User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive03

Archive03

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately through Apr 11, 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

---

AfD

Based on what I've seen from you on AfD, I think that you might have something to add to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney. I'd appreciate you weighing in on the matter in either direction. Savidan 19:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the invite, I went and looked, and I don't see anything I could add to the current conversation there. If I can find time, I may look into it further and add anything I find about the subject. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope you get it worked out.

Hope you get your RL issues worked out. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, big time. Jim62sch 23:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks much, things are looking up a bit. Now, once I get my motherboard in, things should be back to normal. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I third that wish. :-) -Kyd 15:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks Kyd. :) Good to know one is missed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you!

Thank you!

Hi KillerChihuahua/Archive03. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support. SoothingR 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

l33t 61r|

hey! glad you thought that my addition was cu73! if you need to talk, go 4h34d, send me a m3ssag3.

go, U54!

ch33rs!

Chef Clover 03:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark featured article candidate

Hi KC

I'd like to put up Noah's Ark as a candidate for featured article. Since you've taken a recent interest in it, I thought you might like to have another look to see if there are any further tweaks you'd like to make to that end. Cheers PiCo 12:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, please please.  ;) Jim62sch 12:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

KC: I've put up the nomination. If you want to vote, go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates and scroll down till you find the article link. Whether you support or object to the nomination, you need to explain your vote in terms of whether the article meets all the criteria for FA (to be found at the top of the page). PiCo 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My little killer-puppy: We did it! Accepted as a Featured Article! My thanks unto thee, and a big juicy bone for your help (or would you prefer a tequila, being a Mexican puppy and all?) PiCo 11:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to break this to you, but I'm not really Mexican, and I'm not really a dog. Congrats, you worked hard on that article, and it is well deserving of FA status. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

E-mail

Your email account is bouncing emails I send to you - error given is:

<<< 554-: (RLY:CH) http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rlych.html <<< 554 TRANSACTION FAILED 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable This is an issue with my email service, I think, and I will see what I can do about it.

Did you try my other address, just to verify which is having the problem? Jim62sch 12:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Send me an email from your alternate address pls? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Date links

Since you have previously taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. Thanks. bobblewik 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you boot anon again?

The anon User talk:152.163.100.133 has had 3 warnings again, and he just deleted all of the warnings on his talk page today, against vanadlism policy, even though I warned him on February 4th. Can you boot him again? Travb 09:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an AOL ip, so the most I can generally block for is 15 minutes. I am terribly sorry, just keep reverting any vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC?

GE is back at Abortion. Do you think it's at last time to RfC? -Kyd 11:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. But it would be a good idea to start a page and collect diffs from the previous periods of activity, so if GE starts being disruptive again we are ready to file one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; as always, I appreciate it. WP:DFTT instead? Quasipalm assembled a list of all of GE's suspected sockpuppet IP addresses on his Talk page. I'm sure, in any event, it'll help. Logging off for today. -Kyd 13:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh Shepherd Dog

Thank you for protecting the page. As you can see, between the time that I made the request and the time that you protected it, the revert wars continued. Robert McClenon 13:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Good luck in achieving a reasonable consensus on this issue. Or, failing that, good luck with Arbcom reaching a quick decision. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Myths

Hi KillerChihuaua,

The word myth may have several meanings (hence the disambiguation page). Only the academic one deals with supernatural incidents.

On pages linking to myth, often the term Rumor (may be correct or false) or Falsehood would be more appropriate. Hence, I think that a risk of confusion is given and meaningful disambiguation should take place.

Which disambiguation pages would you propose for the following (non-academic, common language) meanings of myth? Here are my suggestions:

• a fact of known falsehood -> Lie, Falsehood
• a fact with uncertain correctness -> Rumor
• a story with uncertain correctness -> ??? (Rumor)
• a story which proved to be false -> urban legend

Of course, one could state that these are covered in the wiktionary - but when there are articles in the wikipedia dealing with rumors and lies, I think that listing them reduce the risk of confusion.

What do you think? -- Ravn 14:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Pasted to Talk:Myth and answered there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, if someone makes edits that are clearly vandalism please use {{subst:bv}}, then we can get them blocked quicker if they continue. Thanks Arniep 18:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that brings back memories. FWIW, I'm not so hot on {{bv}} either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I generally use subst, although I rarely use bv. In fact, I attempt to avoid it. No sense biting someone who might be able to become a solid contributor. What page did I fail to use subst on, Arniep? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he meant the bv, not the subst... "then we can get them blocked quicker if they continue" —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

He changed the message I left, and LEFT MY SIG! That's vandalism itself.

To Arniep: Arniep, if you want to leave your own warning, do so. do NOT edit my post; that is vandalism. You left MY sig attached to a warning I did NOT leave. Do NOT ever, ever, do this again. Thanks.

Copying to Arniep's talk page also, this is insupportable behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Ok, that's done... Yes, Bunchofgrapes, I concur - I'm not a big fan of bv. I have used it on Beckjord ips. Gastrich socks I simply block and list. I almost never think bv is a good idea. I've had some horrible vandals get sucked in and become productive editors, which IMHO would not have happened had they gotten bv as a first taste of WP welcoming committee. It often isn't even AGF; its a kind of policy of mine. More like Chance at Redemption, if you will. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if you took that as an attack, I'll just add my own template in the future. I don't think a user who adds the text Credited with leading the killing of George Washington in 2031 to Simón Bolívar is likely to be a solid contributor in the near future so a more serious warning is appropriate, otherwise it potentially wastes a lot of time for other contributors reverting more vandalism before the user is blocked. Regards Arniep 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not an attack. I didn't "take it" as an attack. I saw vandalism, and called you on it. Please read WP:VAND before you preach at me. Editing another user's signed post is vandalism. Don't do it. I don't care if you disagree with me on whether a user will ever be useful or not; I don't care if you like bv, which I usually think is a very bad idea. I'm fine with differences of opinion. I am not fine with you vandalising my posts. Do not ever do it again. If I am in any way being unclear that this is not about a difference of opinion, but rather about your vandalism of my post, please let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi I obviously would never change a comment by a user anywhere else. I didn't really think that applying a more serious template on a vandal's talk page could be considered vandalism but if it is described so by Wikipedia policies that is fine. Arniep 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)You state that you would "obviously never change a comment by a user anywhere else". I find it not obvious; I make no assumptions about what you would or would not do in other circumstances. I merely address that which is, rather than speculating about what might be. I also find it odd that you expect me to AGF about your clear vandalism of my signed post; yet are so dismissive of other's edits as bv when at least two experienced admins disagree, and disagree fairly strongly, with you. Perhaps you might consider examining your own bias. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi I see you removed my bv warning template. I've readded {{subst:verror2}} which seems to be a better template to use in these instances (more at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace) Regards Arniep 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, my warning is more descriptive as to what the user actually did. If you think your warning is extraneous you are free to remove it. Thanks Arniep 19:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, my warning was there first. You are adding a pile-on warning when there has been only one instance of vandalism. Do not do this. You cannot add a second warning and then patronizingly tell me I can remove mine if I want - the error is yours in adding the second warning. I cannot believe you are warring about making sure a "meaner" warning is on that poor newbie's page than the one I left. Back off. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I think where a user feels that a warning added by another user does not reflect the nature of the edit that user is free to add a more appropriate template. I frequently see very serious vandalism which only has a test1 template, the user then goes on to vandalize for hours wasting a lot of people's time in reverting, and many times where their vandalism is reverted the people doing the reverting do not post a next level warning on the user's page. This is why we should start from the second level for deliberate misinformation as per the table on Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Thanks Arniep 20:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

And you are free to start with test2 if you wish. I choose not to do so.

