User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 10

You May Want to Step In

Hi KillerChihuahua

A while back you stepped in when I was being stalked by a user named "Arniep". To refresh your memory, I was one of several users who contributed to articles on the Travolta family including Rikki Lee Travolta. Arniep didn't like Rikki Lee Travolta or something to that affect so I was labeled a "sock puppet" and Arniep would follow me around where ever I would contribute on whatever subject until I got so sick I basically quick Wikipedia. You were kind enough to step in and stop the stalking with a warning to Arniep. Eventually I guess Arniep stalked too many people and was banned.

I think Arniep may be back under the name "Corvus cornix". I made an edit to the "Tony n' Tina's Wedding" page in February and when I checked in on the page today the history shows someone named Corvus cornix had been in a battle of some kind trying to remove Rikki Lee Travolta from the page. That seemed curious so when I looked at Corvus cornix's history it appears they are following the same pattern that Arniep did of targeting the exact same subjects, stating disregard for the Wikipedia rules (I will continue deleting...bla bla bla), stalking different members.

I've been through this once and have no interest in being attacked yet again by someone with an axe to grind over and over. Maybe it is weak of me, but I don't have the conviction to stand up to being attacked and labeled with insults. So, I'm not going to get involved in any of the things Corvus cornix is doing. I'm just letting you know so somebody does. If that info dies here so be it, but even if I don't have the strength to battle this kind of behavoir I still do believe in the principles of Wikipedia and wanted to let someone know this kind of thing is going on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icemountain2 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... I'll take a look and ask for a checkuser if it seems it would be useful. Is RLT a verified notable addition to the article, btw? I thought there was some question about that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What jumped out at me as a caution flag about Corvus cornix is that RLT wasn't an addition to the Tony n' Tina's Wedding article. He was there and there since the beginning. According to the history he dates back as the verified first celebrity guest star since the start of the page. It even had plenty of articles proving this. Even now with Corvus cornix removing RLT, the references being used to qualify the other actors all list RLT (so the references apparently only apply when Corvus cornix wants them too?)

Here's some of the links from the page:

http://chicago.about.com/cs/events1/a/Fabio_Travolta.htm

http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2005/Jan/EEN41e6b44f2b4e5.html

If I recall, the whole RLT being in question was basically a one-man (or woman) battle headed by Arniep going and recruiting friends to back him/her up. Once Arniep was banned it stopped. Now there's a new user named Corvus Cornix going to all the same pages, recruiting all the same friends? It just seems fishy to me.

Understand my concern is not about RLT. If he is listed on a page or not, I'm not getting into any battle about that. I like him as an actor but I'm not a big enough fan to really care that much. If it was one user being annoying about one page, so be it.

What I thought I should point out was that Corvux Cornix's history shows he is going through to multiple pages and chopping the same way or getting into revert wars. I don't have the energy for it (nor do I want to get labeled with insults) but it just seems fishy to me. Icemountain2 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think this is the same editor. Also, I don't know about elitestv, but about.com is not a reliable source. He was mentioned in several sources as the first guest star on TnT's Wedding though. And he doesn't seem to be related to John, sfaict. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. Just seemed fishy to me that a new editor who had a self described falling out with Wikipedia Admin and was banned under a form name would jump in and attack the same pages the prior user did. I don't know if Elite's is a "reliable resource" or not. I just though it was interesting that Elite's is being used as the reference to validate all the other guest stars and it lists RLT in it, but it is only being qualified as a "reliable resource" for the other actors and not for RLT. Doesn't make sense in my mind. As for relation to John, everything I have read and researded shows he's Michaels' son which would make him John's nephew but I am absolutely NOT going to get involved in RLT pages because I don't want to be targeted with insults and stalking again. Kind of sad, I guess, because I've probably done more research on the Travolta family than most which should be the type of person who should be ideal to contribute to a community based encyclopedia, but instead people like me who have done the research are driven out by fantatics who decide they know the facts rather than look objectively at the research. Enough enough. My point was I just wanted to thank you for looking into those actions of Corvus Cornix because they seemed fishy to me and I prefer to trust an outside person's impartial prospective. Thanks! Icemountain2 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Woof, woof!

