User talk:Undog

Christian/Newsom murders
I think we're actually coming from the same place, but your edits to the article are pretty inappropriate. Try to strive for a more neutral tone in both your edits and your edit summaries. Several editors on that page are trying to mold the entry to fit a certain agenda. That's wrong... and while I agree with your ideas in spirit, you, unfortunately, are one of those editors. Instead of reverting, try going to the talk page and discussing. Inflammatory entries are very tough to write and edit, and we have to work with people whose ideologies are the polar opposite from our own. But we still have to work with them. Please stop reverting and start discussing. We'll get this article to a place where we can all hopefully agree, but we won't do it without talking things out. AniMate 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to break in on you old pals, but I'd ask that Undog stop inserting his opinion into this article. Please stay with the FACTS (viz., four of the five suspects are specificially indicted on 46 - that's forty-six - counts of murder, etc.) There are 46 counts FOR A REASON. The reason is explained in various newspaper and media accounts connected to the story.


 * Please READ them and get an idea of the details of this story before you trash it again. No one cares if you don't like the 46 counts. No one cares what you personally think of the suspects ratting on one another. The 46 state counts are FACT, like the rapes and torture are FACT.


 * Stop changing this article to conform to your personal opinion.

20:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's clear you're not literate, so let me explain the use of the word "alleged" refers to the GUILT of the suspects. That they were raped is FACT; that is why the grand jury included the FACT of rape in the grand jury presentment. What is in question is the GUILTY or INNOCENCE of the suspects.
 * Did you read the grand jury indictment? Do you know what it is? Can you read? Do you even know this page exists? Anybody home?
 * Please, reply and give an indication you've an IQ over your shoe size.

Simplemines 23:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Alleged
In order to reinsert this word in regards to the rape and torture you are going to have to find a source. I've been able to easily find sources in a cursory search of yahoo news that flat out state that they were raped and tortured. I'm pretty sure these facts are not in question, and in order to throw doubt on the veracity of the rape and torture you have to source it. I've told Simplemines this, and now I'm telling you: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Even if you were able to find a source, I'd be inclined to exclude it per this sentence at WP:RS:"In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors." Having articles from the AP and NBC are likely to be more reliable than anything you can find throwing the rape and torture into question. I'd argue the same standards apply to the AP trumping the CrimeLibrary's sloppy first person article, but I'm pretty sure anything I say to him at this point would simply elicit insults and accusations from Simplemines. Please try and keep a cool head, do not blindly revert, and do not insult. That's not the way Wikipedia works. AniMate 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a quick FYI. You don't have to go to yahoo, et. al. If you READ THE GRAND JURY PRESENTMENT, that will give you all the information you need. Let me explain how a grand jury works. The grand jury is given evidence in secret so they can debate whether charges should be brought against suspects. The evidence will most likely include a coroner's report. This is evidence upon which they base their decision to indict or not indict.
 * If rape is in a grand jury indictment, the subjects were in fact raped. Once again, the use of the word "alleged" refers to the suspects, not the facts of the case.
 * Geez. No wonder newspaper circulation is down.

Simplemines 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Check any Newspaper style guide. This is just the first that poped up on Google: http://home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/a.htm alleged Often misused. Don't use this adjective to describe something that is true or already verified. For example, if the police have verified that a burglary happened, it's simply a burglary; it's not an alleged burglary, even if they don't have a suspect in the crime. And when they arrest someone for the crime, he is a suspect; he's not an alleged suspect. Drop alleged. The person accused of the burglary, however, is an alleged burglar. And if he's convicted of the crime, he's no longer the alleged burglar; he is the burglar in that crime. http://home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/a.htm MSM usually plays it safe, although their are tabloid and dumb exceptions, to be fair in which crimes may or may not have occured such as rape, wife beating, child abuse. But most of the time MSM avoids the awkward work "alleged" by rewriting sentence with a qualifier such as: they were raped, according to court documents. they were raped accoring to police. and so on which is why all the "writers" here on Wikipedia missed it. Undog (about time to disappear as some of you are as fun to deal with as the New Black Panthers)


 * I work for a newspaper, and you don't.
 * Now, the 89th time because you don't seem to GRASP these simple facts:
 * The grand jury indicted. They saw evidence to support that the victims were raped. The rapes are NOT in dispute. The grand jury saw enough evidence to conclude that there was enough reason to support the indictments against the suspects.
 * The only dispute is if the suspects are guilty of the offenses, and that is what a trial is for. The word "alleged" is used in regard to their guilt because that has not been proven.
 * PERIOD.
 * Now, listen closely. Consider this a warning about your insane reverts. You were told repeatedly to go to your user page to discuss this. You did not. You were told to go to the article's discussion page before you did the reverts repeatedly; you did NOT.
 * For the record, if you come back and do the same thing again without posting and discussing it, I will report you and you will be barred from mangling the article.
 * Consider yourself warned.