Andymac.mac has not gone on to vandalize further, and you are inappropriately adding an additional warning. Do not lecture me, and do not post a second warning when there has been no second instance of vandalism. It is misleading and just plain wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I felt you started at a too leniant level. I am free to post a warning which I think is more appropriate regardless of whether there has been more vandalism. Thanks Arniep 20:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say sorry for jumping on you personally, really I should have just taken it to straight to the pump as I am pretty sure our current system isn't working efficiently. Regards Arniep 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology, and offer this thought: efficiency is not always the best goal. It is efficient to practice the slaughter of severely disabled children, for instance: They cost a lot of money and effort, and almost never return that cost to society. But is it the best course of action? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I just think we waste too much time needlessly reverting vandalism or posting test messages when we could be actually improving this encyclopedia. Regards Arniep 15:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop posting messages on editors' talk pages stating your opinion as though it were policy. Rephrase, if you are planning to continue your campaign to get people to use bv more often, against general consensus, against WP:BITE, and against the opinion of most, if not all, admins. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That post was ddated 19th Feb. Arniep 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RFPP

About my request for protection of my page, it's my userpage, and I don't appreciate people just editing it without my notification! The Republican 00:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What? What are you talking about, please clarify this post. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Quick question regarding rollback

Is there any way to do a rollback without being an admin? Justin Eiler 04:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, manually save an old version of a page, hand-writing the edit summary. Why do you ask? KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because that's a multi-click aggravation, and I'm lazy. :D

Seriously, most of what I do right now is countervandalism. I was looking to see if there was an easier way to mop the floors. Justin Eiler 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, there is the popup tool. Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. Have fun, remember to use it only in case of vandalism not content disputes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds cool--thanks! Justin Eiler 05:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Quick request: Please remember to use edit summaries, thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do in the future. Again thanks--this is a great tool. Justin Eiler 05:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are welcome, and again, you didn't use an edit summary. :P - KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

For reverting the vandalism to my user page! -Kyd 15:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Your talk page is on my watch list, as primary editor of the Abortion article you get more than your fair share of vandalism. I just happened to be the one who saw it and reverted it first, is all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this is the first outright, malicious vandalism on either my Talk/uPage (I don't know if belligerent and largely unhelpful Talk page entries count as vandalism per se). And, even more surprisingly, it had nothing to do with my involvement in Abortion -- it was due my reversion of vandalism to an article while on RC patrol almost a month ago (A snail's riposte? These two acts of vandalism are the only edits in the user's history). -Kyd 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The worst action of vandalism I have ever suffered came from reverting vandalism as well. I think mine was a wee tad faster on the response (a month? wow.) Oddly enough, a revert on Abortion got me vandalized on my uPage, but it was odd - they simply upped my counter one. Which led to a small revert war on my page, actually - the addition was reverted as inaccurate, then re-reverted with the summary that either there had been vandalism, and it was accurate, or this was the vandalism, so either way, accurate. I missed it all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA succeeded with a final consensus of 52/17/7, and receiving comments including having 'excellent potential to become a great moderator', and I am now an administrator. It did however only just pass, and I shall do my very best to rectify any of my errors, including the general belief that I should do more article work. If you have any concerns, or if you ever feel that I may be able to help you, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you!

Ian13/talk 19:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

OTOH

I can only hope we're in the right bar! Now, if only I can figure out how to fix my sig so that I can link "TCF member" to the appropriate subpage ;) Arch O. La | TCF member 21:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've synthesized the jokes into a comedy routine! I've noticed your interest in TCF. I wanted to tell you that I've created a page collecting the discussions that led to The Centrist Faction (it was confusing having them scattered across four talk pages!) Now to fix my signature... Arch O. La | TCF member 01:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log

I don't remember saying it was the nominator's fault. But if I did, I guess I'll clear this up and end it now. I'll make note of that. ????? ????? (t) 20:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Previously, I didn't understand your point, but I see it clearly now. I realize you were correct, and I wasn't. My apologies. ????? ????? (t) 02:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No need, it can be confusing. Apparently I added to that confusion, but it seems all straightened out now. Thanks for the note! KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my recent RFA. It passed 53/1/2 and I am now an administrator. I appreciate that some of you made exceptions to your usual requirements re length of service and so on because we've interracted positively in the past, or because of my credentials, so I will endeavour to use my new mop cautiously. I'm always open to feedback and gently constructive criticism. If you're not an admin and need some assistance do of course please let me know. Thanks again --kingboyk 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you are interested in The Beatles, User:Lar has asked me to tag on a little note advertising the creation of a new Beatles WikiProject that we are currently setting up. Please sign up and help.

Since you offered...

...to help would you mind taking a look at my recent batch of AFD closures? They're my first and I'd just like a second opinion that I haven't made a ballsup of it. Thanks! --kingboyk 00:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Answered on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there any blocking templates which don't refer to vandalism? I've placed a 1 hour block on User:65.96.160.248 for wiki stalking (Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption) and I can't find a template to leave on his page. The documentation is hopeless (I'll update it!) and there's not a lot in Category:User_block_templates. --kingboyk 00:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes indeed, use template:Block|reason. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Vandals

If you look at my edits I do 9+ times out of 10 use the test warnings. Also, the blockings I requested on AIV were not for a single act of vandalism. I have been here long enough to know that admins don't block one-time vandals, unless of course they have been blocked many times recently. Please check you facts before explaining to me again something I already understand and do. The reason some of my warnings jumped immediately to test 4 or bv was because of my review of that IPs previous recent acts of vandalism; often to the same article that had been reverted and left unwarned by other lazy RC patrollers. Thanks. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 03:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My error I am sure, however the one which bothered me was "warned many times" and there were three warnings, two from October last year, and one from you, yesterday. All the vandalism yesterday was increments of silliness. [1], [2], and [3] - similar edits to Vietnam and Russia. On the vietnam article they SELF REVERTED their most blatant edit - [4]. We usually give pats on the head for that. None of this is bv material. Yet when we look at the talk page for the anon, there is 12 October 2005 warning, 27 October 2005 warning, and then 6 March 2006 you added bv? Nope. Not blatant vandalism. That's the PENISPENISPENIS vandal, or this.[5] This is just mild silliness, thanks for biting. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree the warned many times thing was incorrect. I was using a copy and paste AIV vandal addition notice that I have used before when it is true; however, that is no excuse. My personal opinions on the whole vandal warning issue lie in the middle of don't biting the newbies and bv warnings. I think after a couple of "tests" the person is obviously a vandal because otherwhise they would have gone to the sndbox or stopped all together. Inconsistencies as far as block times and warnings lead to confusion and disinterest from anons. I wasn't really being badgered, but thanks for apologizing anyway. I appreciate your thoughts. I think the bv I added might have been in mistake as I believe I was warning multiple users around the same time and might have copied and pasted the wrong template. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I would like to wish you best of luck on Wikipedia. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 01:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, these things happen. Thank you for your unfailing courtesy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie!

Hi, just want to say thanks for your support on WP:AN/I, and for the cookie, which I am now proudly displaying on my user page. A kind thought! By the way, I have to follow a sugar-free diet for the next four months, so I hope it was made with the almost identical (but much healthier) xylitol, recommended by Patrick Holford! Cheers. AnnH ? 12:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this was a cookie-of-the-spirit, no sugar or calories at all!!! And you are more than welcome, I merely shared my view. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Scottish fruit crumpet, folded over beside a pancake.