Delighted to see the puppy up and barking, I just had this page open to alert you but hesitated overnight since did not wish to disturb convalescing. Morphh's clumsy response to Orangemarlin's goading was misleading, and backfired. However, imo Morphh has a bit of a point – Talk:Intelligent design#Opinion is essentially Jones' opinion, so it's worth exploring rephrasing. Though I shouldn't try to do it having woken in the middle of the night as I did earlier - insomnia is not good for considered opinions :-( .... dave souza, talk 08:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you noticed I had not addressed that concern, but merely the approach with which I believe I have valid concerns. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, as ever. Onywey, "Fou's yer dous?" ;) ... (p.s. I'm not really from Furryboots city) .. dave souza, talk 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

aagf

I'm still a newbie and I'll readily concede that I may not have grasped all relevant aspects of the situation. But please do not imply abf on my part. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't, and I am sorry if you misread my post that way. I offered an interpretation of events which it appeared you had not considered; your analysis of the situation accused a highly respected editor of COI; if you found her actions to be suspect on such flimsy 'evidence' you were implicitly not assuming good faith effectively and I offered you a view which might assist your ability to do so. I fail to see why my simple post has resulted in you protesting my failure to AAGF on her page, and accusing me of implying ABF here. Really, truly, it was just a comment to give you another perspective. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "accusing" SlimVirgin. I'm not "accusing" you. I'm just asking and trying to learn: Do you see an absolute contradiction between assumption of good faith and perception of a conflict of interest? - And by the way, I'm sorry if I gave the impression of "analyzing" anything. And I'm not "protesting". As I see it, you kindly reminded me to AGF, I kindly replied that I did. I don't understand why you are introducing words like "accuse", "protesting", "flimsy 'evidence'" into this. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, apparently I have hoof-in-mouth or you have selective interpretation; whichever way it is this has degenerated into quibbling about minutiae. I suggest we drop this as whatever help I offered you has been overshadowed and lost in this very odd misunderstanding which we seem to be having. If you don't understand my point, I don't see that further explanation on my part will serve any useful purpose. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm probably too stupid anyway - and there is of course no point whatsoever in what I wrote. The word is sorry. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this sarcasm, or would you like to rephrase? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, you're right, this is going nowhere. But you're invited to criticise me. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey socks

He hates Wikipedia so much he can barely bring himself to create one new sock and make a dozen edits every day... Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a rough life, I gather. Pity he cannot find another hobby. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Why are you interested in past cases? Perhaps there is a question I could answer for you? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing the development of a proto-legal system in Wikipedia. For example, what procedures have evolved? What principles of precedent and interpretation? Etc. Just a philosophical curiousity...(I am a lawyer.) Mpoulshock 14:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in WP:DR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

...and now that I think of it, WP:WL would probably be worth your time as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance

Thank you for your kind offer of assistance! I will certainly need it in the future. There is a point in your mail that I do not quite understand: When in trouble and after having put the "help me" template on my userpage, where am I supposed to post or place the question? Beside the template? To your user talk page?? Again, thank you!--Tellervo 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

On your talk page - adding the template will add you to a category which is watched, and those watching will check your talk page - so you don't need for any specific editor to be available to answer questions. Someone will show up, even if everyone you know away from their computer. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The hell?

I wasn't vandalizing. It was non-notable information about a character who appears in about 5 panels. Everything notable about it was moved to Buffyverse Slayer timeline#Renee. The page should stay as a redirect until a minor characters page is created.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You failed to state that there was consensus for a move/merge; for which you have still not posted a link. You blanked an article and requested speedy, and when speedy was denied you redirected with the edit summary of "The other ones said to delete and not redirect. Oh well." which is completely failing to clarify a thing. What others? Where? All I see is your request for speedy was denied, and so you redirected. I have seen no discussion, no link to any kind of consensus, no process whatsoever. I await your response. And yes, page blanking is vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was on the very Leah/Satsu/Rowenna articles. Hence, no linkage. In fact, looking at the history for the main Season Eight, I think "Renee (Buffyverse)" has been deleted before with the others. And the initial blanking was unintentional, I clicked and pasted in a pre-written {{db}} message. You're an admin, can you look over deleted pages? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Renee (Buffyverse) exists, has never been deleted, and has no posts on the talk page, which has never been deleted. You are correct. I can view deleted pages, so all I need is the link - it doesn't matter if it is no longer viewable by you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding, I'm glad to know the blanking was unintentional. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no Leah (Buffyverse), Satsu (Buffyverse), or Rowenna (Buffyverse) in the logs, deleted or otherwise. Same for the names without the (Buffyverse). KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I just noticed. I was confused. There were red links for those three, but not for Renee, which WAS up for deletion. The original deletion request for Renne was here and the deletion notice was removed here.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That was a Prod, and the difference between when the Prod was added was considerable. The article was not deleted nor was it ever on Afd. So you're saying the article had a Prod which failed, which has no bearing on a speedy which was denied - and in fact, if a Prod fails the correct move is to tag for Afd or Merge, not speedy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hellp!!!