Simplemines 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder
The above article has been temporarily protected due to edit warring. Wikipedia has a strict policy against edit warring, and more than three reverts in any 24 hour period is grounds for a block. Continued edit warring after the article is unlocked may result in further page protection or user blocks; nobody wins when that happens, so please take this time to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page, and remember to keep your cool in all discussions. Thank you. Kafziel Talk 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Coincidence. I was just going to notify you.Simplemines 00:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Simplemines
Please limit your comments to the article. Don't bait him or insult him  again. If you do, I'll report you. This behavior is unacceptable, and I'm stunned that neither of you has been blocked already. Please focus on the article and finding consensus. AniMate 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR Policy
Hey User:Undog, just a heads up. Wikipedia does have a 3RR policy that limits the number of edits that any one editor can make, on any one article, to three edits a day. Typically, this policy is not enforced on all-encompassing bases. However, the Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder article was protected just for this reason. Try reviewing the article first and than make one change rather than doing it piecemeal. Have a great day! • ShoesssS Talk  16:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder
I have protected the page as a result of the edit war between you and another editor. Please discuss this disagreement on the article's talk page and attempt to arrive at a consensus. The current system of revert warring isn't working.--Chaser - T 01:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning
I am sorry -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ but the warning is not justified in this case. If you review the history of this article, especially the discussion page, you will find that it would be necessary to warn and block a majority of the editors associated with this piece. I have removed the warning. ShoesssS Talk  10:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility warning
Undog, Wikipedia is no place for incivility such as this. If you continue calling people names and accusing them of being racist, I won't hesitate to block you.--Chaser - T 17:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked you for 24 hours for incivility, specifically following brash accusations of racism with calling another editor a troll and implying the same.  This block wouldn't have happened if not for the many other tendentious comments and general incivility on that talk page. You may contest this block with  .--Chaser - T 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you need more evidence of Fourdee's "character" you only need to look at his past controversies with other admins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=138294779#Serious_concerns_about_User:SlimVirgin_and_User:Jayjg.2C_admins_protecting_admins.3F_gangs.3F

and his interest in promoting a "neutral" point of view for Nazi and other racist killers. (he objects to murder)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Fourdee

It's also funny that someone of his brainpower is editing the "race and intelligence" section of an "encyclopedia"

I realize that the admins make very quick decisions in a minute, not that I care much either, but they must be proud of supporting such a person.

Civility, again
Undog, please check your frequent inclination to refer to other people in a discussion as racist, or, in this case, white supremacists. It is not helping matters and won't help you stay unblocked.--Chaser - T 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You just don't get it, do you? You've been warned over and over again about this.  I've just blocked you again for 3 days.  Cut it out, or it's going to be indefinite in the near future.  --Haemo 20:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:DFT
Just a note, but you might want to consider reading this essay with respect to your comments on the talk page. --Haemo 06:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Mother's quote
(this is copied from the article's talk page)

I've decided to add this back in. I think it's relevant to give this entry a rounded perspective. Are the parents being abused by "insane white racists"? I'd say yes. Does that make the quote any less relevant? I don't think it does. I appreciate your commitment to keeping this article out of the hands of people who espouse racist ideologies, Undog. I am not one of those people, and I think my contributions to this back me up. As a person of color I found alot of what was going here extremely alarming. The edit warring over here has calmed down quite a bit, and I think it's time for you to relax your hold over this article. There are no rules against single-purpose accounts, but they tend to have tunnel vision that limits them as editors. Instead keeping your strangle hold on this article (and I do think you have some serious problems owning it). Why not calmly debate here, while contributing to other areas of the project. Your passions could help improve other areas, but you're exclusively editing here (outside of five edits to the Holocaust and five to Bill Clinton). I'm not suggesting this so I can get my way, but rather so you can get a better idea of consensus building and the proper use of talk pages.

I hope I haven't offended you by my suggestions. I've tried to be as thoughtful and careful as possible in suggesting this. You could be an asset to Wikipedia, but you have to let go sometimes and you have to learn how to work within the community. AniMate 21:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)