A topical thought: have a nice bit of crumpet, and this is just silly, don't look for deeper meanings...dave souza, talk 12:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

I would appreciate if you don't wikistalk me. Thanks Arniep 15:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And I would appreciate it if you don't make unfounded charges against me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not unfounded. You intervened in an article dispute which a user posted about on my talk page so you are obviously watching my talk page which I would appreciate you didn't do. Thanks Arniep 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I intervened??? And there is no possible way I could have found it other than either a)watching your talk page (which since I have an unanswered message to you there I may indeed have your talk page on my watch list) or b) checking your contribs and following you around? You have an inflated view of my interest in you. That I have almost 6,000 edits and that Wikipedia, while not paper, is finite, would indicate that every now and then (and depending on editing habits, possibly much more often) we will be editing the same page. I have made one edit to that page, and it was not a change or reversion of any edit of yours. I strongly advise you to consider what WikiStalking is, and is not, before making this type of baseless accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also remember, Arniep, that there are no secrets, no private pages, in Wikipedia. I have a number of userpages/talkpages on my watchlist, either because I have posted to the talkpages, or because I have backtracked a vandal to the pages and reverted vandalism there. Sometimes I read what gets posted, sometimes I'm too busy. This is not stalking anyone, but it sometimes alerts me to interesting things that I might have otherwise missed, and it occassionally alerts me to vandalism on a user's page that hasn't been reverted yet. If you want privacy, look for it off line. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 23:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Dalbury. Btw, this is what he is talking about when he says I "intervened." Rather silly accusation to give a fellow editor on Wikipedia, I usually say "contributed." KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...does this mean that I am stalking you KC? To intervene in Dalbury's intervention on your talk page - oh horror of horrors. My guestimate is that 20% of the 3010 pages on my watchlist are user pages - I must be stalking 615.182481758248 (approx.) Wikipedia users!!!1! Guettarda 00:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and as for the other thing - intervening in disputes is a Bad Thing - if you intervene in disputes then you might solve the problem and prevent them from escalating into an arbcomm case. You'd put the arbcomm out of work (or maybe, prevent them from getting fired from their real-world jobs). You would be taking food out of the mouths of their children (or is it putting food in the mouths of their children?) Anyway, you should never do anything which reduces the balance of disharmony in this place or the karmic balance would be upset and the universe would collapse. Guettarda 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) Darn, I hadn't thought of that! I must have missed the never try to find solutions to disputes in a friendly manner part of the Administrator's reading list. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but it is obvious wikistalking as you jumped straight into the opposite view in a discussion I was involved in in an article which you have never previously edited and seem to be determined to defeat me on a ridiculously silly issue. You also have gone round to other users talk pages complaining about templates which is exactly what you criticised me for doing. Arniep 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I was scrolling up and at first was distracted by the crumpet picture, but then got drawn into reading this message, so I too am now stalking you, KC. Sorry. JDoorjam Talk 00:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Let's Get High And Edit Wikipedia

I say keep it blocked. Some vandals like to try to play mind games with administrators. Even if this guy isn't a vandal, the name is out of line. -- Curps 16:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep it blocked. This has been discussed at length on WP:AN. Why the need for further clarification? — Mar. 7, '06 [20:08] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

He asked me to check, I am doing so. I am sorry if you find it an inconvenience. Its not much trouble for us and makes the decision definitive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that the username is inappropriate. --Ixfd64 20:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all so very much! I appreciate you taking the time to confirm this. I will reply to the user. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (66/2/3), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! Stifle 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

2Pac

Noticed that note at the top of your page, so I had a look at the article. I see you're doing a really poor job there - have you fallen victim to the ruse, or are you part of the cover-up? After all, everyone knows that he's still alive. Guettarda 00:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As a rough guesstimate, 45% of the edits involve adding that information, often along with blanking or paritally blanking the page. There's a reason I have so many edits. The rest of the edits are peacock-phrasing, unsourced rumors and speculation, editorial commentary, and the little bit left are usually racially insulting vandalism. There is one anon who started contributing unsourced gossip, and he's turning into a real assett. I'm trying to get him to register; he found a source for the birth certificate (ending, I hope, the Manhatten/Bronx/Brooklyn edit warring, since all three can be sourced from IMDB, fan sites, and the like.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Look in on Ukraine. I did try to offer a bit of advice once, but now I just watch. I'm afraid I don't have the temperament for mediation. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 03:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew it, I just knew it...he was the guy I saw at the gas station this morning pumping gas for Jim Morrison! Jim62sch 21:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Great work

Thanks for the kind words, KC. It was a nice little dose of wikilove. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 04:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR Question

You recently put a 24 hour block on User:TruthCrusader due to violation of 3RR on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. Why only TruthCrusader and not also User:Chadbryant who was the other party in that edit conflict? He has a history of blocks for 3RR violations, and, while they all weren't in the last 24 hours, the history of Rec.sport.pro-wrestling shows 3RR violations he was not blocked for in previous 24 hour periods as recent as from this week. While TruthCrusader and the whole rest of that party are dishing out attacks, Chadbryant is no innocent in this. You said when blocking TruthCrusader that you were not impressed by his use of real names. Well, Chadbryant has been the biggest violater of that rule. A request for arbitration was filed against him for it, but it was rejected due to it being so obvious that there was a policy violation [6] [7]. Due to the request taking a week to go through and be rejected, Chadbryant has still not been punished for repeatedly violating that rule. He now feels fine throwing that 'no real names' rule around, but he has never accepted responsibility for violating that same rule himself. tv316 14:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My block was due to the report on WP:AN/3RR. TruthCrusader had violated 3RR. ChadBryant was not reported, nor do I see four reversions in the history, I see three. If I am missing something let me know.

It appears there is an edit war on Rec.sport.pro-wrestling. This will not be resolved by adding 3RR reporting frenzy. I suggest mediation, or an article Rfc. I support the efforts to add verifiable cites, and remove unsourced material.

I am not an arbitrator, and have no influence on what cases they accept and do not. Any ArbCom filing is irrelevant as regards this block anyway. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction: he was reported, I'll check it out. Arniep 14:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that too. We edit conflicted on this one. If he checks out pls let me know and I will block. In fact, if you want to see what you can do with the unsourced assertions in that stub I will support you - this is right up your alley, Arnie. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction, take two: We did not edit conflict, I posted that message[8] then Arniep signed it a couple of edits later.[9] This is the second time you have tamped with my posts, Arnie - first you changed a post and left my signature, now you've added your sig to my post, where my sig didn't register correctly. Cease and desist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

After thinking for a minute: did the software do that? or did you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I brought up the Arbcom rejection because it relates to the WP:HAR policy about giving out personal information that you were not impressed with TruthCrusader for. Chadbryant was never punished for it. It doesn't need Arbcom to deal with. They said in their rejection comments that they were rejecting it because it was a matter any admin could take care of using official policies like WP:HAR. Chadbryant has a history of abusive behaviour that he has largely gone unpunished for. tv316 14:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally had time to go check. Chadbryant is on AN/3RR several times; I have blocked him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

When did I use personal information? Saying that Master of RSPW is Chad Bryant is NOT giving out personal information, as I am accusing Master of being Chad's sockpuppet. How else am I supposed to refer to him? Or are you referencing something I am not aware of? BTW how the hell did you get your user page to look so good, I can never get my stuff to line up right! TruthCrusader 15:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Different issue I think, and frankly, not to worry about, as if I cannot remember, its a non-issue so far as I'm concerned. Hopefully that's good enough? If not, I'll try to figure it out for you. Thanks for the compliment on the upage, but I'm planning to redo it - the code's a little whacky. I do know how to write the stuff, this layout I nicked from someone else's page and modified. I need to redo from scrath. What do you want on your uPage? I might be able to help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I want to align my userboxes in a single left side column. Even with specifying 'left' they refuse to do it. I also want to add some color like you have. I'm tired of having a boring page.