Is this an appeasement too far? Is this chappie to be the patron saint of faith based npov? Goes off to kennel for much needed nap. .. dave souza, talk 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agile Enterprise Deletion

KillerChihuahua, I am the author of the wikipedia page about the Agile Enterprise, which you recently deleted. I am new to wikipedia but believe you deleted the page because you thought it was self-promotion and/or not notable material. I was hoping that you could elaborate on this because I feel that the page on agile enterprise met the criteria of wikipedia. The term agile enterprise is not one that I made up myself or that is only studied by my professor at Cornell University. Rather, it is one that is found in numerous articles and books, which I was planning to add to the reference list. I thought that posting about it on wikipedia would be good because it is a growing concept and this is supposed to be a place to supply information to people about various concepts. Wikipedia itself is an agile enterprise, as discussed in the book "The Starfish and the Spider." I would be happy to provide further reasoning as to why I think this page should be on wikipedia and should not have been deleted if you need more. Please let me know more details as to why you deleted this page and what changes you would deem necessary for it to be re-posted. Thanks very much, Agilon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agilon (talk • contribs) 00:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To understand what happened, lets look at the series of events: Agile enterprise was created by you 18:24, 3 April 2007, and subsequently had 12 more edits, all by you. There were no inline citations, and there were links to Agilon and the Agilon blog (blogs generally fall afoul of our external links and/or spam guidelines. Agilon, the first of the external links, is a website with the slogan "The world's premier provider of knowledge on the agile enterprise" - a commercial site. The blog is of course as mentioned before problematical if not outright disallowable. A third external link, placed between the two Agilon links, and completely unlabled, leads to a site which is either "Agile Enterprise Architecture" as the title states, or "Agile Data" as the logo states, owned by Ambysoft Inc. and authored by Scott W. Ambler. A bit of examination of that site shows that it is a site for selling training in agile development, and seems to be a one-man enterprise - in the sense of effort or attempt, not Enterprise level company. The main page for www.ambysoft.com/ states it is Scott Ambler’s Web Site, and that all material is copyrighted. The about page informs us that the purpose of the site is "it's purpose to market my services as an independent consultant in object technology and to continue to market my writings" - another commercial site.

The References provided were not correctly formatted, understandable but also must be taken into consideration as this made it far more difficult to verify they even exist, let alone support the assertions made in the article. There were three: the first I find is a book complete with ISBN, but was listed as coming from a portfolio circa 2006 in the references. I have no idea what "portfolio" was intended to convey in that context, but it certainly gave the appearance of being an unpublished work. The second reference was to a "Working Paper" - again, is this a published work? The third is to an individual - Dyer, Lee; of Cornell. This is most certainly not a published work and indeed is original research, specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy. To be clear, policy is a much more important "rule" than a guideline. MastCell tagged the article for speedy deletion under criteria CSD G11 at 23:19, 5 April 2007, which placed the article in the category for speedy deletion. No "hangon" tag was placed on the talk page; this is understandable - you may not have been online during the interval - but must be taken into consideration. I was going through the candidates for speedy deletion on 6 April 2007 and at 00:25, I deleted the article. There are two commercial sites and one blog as links, and the sources are for a book promoting the concept which the external links are selling, what appears to be an unpublished paper, and an individual. This is not an encyclopedic article. Should you wish to write an enyclopedic article on this topic, there seem to be sources which are not commerical and are more notable than the ones you chose. Agile data has an [ Alexa] rank of 356,625 which is not that bad. The three month ranking has fallen by 15% however. The top rated book appears to be The Agile Virtual Enterprise: Cases, Metrics, Tools (Hardcover) by H T. Goranson, ISBN-10: 1567202640 - a book for which Wikipedia does not yet have an article. The illustrations for the article as well as what appears to be a good deal, if not all, of the content (I do not have time to compare in-depth) come from a .doc hosted on the Agilon site, which is on the Cornell.edu server - which is the employer of Professor of Human Resource Studies Lee Dyer, a primary "source" for the article. No copyright was provided for the illustrations, and they will be deleted in a week or two if none is provided. Much of the content appears to be copyright violation (copy of the content of the Agilon site) and/or original research. And a very big issue: The splash page for the Agilon site has in large bright bold text:

