's why Wikipedia is not about Truth; its about what is verifiable. And that's one of pillars of Wikipedia - a core policy. WP:V. You must learn to understand this policy if you want to avoid policy violations here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the truth that the entire Christian Bible (KJV) includes the word "God"? Is there any way the truth can be "No"? Do you think we should include a RS that says the answer is "No?" Is that the kind of nonsense you want in WP? If it is, then you can help make a horrible Encyclopedia. Truth is not inherently subjective, because there are absolute truths regardless if someone doesn't believe them. If someone doesn't believe the KJV has the word "God" in it, that may be their belief, but that is objectively false and foolish. WP must be about truth to have any worth, even if it's just implying the truth is that these are the various views of the controversial issues. If WP is not about truth, then the site should be closed, and readers should not be led to believe what is written is true (whether statements of fact or statements about different views). Truth matters in life, it matters about God, and it matters on WP. What a an awful excuse for an Encyclopedia if it doesn't care about what is true. I can't convince you, maybe. I can pray for you. You talk about conflating truth and (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,fact) fact...I hope you help make a great Encyclopedia. WalkerThrough (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a verifiable fact that the Bible contains the word "God" and is largely concerned with the doings and pronouncements of the Christian deity. That is all that matters here on Wikipedia; please do not spam my talk page with more polemics about Truth, real or perceived. If you do I will remove them. Please confine your posts to questions about policy, which I will do my best to answer. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mentioned issues of policy, I thought it would be appropriate to point this one out from WP:VNT: "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean that Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court devalues truth. What Wikipedia devalues is not truth itself, but assertions of truth that are not supported directly by reliable sources." I just wanted to point out the seeming contrast with your statement: "I don't care (speaking as a wikipedia editor) if its true or not." However, I'm sure you can clarify. :) I hope we can all greatly value Truth and respect it. WalkerThrough (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution article
I don't want to (or like to) make a big deal out of virtually nothing, but doesnt the evolution article deal specifically with biological evolution? Of course there are such things as evolution of ideas and evolution of languages and evolution of cars but you wont find those in that article because it deals specifically with "change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of individuals" which is biological evolution, is it not? Once again, its really no big deal, thats just what i was thinking when i edited that.
Cadiomals (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