TruthCrusader 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I just swiped the code, modified it, took some stuff out and it looks good. I mentioned I swiped the code from you :)

TruthCrusader 16:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Killer. Your article about the mountains was useful to me in exploring information about that telescope they are going to put into operation there. I used to work electronics and have some clue about how that thing gunna be useful. Have a good day. Terryeo 16:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What article? I have no idea what you're talking about. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:JohnBWatt

reports that he's still blocked. I'll try another unblock but could you take a look please? --kingboyk 00:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

I was just wondering, I haven't received my first pay cheque (check) for adminship yet. How often do they send them out? --kingboyk 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been meaning to check (pun intended) into that myself. If you find out, please do let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh Shepherd Dog

On WP:RFPP. Just a FYI: I'm putting a request for unprotection of this article, which you protected on March 1 pending the final decision in the associated arbitration case, made by Robert McLenon. --Tony Sidaway 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, appreciated. Let's hope they have their edit-warring issues worked out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you know I'm okay

It's me, LC aka Lovecoconuts. I can't remember my password, and I'm too lazy right now to go looking for it. =) I still regularly use Wikipedia and just try to avoid the discussion pages because it's far too tempting to get involved in them. I hope everything is (very) well with you.

I am so pleased to hear you are ok. Find that password someday, Ok? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bob Roop

I would have appreciated a more informative edit summary than "rv". Perhaps you'd care to explain your reasoning here? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)(pasted from Lakes' talk page)

The reason for the existance of the category is listed in the category page. (Category:Living people)

?Lakes (Talk) 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

thank you, I have read that page. I did not ask that question. I asked about your edit summary. Perhaps my question was unclear. Thank you so much for giving this your attention. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naing naing

Hello Mr Puppy. I closed this AFD as an 8 day old debate which had now reached a clear delete consensus. Another editor (admin actually) has said I should have let it run for another full 5 days. Any comments? --kingboyk 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There were 3 weak delete, 1 delete, and 1 weak keep, is that correct? That may be the other admin's issue - it is preferable to have more input from the community. When there are fewer than 10 editors voicing an opinion, especially when most of them are wishy-washy (weak), you may re-list on (todays) Afd with the comment (at top) Listed on (date), re-listing here to gain consensus. It appears someone had in fact re-listed, but failed to place a comment on the Afd page for that article, which would have alerted other admins that the article had been relisted.

My advice: reply to the other admin with an apology, remind him that you are new and appreciate the guidance, and mention that it's a pity whoever relisted the Afd didn't place a note on the Afd. Offer to undelete and re-list, if he/she feels it is worth doing. In the future, don't delete if there is so little consensus; relist. And don't worry about it - you're doing fine. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your numbers are correct. It had been relisted, but I felt that the extra opinions cast and that the only one "keep" was "weak" meant it would be fine to close. I really didn't think it would upset anybody.

Thanks for your advice, I'll do exactly what you suggest. --kingboyk 23:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

date links

I am happy to have done what you asked. Please make use of the regex at User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. Caveat emptor. The more this task is shared, the less it will be regarded as a personal issue. bobblewik 23:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I will put that on my to-do list (to figure it out!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want, I can set it up for you. Just say the word. bobblewik 00:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

'The word". But how does it work? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You press a button and it edits the page. If you like the edits you press save. If you don't, you can do more editing or cancel.

I thought that I could set it all up for you but I have to talk you through it.

1. Go to User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js and press View source. Copy it all then paste it into User:KillerChihuahua/monobook.js/dates.js.

2. Go to User:KillerChihuahua/monobook.js and paste into it (at the last line) the following text:

• winc('User:KillerChihuahua/monobook.js/dates.js');

Then press control shift R.

Let me know when you have done that. bobblewik 02:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Now go to a page and select edit. In edit mode, you should also see a tab marked '1jan2001'. Press that and it should do the delinking and leave you in edit mode. If you don't see it, then we have more work to do. bobblewik 11:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No tab. I did something wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hold on. I am trying to work it out. bobblewik 11:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that your User:KillerChihuahua/monobook.js page is different to mine. You could either copy mine complete, or try adding the function winc which you just used in the last line. Add it just before the last line where you use it. You would need to copy:

function winc(s) { document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'

            + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=' + s
            + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

}

If that does not work, then you will need the bit above too. bobblewik 11:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding that bit without changing my monobook resulted in unreadable garbage. I changed my monobook and added that bit; still nothing. Sorry to be taking so much of your time. :( KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about my time, it took me several iterations too. If you can do delinking, we will be twice as effective. You lost the last line, so just re-add:

• winc('User:KillerChihuahua/monobook.js/dates.js');

bobblewik 11:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you have updated your monobook. Does it work now? If not, try copying the top piece of my monobook (I see yours is different to mine). bobblewik 13:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You could try copying my monobook entirely word for word, including references to User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js. It will then point at mine. Once you get it working, you can then start tinkering. Just a thought. bobblewik 14:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Make sure you press control-shift-R after you have edited it. Wait until it refreshes the page, that clears the cache. Then go to an article and press edit. You should see the '1jan2001' tab next next to the 'watch' tab. bobblewik 14:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Well, its working now but for some reason my monobook.js is displaying like crap. Not that anyone is going to be looking at it, but still... thanks.

added: Not on Mozilla on this machine. Using the evil IE. It is ctrl-f5 on IE. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My monobook looks a bit weird too but I don't care as long as it works. Over time, I will learn what it means and can then tidy it up. The same can apply to you. I have updated my User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js page since you copied it. So you can keep pointing at my original or create your own copy and point at that. I am barely a step ahead of you in understanding any of this.

Anyway, for pages to edit you might want to go to a month page like December and look at what links here. That is what I did. If it links to something as silly as a month, it almost always has other silly links. Or you could try the ones that Ambi reverted and are in his contributions list, but then it would be just as easy to revert them I suppose.

If you use Firefox, you get the benefit of using tabs which speeds things up, although I choose to stay under 120 edits per hour. bobblewik 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should join this effort, as well. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your box

Thanks for the unofficial tips, I enjoyed reading it, it wasn't spammy or anything. :D --Obli (Talk)^? 00:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you much for the feedback! KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

your message on my talk page

... was absolutely hilarious, and (from the groans I've heard from a few admins) is dead-on. The first time I read it, I thought it said advice for the puppy, which is a little how I feel right now: excited, happy that my RfA passed, but also really clumsy, like I just know I'm going to knock something over or pee on the carpet accidentally. Too spammy? The first thing I thought when I read it was, "when I'm an old hand at this, I'm gonna steal that message and use it myself." I think it's great. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 00:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalkers like you, I like. Delighted to have you on board. Thank you so much for the feedback; it is much appreciated. As far as the "new-admin" feeling, I can sympathise. That is the best description of the feeling I have ever read! And you'll do fine. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing I can tell you right now: one day you'll have people complaining that you did a task in the X fashion, so do it Y; the next day someone else will complain that you did it Y when it should be X. I guess that will ease as time passes and confidence grows; right now I'm a bit suggestible and eager to please :). --kingboyk 01:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey KillerChihuahua/Archive03, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! — Deckiller 04:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Guiding Light

I noticed on another user's talk page that you asked for cleaning up of date links on the sub-articles. I was wondering; do you watch that show? I'm an off and on fan, and could help you if you needed to clean up the subs. Mike H. That's hot 10:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not watch the show, it was listed on cleanup (and believe me, although it still needs it, it is much better now.) None of the articles have sources, most are convoluted run-on narratives without clear focus or chrobnological order, which leave out information crucial to make sense of the rest of the narrative. Its an odd compendium of commentary, bad writing, and trivia. I would appreciate enormously any help you can give. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