Want to learn more about

the Agile Enterprise?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_enterprise

In short, you are Agilon: you appear to be trying to sell training in agile enterprise, and you appear to be using Wikipedia to promote your (or your friends) service and site. You are probably either Lee Dyer, Scott Ambler, or a friend or associate of one or both of them - although this last is speculation and frankly doesn't really have much bearing at this point, except that if you are, you may wish to read WP:COI before proceeding. As both illustrations Agility.jpg and Agility2.jpg had noted as the Source: Lee Dyer, and the site which seems to be the one being promoted is on Cornell's server, my money is on Lee Dyer.

Please let me know if you have any questions - be concise please - and please sign your post with four tildes (~~~~). KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I did not explain myself entirely in my first talk to you, so this has led to some confusion. I am a student at Cornell taking a class taught by Lee Dyer that teaches students about what an agile enterprise is. In the second half of the course we conduct a simulation where we strive to share the knowledge we acquired in the first half of the semester with others, the simulation includes us being an organization called "Agilon" and our mission is to be the premier providers on knowledge of the agile enterprise because we want to teach others what we learned and hopefully help them to understand the concept of organizational agility better. So I understand completely your concern that we were trying to sell training because of the Agilon website, but that site is much more about how we function as our class organization. If you look, it has our work process and some projects we have worked on. But I have no problem not putting a link to that, or any other consultig website on the page about the agile enterprise. I am currently revising the information I had put up before to include many more references on the information and also have updated information for the article that was just a working paper before. I hope that once I put up this page again, it will meet the guidelines of wikipedia. There will probably be many edits done by me again, as I am just learning how to format and post on wikipedia. And much of the information will be similar to what is on the Agilon website because this is all valid information on the agile enterprise that we have learned and researched that we want to share with those out there who are interested. It was our hope through the wikipedia page that people who typed in "agile enterprise" could find out the history and some of the concepts involved with it, at no point was the intent to promote Agilon (as we will be done with the class in about a month) so I am sorry for the confusion. I am working on revising the document and re-posting and I hope that you will contact me with any concerns before deleting it again. Please let me know if you have any advice. Agilon 19:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you know Dyer. As I said, not a surprise.

I have put a standard Welcome message on your talk page - please read the linked content.

If you wish to write an article about Agile enterprise as a concept, I suggest you do so in your userspace (in a location like User:Agilon/Agile enterprise), then move to mainspace. Do not upload images for which the copyright is anything other than GFDL or free. To begin with, the (now deleted) article reads like an original research essay. Take some time to visit the featured articles, and see what is expected. featured article review can be very informative on where articles do not meet standards. Use inline citations - I suggest using the cite templates. Begin with a description, and as it is a fairly new concept, call it that, and give the year and who coined the term - sourcing per WP:V and WP:RS. Do not under any circumstances use for sources any blogs, forums, non notable websites, or individuals. Do not use commercial websites, and do not use the "Agilon" website(s). Use news articles, magazine articles, and where possible books. Start with a short article and format correctly - if you follow the links in the welcome message, this is all explained. If you have any problems or questions you may ask me, or place a {{helpme}} template on your talk page and someone will help you. If you wish, you can try getting adopted by an experienced editor. Finally, once you feel the article is ready for a move to mainspace (article space) you may wish to have more experienced editors review it - this would be if you haven't gotten adopted, in which case have him or her review it - and don't be surprised if it is nominated for deletion, even so. Agile enterprise is hardly the Third Punic War. It is a minor business concept. I don't mean to discourage you, merely to prepare you for the possibility. Write a good article and source it thoroughly, using an encyclopedic writing style, and try not to use Dyer's works too much as sources. Good luck, and have fun. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding, if you do write in your userspace then move, make sure you move, do not copy-paste! Keep the edit history intact. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Bolonkins

