User talk:Secret killer

Welcome!

Hello, Secret killer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hola killer favor arreglar el articulo [[1]] trate de hacerlo pero no lo logre, son 6 ajustes con mi usuario, favor deshacer las ultimas 5 de arriba, solo mi primer ajuste desde abajo esta correcto y que quede, gracias por tu atencion y disculpa por desconfigurar el articulo. --Juanjoxy (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collage

I think it is nice work but i have been editing at that article for a while and it is better to leave all the sourced white latin americans in the collage you left out Shakira and put in people with no source.--Wikiscribe (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, and the fact that there are 8 Argentines, when there are no more than 4 of another nationality makes it unbalanced, and mostly 2 or less of some. I think you did a good job on it though! C.Kent87 (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once upon a time you needed sources per consensus but it has seemed over time (though technical the consensus has not changed and please it does not matter what the parameters are at other articles every article is different and may have different consensuses )) people including myself have not objected to people adding un sourced people, i started to personally feel it is to much of a burden on the editor to come up with sources for people,but let the burden be on people who object prove other wise,There have been two objections to your collage 1.By me you left off Shakira who just happened to be a sourced person on the article e.g she should be in the collage with anybody else who was in the box with a source also we are not trying to judge people by importance to the world stage and history that is POV we want a cross section of people i.e not all entertainers not all politicians and not all dead people,Shakira is fine to represent a entertainer and a person from Colombia that people from the whole world would be familiar with not just Latin Americans.The other person brought up an issue as well and that is the diversity factor i believe you had 8 Argentines in the the collage ,now i know Argentina has a very Large white population and its hard not to include so many from that country but would it be possible to add more from others countries and tamp down on so many from one country???Would it be a problem to include all the people in the box already along with diversifying the countries??? I hope not.--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. The burden of proof is on those who want to keep content, not on those who want to remove it, and that policy can not be overridden by some editors on an article talk page. Absolutely everything must be verifiable through reliable sources or it can be removed at any time. That includes photographs. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but at this point nobody was making a stink about any of the photos really except for that Chilean(but of course now a big deal is being made again) one which was i was not involved in as i said above a consensus by regular editors was made to only include pics that are sourced e.g unsourced pics would be swiftly removed, again you do not need a source to add a picture or any content but it can be challenged and removed of course than the person who wants content back would have to provide WP:PROVEIT,Nobody was over riding anything, i think you may have misunderstood what i was conveying--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You found all the sources for the collage already?--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Your post at Talk:White Latin American was full of personal attacks: "That's idiotic", "grow a brain", "...since Wikiscribe cried about...". You are welcome to participate in the discussion, but only if you can be civil while you do so. Please consider revising your statement. Your position won't carry any more weight just because it's filled with insults. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page User:Wikiscribe has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Tiderolls 05:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As previously warned when the page was protected, you have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for continuing to edit war at White Latin American. You may continue to discuss your position on the talk page after this block expires, but more reverts will lead to longer blocks with no further warnings. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again. Same reason, same article. This time the duration is a week. The change you want will not be implemented by edit warring. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm this is bullcrap you know that right? I wasn't edit warring. I was trying to fix the format. You have no clue what you talking about you but what's done is done. I will be appealing the blockSecret killer (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to contest the block, you can place {{unblock|(your reason here)}} on this page, with an explanation of why you should be unblocked. (I suggest you come up with something better than "this is bullcrap" and "you have no clue what you're talking about".)

Your very first edit to the page after your last block expired was to revert to your preferred version. You then reverted twice more, with two different editors, to force the change you want. That's edit warring, no matter what you were trying to accomplish. You need to work this out on the talk page instead of editing the article. If you can't come to an agreement, you need to start dispute resolution. Edit warring is not an acceptable alternative. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SK i made a collage for this article White Hispanics if you would like i would not mind making one for the white latin american one either if you want to give me the names and sources for 10-15 people you want in the collage i will make them apart of it and i will find the other people to fill the collage,in order to put an end to this dispute going on,if you would like,but just for a matter of balance i would be better to either leave Che out or Fidel Castro,also i would challenge this block ,this admin does appears to be a rogue admin for nothing i have seen , seems to warrant block or a block period of this length he appears to be abusing his admin tools--Wikiscribe (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pascual Orozco

Hello. In April you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this, see e.g. [2]). I've only removed the reference, not the text it was referencing. I'm removing a lot of similar references as they are circular references; many other editors have also been duped by these sources. Another publisher to be wary of as they reuse Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences&Windows 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo in White Argentine

Hi, Secret Killer. I am Pablo Zampini from Argentina. I saw the new photograph that you added in the article White Argentine, replacing all the others, and I think it's quite fine, but I have two details to observe.