SectionHeader for hostile post from Ambi

I don't have time to individually check the thousand-odd articles Bobblewik mass-removed links from, as I have a life outside of Wikipedia. If you don't want changes reverted on the articles you edit, then perhaps you could try convincing Bobblewik not to make automated changes to the nine hundred and ninety-odd articles that he wasn't requested to edit. Ambi 12:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you do the same as Bobblewik, and mass-unlink pages while snubbing your nose at the large proportion of Wikipedians who disagree with those edits, then you'll be subject to the same mass-reversion. Please don't waste my and your time. Ambi 12:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer you try not to speak for all of us, Ambi. I just had to revert your revert of Bobblewik on an article on my watchlist. Please stop forcing excessive useless date links on the articles. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)^(Talk) 16:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As did I, and I had asked Bobblewik to do it, because I was so tired of delinking by hand. Ambi is pushing his view, which is the opposite of MoS and Add links relevant to content, without regard to how he is disrupting things. The article was Guiding Light, which has umpteen zillion date years and is most obviously not The History of Constantinople, or something else which actually needs a year or several linked. He mindlessly reverted all that work without even pausing to ask himself if year links were even likely to make sense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I am trying to make some improvements in the project Censorship. I thought you might want to know about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to write a new policy Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I am very busy but believe strongly on having some standards in Wiki. I would appreciate if you can review it and incoorporate new ideas you might want to add. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. I cannot finish it without help. Best. Resid Gulerdem 00:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Arf arf!

Hi, puppy! The salon is now open for business.

Please drop in for a cup of coffee or a fizzy drink! ! Bishonen | ??? 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

Re:useful tip

Hey, thanks for woofing the useful tip! I was actually quoting the policy verbatim, but I will definitely find that tip useful down the track. Grace Note 08:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome - and WP:cite uses tl. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Making References to Original Research

Wikipedia policy is quite clear on original research, I.e. it is a no no. However, From my understanding, as long as information is verifiable then it is ok. If I was to publish any of my original research would it then be suitable to be used in a wikipedia article? And in that case, how would the verifiability to be checked? A long with the publishing, would there have to be contact information, so that people could get in contact with me and thus other to verify my work? The thing is, I'm dealing with people who have dealt directly with events of the past that I wish to document. How do I get this information on to wikipedia without violating wikipedia policy? Perhaps I could create a personal webpage with my works on there, thus creating a source? 202.6.138.34 13:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Errr... on second thought, it probably has to be a reputable source. Hmmm... Still is there anyway around it? 202.6.138.34 13:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The only way "around it" is to get published by a reputable source. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

And for a source to be reputable, in this instance, is it enough to be reputable amoung the group of people who this article is aimed at? Or is a reputable source known to the larger wikipedia community? POds 00:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

People can and have argued for weeks over whether one source or another is reliable enough for a given topic: there's no firm answer to that. Let me add something else: common sense and a feel for how Wikipedia works tells me that it is a bad thing to try to get something published in order to then be able to report upon it in Wikipedia. If something is notable enough to merit coverage, then someone else should have an interest in creating the article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What Bunch said. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree bunch, I have felt very iffy about it. Its just a shame that such information cant find its way into wikipedia. However, I understand why the policy is in place and why its so important. Still, I'll continue with my research and I'll get the article published somehow, somewhere, as I believe this information is important, as there is very little on this topic. For now, I'll remove the parts in the article obtained via my contact with Dave Southern. POds 11:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Popping the balloon

If you wish it, the time is now ripe for taking this juicy bone between your teeth and worrying it like a rat! Bishonen | ??? 20:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC).

Spam

Hi, on the 2pac/Tupac sections of this site i see that Alleyezonme.com (link) is spammed everywhere, every album page in fact most pages.

I read Wiki on the regular and know mass link spam is not allowed. I thought i'd let you know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.104 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just remove it from all those pages? Why tell me? KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I reported it because i can not edit pages since Wiki has banned AOL users, but i still enjoy reading Wiki.

Wikipedia has not banned AOL users. Some of the AOL ip's are temporarily blocked from time to time due to vandalism, which may be the problem you are having. If you register, you can avoid being blocked. I am glad you enjoy reading Wikipedia, and appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Please do consider registering! KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Arf

Sorry homicidepuppy, I didn't revert you on purpose, it's the database playing up: I didn't get an edit conflict. That seems to be happening a lot lately, so we'd be safer getting out of each other's hair. Could you please just revert to a version with your complete conversions in it? I won't touch the page again till you let me know you're done, and then I'll do a bit of rounding. OK? Bishonen | ??? 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC).

It didn't look to me like a revert was needed; the 3,000 kg conversion was missing, but I saw no figures which you had rounded which un-rounded or reverted back to a previous version. Perhaps I'm missing something? At any rate, I will stay out unless and until you tell me to do something else, but I think its ok now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you have a look please?

Hi, I noticed that you nominated Cyde for adminship. He has been closing AFDs even before they have completed their 5 days on AFD. My messages to him at User_talk:Cyde#AFD_closing_-_heads-up and User_talk:Cyde#Closing_AFDs seem to be in vain. Nor does he seem interested in getting the policy changed. Any help in this matter is appreciated. Please reply on my talkpage, if it is required. TIA, --Gurubrahma 08:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought Cyde was already an administrator? If not, he deserves to be. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

He is an admin, I was the person who nominated him for his recent sucessful Rfa. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Date links proposal

Hi,

You contributed to a previous debate about date links. You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 08:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Feedback needed

On the latest meta template. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If I'm going to successfully stalk KillerChihuahua, people leaving messages on this page are going to need to be clearer :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Let it be a challenge to you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

How exactly did I violate WP:POINT and WP:BITE in tagging as a sockpuppet an account with one edit (a personal attack/threat/posting of assumed personal information that was deleted by Freakofnurture ), which was then blocked (see [10]) less than an hour later? - Chadbryant 22:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter - you were told not to put the sockpuppet tag on and yet you went ahead and did so anyway in clear violation of a request from a Wikipedia administrator. Your troublemaking behavior should cease immediately. --FARVA 03:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Chadbryant

Chadbryant placed the sockpuppet tag back on Stephen P. Signorelli shortly after your request for him not to do so. I am removing it after this posting, as Mr. Bryant seems to enjoy and have a history of placing sockpuppet tags on accounts where they are not wanted or have been proven as sockpuppets -- as my user page history and his will attest. --FARVA 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your congrats message

Just popping by to say that I really like the congrats message you left for User:Myleslong about adminship. I'd get complaints as a bureaucrat if I left that message for people but it made me chuckle! -- Francs2000 13:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Words of wisdom

Thanks for the puppy's words of wisdom , they made me laugh. I'm sure each and every one is true at some point whilst mopping the messy floors around here :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 19:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No Problem.