(This note is addressed to you and Ryan Delaney.) Thank you for deleting Kinetic Space Tower and Centrifugal Space Launcher. Actually I am certain that these articles were created by or with the full permission of Alexander Bolonkin so using copyvio to get rid of them was "cheating". But I am getting a bit frustrated at the way other Wikipedians do not seem to recognise the limited notability of Bolonkin's ideas. I would be interested in your views on the other six similar articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gas tube rocket hypersonic launcher. -- RHaworth 09:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They are copyright Alexander Bolonkin, copyright has not been released to GFDL, so what you are "certain" of is immaterial. I find it odd that respecting copyright is something you consider "cheating". If the other articles are also copyright violations, they will in due time be deleted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, if he posted them on Wikipedia, then they were released under the GFDL when he hit the "submit" button. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As we have no confirmation whatsoever that Bolonkin has ever edited Wikipedia, and he has not stated on his site or elsewhere that I can find that he released rights under GFDL, that does not apply here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Right, I agree that it is difficult to confirm that the person who submitted the text is actually the copyright holder, which is why the articles should stay deleted until we have confirmation. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If Bolonkin got his act together, he would undoubtedly provide a copyright release for his material. Using copyvio to get rid of this stuff therefore shows a lack of integrity on our part, "cop-out" is the phrase: we are dodging the real issue of whether these articles are suitable subjects for WP. I find it slightly weird - I seem to be lone voice - does no-one else realise that these ideas all verge on science fiction? -- RHaworth 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not using copyright as an "excuse" to "get rid of" these articles. Copyrighted material is not allowable in Wikipedia. Frankly it doesn't matter if Bolodkin is a hack and his papers and concepts sci-fi, or if he is the next Nobel prize winning genius. It does not matter - we must delete copyright violations. Copyright violations are not permissible for use on Wikipedia, regardless of their merit or lack thereof. How clear can I make this? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, please delete Utilization of Wind Energy at High Altitude. I will tag the others later. -- RHaworth 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Censorship in Cuba

Shame to write such idiocy.Xx236 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you have a point, are you trolling, or are you planning to expand and/or correct the article with cited content? Your post is unclear. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack?

KC, I fail to see how my comment here was an "attack" on FM that couldn't be allowed to go "unnoticed," at least relative to his immediately preceding comment and the one shortly before it. Can you explain, please? Gnixon 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

FM said "This group of yours has gone out of its way to malign the various admins here, myself included" and then he discussed content, not you - explained how your actions are clearly becoming tendentious editing, and said " WP:AGF requires us to assume your good faith, but not in the presence of evidence to the contrary. ". Your response? "you don't exactly have a rosy record within the "community."" - which is not commenting on his edits, nor any policy or guideline he may be in danger of violating on that talk page, but a personal, and negative, judgement which is 1) your opinion, not backed up by anything, and 2) a personal attack. What is so hard to see about that? I find it odd that you brought up his previous post, as he specifically mentions your maligning editors, and your response was to yet again malign him! KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I think including me in some arbitrary group and then accusing "us" of various things, including editing without good faith, and saying the "community" will not stand for "us" constitutes a thinly veiled personal attack. I thought my response was measured and appropriate, but in the future I'll phrase things in an impersonal way. Thanks for responding. Gnixon 14:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

editura gama deleted

Hello Please tell me why was editura gama deleted ? Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellakali (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

WP:CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Also probably qualifies under CSD G11, advert, since the only link was to the company site. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Francisco Gil-White mediation