1) When you selected the people of the photographs, you completely left out the Argentines of Syrian-Lebanese Arab origin, like Carlos Menem (ex-President), Carlos Balá (a comedian), or Zulma Faiad (a vedette-actress). Maybe you consider that the Arabs are not White, but they are; they simply are a little darker than the Europeans.

2) I chose Manuel Belgrano, instead of José de San Martín because there are no doubts about Belgrano's origin: his father was Domenico Pieri Belgrano, born in Liguria, and his mother was Josefa Casero, a criolla (White, born in the Americas) from Santiago del Estero. Nevertheless, in the last years there is a controversy whether San Martín was really son of two Spaniards (Juan de San Martín and Gregoria Matorras), or he was the result of an extra-marital relationship between the father of Carlos María de Alvear and an Amerindian servant, and he was adopted by San Martín and Matorras. It is said that Alvear used to refer about San Martín as "the Mestizo" or "the Indian". This being Mestizo does not diminish San Martín's great achievements, but the doubts about his racial origin may cause some objections to his inclusion in the photo collage.

Any way, I congratulate your work making that collage.--Pablozeta (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions

Sorry to bother you again, but you didn't answer my observations on the photo collage for White Argentine. Did Wikiscribe made it? Tell him/her that he/she did a great job. I read the other sections in your talk page and I see that you have edited the White Latin American article; are you Argentine, Hispanic, or US Hispanic? I ask out of curiosity, for it's rare for WASPs to be interested in Latin American topics. I'm looking for racial statistics, censuses or studies in Argentina, so I can make the White Argentine article more complete. If you have something to contribute, we can make a good team to improve the article. Greetings from Argentina.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Sorry to bother you again, but I am editing and expanding White Argentine, and I have trouble with a photograph. I inserted a multple image template of three photos, and one does not show in the preview or when I save the page. I checked the edit page again and I don't find a mistake in the template. The photo is in the WP in Spanish, but not in the Wiki in English because the article has not been translated yet. Could it be that the photo needs to be in an article in English first, to be displayed? I see that you master the "art" of working with images, so maybe you can guide me.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I solved the problem

I solved the problem, it was a very silly mistake of mine in the template; thanks for reading.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with White Argentine

Hi, Secret killer. Recently there has been several problems with the article White Argentine. Some users who do nothing but criticize somebody else's work entered the talk page and began looking for any detail to tear the article to pieces. They removed the collage you had made alleging that there was no source explicitly saying that all the people portrayed in the collage were "White Argentinians". Now I'm trying to buy a book that apparently provides lists of White Argentines to satisfy them, but in the meantime I don't want to restore the collage if it is unsourced. I just want to ask you: Did you choose the people of the collage because they looked Caucasian? Did somebody provide you a list of people who might be included in the collage? or Did you choose them because they appeared in some source as "White Argentinians"? If it is the third option, please tell me the source so I can restore the photo and reference it, so they won't remove it again. Thanks for your attention.--Pablozeta (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

claims of identification by colour

Hi, please don't put those pictures back without consensus support on the talkpage , ,identifying people, especially living ones has serious BLP issues, look for talk page support, your comment in this edit "I would apologise if I cared" .. will only serve to demean any position you may actually have. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you appear to be edit warring to replace it without support, please take this as a WP:3RR note, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - you have reverted again, without any discussion, take this a another good faith request to start discussing and to ask you to wait for discussion, you are simply reverting to your preferred version, I prefer to discuss with you than report you, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need a wp:RS for your claims and a site with a religious agenda is hardly a RS for such figures.TMCk (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please attempt discussion - I warned you yesterday but you have continued, this is a last warning as regards your revert warring, please move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Secret killer; I'm on your side in this. Don't waste your time arguing with these narrow-minded guys (I have another word, but I can't write here for etiquette/politeness) -i.e. Off2riobod, GiovBag, Andy the Grump, etc.- I have your excellent work and the infobox saved up here and in three more wikis, so don't worry. I'm finding new sources to support the article, so in a few months I will restore the article to a better version. Relax, and don't waste energy and time arguing with guys who don't deserve it.--Pablozeta (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propuesta para pedir modificación de la política sobre BPV, pero todos juntos.