How long do I have to be here to become an admin? No problem about reverting your user page. CharlesM 01:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There are few hard-and-fast rules. Generally, people like to see a minimum of 2,000 edits, spread across different Namespaces: Main (aka Article), Talk, User talk, Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk; and at least 6 months, with preferably 1 year or more, of experience. You currently have a months experience, 268 total edits, divided into: Main 145, Talk 10, User 27, User talk 72, Wikipedia 5, Wikipedia talk 5, Image 4. I suggest you read WP:GRFA, WP:ARL, and WP:AHTG as well as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

...but don't fall for editcountitus. Edit quality counts for a lot, as does contributing to various discussions throughout the encyclopedia. The more people who see you as a friendly, helpful and valuable editor, and who instantly recognise your name, the better. People here don't like to promote the power hungry, mind, so I'd advise you not to even mention adminship again until you've been here at least 3 months. Just my $0.02. --kingboyk 07:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks in edit summaries

FM. In addition to being an attack, it is of course patently false. — goethean ॐ 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

How to count vandalism counter vandalism

Since you have prior experience, I thought I would ask you. A vandal hit my user page. After it was reverted, the vandal came back and incremented my vandalism counter. So, does that count as a second incident of vandalism? :-) -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 00:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a judgement call. IMHO, if you failed to increase the counter after the vandalism, I would count that as merely updating the counter. If someone updates your counter by 1 with no other edit, that can stand as its own instance of vandalism. But that's my take on it. Your mileage may vary according to your interpretation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, I'm on my own. :-) Ah, well, it's either 8 or 9 now on my user page, so either way I'm still ahead of you. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 13:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yuo are completely on your own. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. And just because I don't annoy people as much as you is no reason to brag. Btw, when can I nominate you for admin? So you can annoy people more effectively? :P - KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not quite yet. I've only been active for 5 months, and I only have about 5,600 edits right now. More seriously, I'm not sure yet if I want the honor. I'll be on Wiki-break this week, and I just quit one of my part-time jobs on Thursday, so I want to see how my schedule settles out after I return (I've found in the past that reducing the number of hours working may actually reduce time spent on-line). My edit count will be considerably lower this month (and not just because of the break), and I feel I've been neglecting article contributions. In short, I'll think about it for 2 or 3 weeks. In the meantime, I'm trying not to make too many enemies. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 17:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

request for a 3rd opinion

Hiya voluntarymanslaughtercanine. I'm having a bad wikipedia day, and thought I'd come to you for some advice. I tried to help stem the edit war continuing at Dianetics by tagging the article as {{npov}} . It was reverted, saying discuss it on the talk page. So, I cited my reasons on the talk page. I thought I provided pretty overwhelming support: the summary being to the effect of "two days ago 5 out of 6 of the edits on the page were content reversions or deletions, including some with the edit summary "pov"." In fact, if I recall correctly, you're somewhat familiar with this article, you made a statement regarding the edit war in your summary. I then re-added the npov tag. It was reverted again saying "cite specific reasons". I though "Ok, maybe I was too general in my edit. I'll dig up a few specific cases of npov violation, and we should be golden. So I did so: I provided 3 or 4 instances of pov statements. So far the only response thus far was from User:Vivaldi who agreed with me that they were either pov, or OR, or otherwise needed to be removed. And that he reverts my npov tag saying "it's time for it to go bye bye", and slaps a 3RR violation warning on my talk page (let alone that I didn't violate the rule. I pointed out the text of the rule to him, and he retracted the warning).

Can I just say, I'm a little pissed off right now. I try to help the project by stopping some disruptive behavior, and I get wiki-slapped in the face. Am I correct in my actions, or am I out in left field and just don't know it. I've asked some other users on IRC whether I'm on crack with this, they seem to think I'm not, though they don't want to touch the actual article.

Anyway, if you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at the article again, especially the section on the talk page I've provided my evidence at? I'd appreciate it greatly.

--⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Darnit, I put an NPOV on that article just a day before you. The article reads like 90% of it came from a Scientology brochure. This is biased on the face of it, but there are a couple of editors who claim the only source for reliable information about Dianetics is Hubbard and Church writings, which is backwards. We certainly should use that as the core, being clear what the source is, but to use that virtually exclusively is POV pushing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought sections of the article read like a discrediting of Scientology/dianetics, though I do see how other sections concur with that. The article clearly deserves a POV tag, but the editors are so firmly entrenched they don't want it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:NPOVD, I believe I was entirely justified in adding the NPOV tag (though I won't readd it as I've publically stated I won't). Maybe it's me, but I just don't understand. Why can't they accept my concern over the neutrality of the article?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Because some of the regular editors are "clears" and they see any balance as bad, bad, bad. That's the short version. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Um ok, now I'm confused. You left me a couple quotes and sources on my talk page, but with no frame of reference as to what I'm supposed to do with them.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I noticed you edited a Hip Hop related article. If you wish you can join the new Hip Hop Wikiproject. Thanks for your time. Tutmosis 22:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

hey

Check your email, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything? How old is this email? --Cyde Weys 02:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

3/19/2006 6:16 AM EST is when it was sent. Try emailing me? KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Penguins

Hehe, I was using it twice to emphasize we are the penguins :"D, but the ice sheet goes well with them. So it works out. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were the Walrus. I am the KillerChihuahua. There seems to be some species confusion here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, *flop* *flop*. I'm trying to pet you with my flipper. :"D RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Eve (first woman)

KC, I need your advice on this. Jim62sch 10:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from my user talk page)

Jim

The outcome of the vote on merging [[Eve (first woman) with Adam and Eve:

• Support. Don't think that a seperate article needs to be opened. Each person was a unique character, but since they are almost always discussed together, a seperate article is redundant. --Shuki 11:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as the wording in that article is inflammatory, can be seen as misogynistic and POV, and not needed in this article. Jim62sch 11:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Create a redirect from there to Adam and Eve page, merge any useful material, ignore any myth=fact nonsense. — Dunc|? 12:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge per Dunc. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge - most of the Eve Original Woman article is not worth keeping PiCo 07:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You might not think that "support" and "oppose" can end up meaning the same thing, but in this case they do. Nobody wants two articles. The "merge" part, well, I think nobody sees anything worth merging. So, can I just delete the content off that page (maybe with a note that it's been decided to merge with A&E) and add a "redirect"? Or is that sort of thing not encouraged in Wikiland? Do we need to ask/tell and admin? PiCo 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask KillerChihuahua...I'm not sure that poll is binding anyway as there was no clear cut consensus and very few people voting. Jim62sch 10:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Theistic evolution

KC, I emailed you, Jim and FM regarding a proposed change to intelligent design#Origins of the concept, and left a brief note on SA's talk page. The others are all content, so the change has been made in the hope that you'll have no objection. ...dave souza, talk 12:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

None whatsoever, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers!

Hi KillerChihuahua! Thanks for the v funny advice... which also sounds frighteningly true to life. Hmmm. And thanks for the congrats! ? ?REDVERS? 21:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nature barnstar

Could you upload the nature barnstar to en; as the latest template is almost ready for implementation. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I put it in commons. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Possible RfC

About the e-mail, are you refering to whom I think you are? -Kyd 11:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that isn't a pleasant suprise, I don't know what is! -Kyd 11:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I take that back. He just violated 3RR on Abortion. I recommend RfC against both he and Pro-Lick. Both are making it tremendously difficult to accomplish anything around there. -Kyd 06:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Mr Puppy. I've got my first case of sockpuppetry and wanton POV vandalism, and I'd like some advice about how to handle it. I first became aware of Baba29292929 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a POV warrior whose only contributions are to change "Hong Kong, China" to "Hong Kong" everywhere he culd find it, without consensus (slightly ironically, as I like to think of HK as a seperate entity too, but one has to be impartial and go with consensus, right). He got a 48 hour block. The same edits and vandalism then appeared from an IP address 203.223.206.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I only blocked for 1 hour, as I couldn't be sure if it was shared or not (given the small number of edits from that address, I think it isn't shared). Today, that IP address and a new account Diudiudiu123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hit the Olympics pages and my user page again, and inserted a burning Chinese flag into Hong Kong, China at the 2000 Summer Olympics. I'd "like" (not that I get any enjoyment out of this) to block Diudiudiu123 indefinitely as sock puppet, and block the IP and Baba29292929 for at least "a long time" given that their sole purpose around here seems to be disruption. What say you? And where should I take this approval or is asking one other admin for endorsement enough? I've looked at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Sockpuppets and it says there not to bother them for Checkuser etc if the case seems straightforward. --kingboyk 11:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. It's also an indication of how stupid the average vandal is. If he didn't leave his calling card on my user page every time he went on a de-China spree, I probably wouldn't have noticed :) --kingboyk 11:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to check edits as I'm sure you have been thorough. Here is the breakdown:

• 203.223.206.159 is registered to Asia Pacific Network Information Centre out of Australia. They inform us the IP is registered to PowerCom, an Internet Service Provider our of Hong Kong. So you're right not to block that one extensively.

Pick the oldest account, block the others, slap a suspected sockpuppet tag on their user page - be sure to include as evidence their contribs. As the evidence seems clear sockpuppetry, block them indef - if the oldest one is the disruptive one, block for disruption, if s/he has made no useful contribs, I'd block for up to a week. Check their contribs after the block expires. Put the usual note on their user talk page, add to watch list. In my experience, actual sockpuppets usually don't complain. Odd, but there it is. The ones that do complain, complain very loudly indeed, with great cries of abuse (yours) and innocence (theirs). At that point, it becomes even more of a judgment call. I personally would add the accounts to RFCU. You have now consulted with another Admin, which is all that is needed in cases where you aren't sure of your judgment (in cases where you are sure, just do it.) You may consult with others if you desire, or Be Bold and just do it - remember users can always be unblocked, sockpuppet tags can always be removed, and from what you tell me none of these users are making productive edits, so where is the loss to WP? One puppy's opinion, but if they were good editors making errors you wouldn't be here asking about it, they would be responding to your numerous attempts to work with them, right? So yes I support this course of action. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Further information:

info for 203.223.206.159 is:

• person: Gary Yip
• nic-hdl: GY135-AP
• e-mail: gyip@gary-yip.com
• address: 12/F Cheung Kong Center, 2 Queen's Road Central, HK
• phone: +852-2126-6626
• fax-no: +852-2121-8111
• country: HK
• changed: gyip@gary-yip.com 20041011
• mnt-by: MAINT-HK-POWERCOM
• source: APNIC

You could try contacting Gary Yip directly if vandalism continues from this IP. Please note that the vandal is not necessarily Mr. Yip - he may be the contact person only, and in fact probably is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for the detailed reply. All done as you suggested (puppet blocked indef, main account 1 week, IP 24 hours, user pages on watchlist). I don't think there's any need to burden the CheckUser people, the pages he hit and the style are conclusive enough I feel and, as you say, all he has to do is chuck an {{Unblock}} if there's any dispute. --kingboyk 12:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of Kongo

Moved. Please check and fix redirs per Special:Whatlinkshere/Kongo_Empire - I will hit them if I have time, but don't wait on me to do it - thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the move; I'm just about to attend to the Whatlinkshere, so worry not. Best wishes, David Kernow 17:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
PS Re your request for assistance with Tupac Shakur, I seem to recall some folks' userboxes proclaiming a counter-vandalism mission or the like; maybe those are the folk to contact. Apologies in advance if this already well-known and tried.

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / opposing / vandalising my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now still a normal user / an administrator / indefinitely banned. Your constructive criticism / support / foulmouthed abuse has given me something to think about / helped me immensely / turned me into a nervous wreck. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ask someone else / suffer and die / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

Care to contribute?

Hi KC,

I know you are interested in religion and theology. I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. [11] is the site.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. nsandwich 00:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite, but I will not be participating. I am spread too thin right now as it is. Good luck with your venture. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again....

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan - Bertilvidet 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

He's quoted my closing comments from last time, which I'm not totally happy about. Those comments were my summary of the debate about a different article, not necessarily my opinion and certainly not the words of an expert! --kingboyk 11:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Post to that effect if you wish, below his italicised quote. He does state it was the result of a similar Afd, and the remarks are clearly about that Afd closing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, have done. I don't object to his quoting me, but I don't want people to think I'm claiming to be an expert on the issue. I know little more than bugger all about it, to be frank :) --kingboyk 11:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar: thanks

Thanks for my wonderful barnstar, it was a nice present William M. Connolley 11:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

lol

lol @ the "adding forums, sheesh" =D --Syrthiss 17:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad you liked it, it helps to keep a sense of humor. I'm trying to be clear without pasting the entire content of WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS. I'm not updating that warning again, I'm just going to send them to the policy pages to read for themselves. Otherwise, I'll end up entering being told by a minor archaic deity in a dream, the gossip column from school newspapers, and "everybody knows it!" are not... KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Being slightly petty

Hi, KillerChihuahua. I know that what I wrote on Talk:Abortion wasn't in any way helpful. I actually hesitated for a moment before pressing "save", and then yielded to the temptation. Mea maxima culpa. It doesn't often happen! Cheers. AnnH ? 22:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I know its so unusual for you, that's why I said I was surprised!!! You're my poster child for polite. But if there was an article to get anyone "testy" it is surely the Abortion article. Mother Theresa would get a mite testy if she had edited that, methinks. I'm sorry if I sounded too strongly admonishing (horribly hacked sentence but I am sure you know what I am trying to say.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Kwanzaa

Nice work so far! Thanks for tackling this; it's sure needed it for a while. Hopefully we can get it in shape before the fools show up again in December...Regarding "Maulana", I'm not sure how or why we should use a self-imposed honorific like that. It's certainly not his name, is it? I'm not even sure why the article needs an picture of him; it doesn't really say anything about Kwanzaa. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks, I have 43 contributions to Kwanzaa but I think until today they were almost all reverts of the fools as you so delicately put it. I'm glad I was finally able to make a few minor improvements. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Psst

[12] · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion and mythology

Had a look at the article. And left a message on the talk page. In essence, I can't see any justification for the existence of of the piece. It sounds like one of those arguments first-year uni students have over a couple of bottles of cheap red wine that last all night and end up with the last two still awake deciding that the future of the world lies in universal peace and brotherhood and other good stuff like that. Except that, since it's on Wiki, it's more likely to end up in quarrels and tears and wasted bandwidth. Cheers. PiCo 13:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

And if you really want to see quarrels and tears and wasted bandwidth, nominate it for AfD. :-) -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 14:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am seriously considering it, although not for that reason. :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't encourage you (I've grown leery of causes that engage me emotionally or intellectually and then lead to abuse being heaped on my head), but I'll pay attention if you do. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

RfAs and questions

BY the way, over the last few weeks I've started asking more and more questions to perspective RfA candidates. Could you maybe take a look and let me know if I'm being a dick? I think that the questions are reasonable and relevant, but I've never gone through the stress of an RfA, so I dunno. JoshuaZ 00:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Rfa is stressful, and your questions are reasonable, and anyone who cannot bear scrutiny or explain their actions plausibly (and "I made a mistake" is of course a valid answer) should not be an admin. Was there any question, or battery of questions, in particular which had you concerned? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was slightly worried about my first question to Jedi6 which after I posted it struck me as slightly argumentative/inquisitorial. I called Interiot's Tool there "Interiot's vice" as a joke, but that struck me after the fact as possibly making matters worse. JoshuaZ 01:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see how you might be concerned, but as an outside reader, it does not appear so to me. I especially like how you balanced your question with a compliment for his "impressive" work. Nicely done. Worry not. And Interiot's tool is a vice at times, we all know this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I gave Tawker 11 questions on his RfA - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tawker2, although he actually asked for more questions. That may not have been a good move on his part... 14:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Tuttle

I noticed that you have shortened the abovementioned block to 15mins. You may wish to know that this is not clueless attacks by a newbie, but an ArbCom related case. See my talkpage and WP:AN/I for details. If you still feel that the block should not be indef, please join in the discussion at either of the above channels. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What? No, I selected indef. I've blocked Jason about 20-30 times, and I never block for less than indef. I'll go check - my mouse may have slid. Thanks for mentioning it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