Hi, Secret Killer: Given the recent edit warring that have broken out in the articles White Argentine, White Mexican, White Latin American and others, due to the modification of the BLP policy regarding ethnicity -which Andy the Grump y GiovBag want to inforce in all the articles- I propose:

Request in the concerning Noticeboard -I still don't know which might be, but there's one for sure- a revision of the limits of such policy. I think we all may agree that nobody could state "Ronald Reagan was an African-American" because such statement is false at first sight. Or no one could state either that "Juan Manuel Fangio was of Croat descent" when it is well known that their parents were Italian. But the fact that a person cannot be categorize as "White" -even when his European ancestry is well demonstrated and his Caucasian phenotype is well proved- by a photograph, should be reviewd/revised and modified.

Well, contact me if you agree with this proposal. If you do, we should make the request all together, so it can be stronger. Thanks for your attention.--Pablozeta (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of White Argentine

Hi, sorry to bother you, but Andy the Grump and other user want to move for deletion of White Argentine. Please, if you agree that it should not be deleted, add your comment in the article's talk page. Thanks for your attention and help.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help Stopping the Deletion of White Argentine

If you agree that it should not be deleted, please add your arguments here.--Pablozeta (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, and goodbye... for now.

I sincerely thank your for your support in defense of White Argentine, but it was not enough. This site is invaded by intelectualoid scum (Andy the Grump, GiovBag, etc.) so I'll move for greener pastures. I'll concentrate my efforts in my own website Razas del Mundo, and I won't waste them here where they are not considered valuable. Thanks for everything, you have made my Wiki-experience a little less forgettable.--Pablozeta (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White American

While a redirect may in fact be appropriate, such action should be taken after discussion. I have no opinion on the matter, but don't make that decision without input from other editors. Acroterion _(talk) 02:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. I am following the rules of wikipedia. It is unsourced. WP:NOCITESecret killer (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has 46 references, hardly unsourced. Seems excessive to redirect that, don't you think? Acroterion _(talk) 04:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. It does not have sources for the collage which it needs, when did white American become an ethnic group? The infobox is not appropriate.Secret killer (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, shouldn't the infobox go, rather than the entire article, 46 sources and B-class review and all? Nobody's claiming it's an ethnic group. Acroterion _(talk) 05:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I never deleted the entire article. Secret killer (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you didn't "delete" it, as the old version was available for the few who know how to access it. However, you effectively did so by redirecting it to an Eminem album - you removed the content from direct view. Acroterion _(talk) 02:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. The only thing I did was delete the infobox and collage.Secret killer (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on White American. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion _(talk) 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've been blocked twice for edit-warring in the past, any future block will be for a considerable period of time. Acroterion _(talk) 22:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am following the rules of wikipedia WP:NOCITE. The infobox is unsourced and must be removed. Secret killer (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOCITE doesn't give you a license to edit-war. Edit-warring for any reason apart from reverting vandalism or violations of the rules for biographies of living persons may be dealt with by blocks. You have a content issue, which you may not address by repeated reversion. If you continue, you'll be blocked. Acroterion _(talk) 03:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not edit warring The article has pictures of living and dead celebrities and labeling them something, which the editors have not put up any inline citations to support.

Now let's hear what Jimmy Wales wrote:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough.

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)"

Secret killer (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Jimmy Wales doesn't get you off the hook for edit-warring, and you're taking it out of context. This is not a BLP situation. Attacking other editors is equally unacceptable. Discuss it politely, or if you really think it violates the BLP policy, take it to take it to WP:BLPN. Your edits have the appearance of trying to settle a score at White Argentine; your attempt to redirect the otherwise well-sourced article previously indicates that your objection to the infobox is not solely motivated by a desire to adhere to Wikipedia policy. I note the discussion about collages farther up the page. Edit-warring over sourced versus unsourced is not granted an exemption from 3RR. It is reasonable to ask for sources (leaving aside formatting issues for the moment), but you may not endlessly revert. Acroterion _(talk) 03:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To put this on a constructive footing, are there any images in that collage that you feel are objectionable, inappropriately included, or not accurate? Bearing in mind, of course, that in most sources, for better or worse, rightly or wrongly, white Americans are not usually explicitly described as such in sources? Acroterion _(talk) 04:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what. I have have acted inappropriately to such a stupid thing. I think you are right. My reverting was based on revenge. Other editors make me source the infobox and collage, and I wanted to take revenge which is wrong. Instead of worrying about the infobox or collage, I'll try to make the article better I guess. I apologize. Secret killer (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your honesty. Finding sources would be a good thing, although given the built-in societal bias against noting the ethnicity of someone in a majority, that can be hard to do. Acroterion _(talk) 03:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on White Latin American

There's an AfD on course on this article; please participate and add your reasons why you think it should be kept or deleted. Thanks for your participation.--190.7.225.2 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]