NSLE already got it, and I thanked NSLE, so is all fixed. Log shows I did block for 15, so my mouse slipped. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Nancy5671 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user recreated a deleted direct for Louisiana Baptist University. Arbusto 01:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sock at Bob Cornuke. Arbusto 01:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

:-)

(lol) that's a really funny one I have to say, thank you so much that's really nice of you. also if you need something, let me know, but I'm sure I'll get back to you on that offer. cheers... :-) Gryffindor 14:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi KillerChihuahua, what's up? I already have my first case, regarding this image Image:Rycina 1752 Palac Branickich.jpg. Is has no source and no author who made this piece. I tagged it with the no-source template. User:Irpen keeps on removing my tag, making the user come close to a three revert edits violation. Ok, so now what do I do? Gryffindor 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See this for a discussion. --Irpen 21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade RfC

Hey, I noticed you signed the RfC - currently, the statement is focusing specifically on his actions on Socialism, because that is where I have encountered him. Could you provide comments about his actions on the other articles? Thanks. -- infinity0 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Working on it - thanks. I edit God and Human so there will be diffs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples, but let's not turn the RfC into a diff-spam. Better to summarise what Sam's done with a few diffs to support your summary. You can save all the diffs for later if they're needed - I don't want Sam to get the impression we're ganging up on him. That many diffs looks quite intimidating. -- infinity0 20:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I will consider your input. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

vandal stalker.

Check the highlights on my user page (under ArbCom case of the <insert time period here>). I'm pretty sure he actually called me a rapist too!. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

florida vs mexico

I should have said where my ancestors lived, but the huricane is cool. The reason I added the stuff (just for fun) was that I had noticed you write "one puppy's opinion" a lot and expected to see puppy's all over your user page. Instead I found the highly professional and on topic page. That had to change ;-) David D. (Talk) 17:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You must have missed this version of my talk page, courtesy of Bunchofgrapes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Forget that, I think he missed the whole "Friends, Thinkers, and (more or less) Reality oriented lifeforms, lend me thine ears!" paragraph! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That happens to be a totally accurate biography, and I plagarized only the best sources for phrasing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean shes NOT from another galaxy. Why did you have to wreck it for me? David D. (Talk) 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Williams Page Deletion

Here you go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Williams_%28pastor%29_%282nd_nomination%29 you said delete last time hopefully this time we can make it stick.

arbcom case

Hi there pup. I've been named party in an arbcom case, regarding AfDs. Since you were one of the earlier editors to get in touch with me on wikipedia, and more familiar with me than the other editors named, I'd like to ask that you go to WP:RFAR, go to the case entitled Monicasdude, and offer your thoughts as to my conduct in AfDs. The case was brought by Stifle, and joined by Terence Ong, myself, JIP, Jareth, Mailer Diablo, Kirill Lokshin, and possibly others by this point, against Monicasdude. Since then, Monicasdude has extended a counter-claim against me alleging my votes on some AfD's were "wikistalking". I would not wish to appear that I'm asking you to choose any sides, I only wish you to offer your thoughts as to my wikipedia character, either good or bad. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rfar's are different from Rfcs, in that, were I to enter into this I would be able to add almost nothing at this time which would be relevant, and would be more likely to annoy the Arbcom members rather than assist in any way. I will watch and if there is anything helpful I can add at the time of Evidence or Workshop, I will do so. As I have not interacted directly with Monicasdude, any additions I would make at this time would be detrimental and not helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions about how best to proceed, as I understand this is your first Arbcom case - or better yet, ask Guy or FeloniousMonk, who are more experienced in Arbcom cases. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, if the arbitration gets accepted then it will be more reasonable for Killer to become involved. Right now, the Arb Com is just trying to determine if there is something that they should take, not the merits of the sides per se. (KillerChihuahua, feel free to bark if thats wrong). JoshuaZ 00:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is a part of it; also there is the issue that I cannot add to the Reasons to Accept, as I have no involvement with this particular situation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Pup, sorry, I was not asking you to comment on Monicasdude, I was asking you to comment on my own character, though if you still choose to not get involved I can understand.

(After reviewing JoshuaZ's comment)Ah, ok I understand now, I must have misread what you said earlier. Gotcha. Thanks JoshuaZ. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sean Hood

Thanks for your advice regarding this article. I will definately be contributing to the Wikipedia project, and asking for help if I run into problems. The fax paus "vanity" article was actually a great way to get my feet wet and experience the self-correcting Wiki process. I learned a lot. Seanhood 13:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

POV flag on Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

Since you added the POV flag to this article, I thought I should let you know that I did a rewrite. The difference between Christian and Judaic interpretations seems to rest on the subtle distinction between disobeying God (Christianity) and failing to obey God (Judaism). Let me know if there are still POV issues. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly...

...according to the LBC website for Iain Lee's show, that last edit (the uber whatever whatever correspondant) is the website for them. I'm so overjoyed at actually seeing a sourced edit I'm tempted to override WP:EL!11!!. --Syrthiss 18:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Web Uber Veteran" is real? Ack, I have fallen prey to de-sensitization! Is it relevent? I share your joy at actual sourcing, btw. We should put banners and baloons on the talk page, do you think? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I visited the site and didnt have the proper plugin so it was basically blank to me... so I don't really think its relevant enough to fit WL criteria. Maybe Sam will have a better read on this. The really scary thing is that I am indeed thinking of celebrating it on the talk page. It would probably come across as mean though. ;) --Syrthiss 19:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

research before attacking me

I was merely pointing out truths, not making personal attacks. I suggest you read the discussions on the various related pages before falsely accusing me. The vandalism problem of using circular definitions. needs to be addressed, as some wikipedians are approving of "nonsense", against wiki vandalism policy. I hope you will constructively comment as the grammarians begin to offer input on the vandalism discussion page pat8722 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Of what did I supposedly accuse you? Where is this alleged attack? Please clarify, and provide a diff link. Otherwise, keep your spurious accusations and conjectures to yourself. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As you haven't shown where I've made a personal atack, stop [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] my talk page.pat8722 19:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...how about in the statement above? Guettarda 19:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda are you suggesting there is "personal attack" in the above? Like where? pat8722 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Your unwarranted accusation of vandalism is a personal attack. Stop doing so. Guettarda 19:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop [personal attacks deleted by Guettarda] my talk page, if you think my reverts are improper, quote the basis for yours. pat8722 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Chad Smith and Johnc1

Hi, User:Johnc1 is back and posted defamation in the article again. You may want to take a look at his edits. Sint Holo 19:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA advice

Thanks for the RfA advice and the congratulations. I'm sure I'll make some mistakes, but it is nice to see some humor. Happy editing! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser on Gastrich Puppets

I think the CheckUser people have grown tired of stopping Gastrich. Any way we can appeal this request being declined to hunt down the puppet farms he is surely running? He's going through disposable sock accounts at a staggering rate, and common sense says that there has to be a sock farm somewhere. Hexagonal 03:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, I dont know everyone on that list and I haven't had time to check, but at least one of them, No Job, is already blocked. The checkuser request declined statement may mean that these specific socks have already been investigated. JoshuaZ 03:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Several of them have been checked, and Gastrich's block has been extended. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jason_Gastrich#Log_of_proven_violations and User talk:Jason Gastrich. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Abortion poll

Please weigh in with your view on this abortion wikipedia poll. ____G_o_o_d____ 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops - I see you already weighed in. I have moved your comments to the tally section - I wanted you to know in case you don't want it there. ____G_o_o_d____ 08:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

'Toon time

Remember Image:FMonk.jpg? Well, Bud Neill who was a source of inspiration to generations of Scottish cartoonists featured in Did you know... on the main page today ;-p ...dave souza, talk 11:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)