You may recall User:Ryan4, who repeatedly tried to spam links to http://www.hirhome.com to various Wikipedia articles - you tackled him about it on his user talk page (User talk:Ryan4#Stop spamming) and on AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#User:Ryan4). He appears to have learned nothing from the experience and has now brought a mediation case, singling me out for some reason. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO‎. Given your previous intervention in the matter, I've added you as an involved party. My response is at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO#ChrisO. Naturally I think the whole thing's a waste of time and I'm encouraging the mediator to dump it on the grounds of Ryan4's bad faith, but it would be helpful if you could add a comment or two so that we can have a record of where things stand. Unfortunately I don't think this will be the last we'll hear from the hirhome fan club - Ryan4 now appears to be coordinating with fellow hirhomers. -- ChrisO 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I agree 100% with what you wrote - however, it'll be useful to have our collected comments in one place if and when the hirhomers try to make another move. -- ChrisO 23:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this, I am unfortunately unable to be on very much right now and I would not have known about this had you not brought it to my attention. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. -- ChrisO 06:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

hello I have made 4 edits in these articles during the day: Račak incident and Gazimestan speech because of disruptive edits by the user Nikola Smolenski. I hope I will not get blocked. Can I do anything to avoid blocking? Thank you in advance --Noah30 13:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert your last edit and state in the edit summary "reverting self to avoid violating 3RR". KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, except if the Račak incident is the one I also reverted, just leave it alone - that was a link to a copyright violation and I have stated in my edit summary and on the talk page that is the situation. If anyone reports you for that, post a link here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

The reason i asked Nikola for help is that he is more familiar with the rules of wiki, so i figured he could help me with which ways to go do deal with this users. There are now 3 ip:s changing almost the exact same articles, 124.186.125.166, 124.185.183.180 and 124.186.124.51. One of these edits include putting up a picture of User:Ivan Kricancics brother on Smith's (potato chips). The ip:s are also from Queensland, Australia the same state in which Ivan is from. Paulcicero 13:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest checkuser. Confirmation will make it easier to deal with. Use the vandalism warnings and report the vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Check this out: This user is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of Ivan Kricancic as established by Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ivan Kricancic, and has been blocked indefinitely.

Noah's Ark

KC, Codex placed a tag on the article stating that it is part of WikiProject:Religion: it is not see (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Codex_Sinaiticus&diff=124480781&oldid=124478512). I'm out of reverts -- if you would, could you remove his tag? •Jim62sch• 11:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

PBA Act articles

There's been an upsurge in activity on Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, Intact dilation and extraction, Gonzales v. Carhart, and Abortion in the wake of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, which was featured on "In the news" on the Main page. We've got our hands full, and and we could use another set of eyes watching over things, if you've got the time. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 12:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Račak incident

Račak incident User Nikola Smolenski is making disruptive and POV edits in this article Račak incident. Some days ago you asked him to stop but he is back and continues with the same. Can you talk to him once again? --Noah30 15:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He is back again using account Nikola Smolenski and other accounts and keep vadalizing everything. Can we do anything? I get headache of him. I hope I am not disturbing you and wish you good health. --Noah30 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

DMOZ Section on WP:EL

I just reverted your edit to the WP:EL page - there is an ongoing discussion on the Talk page about whether this section which has been in for several months, should stay or be changed. I don't feel we should make changes to the page until those discussions have been resolved. Would welcome your input to that discussion. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You're a day late and a dollar short, I posted to the talk page before I made the edit which you immediately reverted. The change which you want to policy violates existing policies and guidelines. I have no idea why you are pretending it does not, and as though those opposed to this are the ones attempting to change policy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Puppy!

Get well soon,
my dear Puppy!

Dear Puppy, it's so great to see you again! When I saw your message, I felt like jumping out of sheer happiness ;) So many things have happened since we last saw each other that I promise to update you asap via email, sounds ok?

My happiness, however, has diminished by seeing that you're not doing well because of health problems. Please, take good care of yourself - will you, dear? We all love you and wish that you get well soon. Don't hesitate to message me if you wish to relax and watch over your page, or anything else you may need.

Love you Puppy! :) I'll email you soon - meanwhile, please rest and get well, and once again, thank you for your beautiful words ;) Phaedriel - 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

RI Mediation

I hope that you are feeling better. Will the mediation at RI continue? It seems that the other editors have moved on to completely reorganize the project, while I have waited for mediation to determine the direction of the process. Am I being naive? I noticed that the limitation to registered users was removed today from the main article. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to gain assistance or transfer to another mediator; and have been unsuccessful. I do not feel you are being naive, but do suggest you continue to work with other editors while the mediation is stalled. I sincerely hope that either I or another mediator will be able to continue in the near future; the future being uncertain, I cannot guarantee when or even if that will be. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Health

Get better! --PaxEquilibrium 19:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks much. I appreciate the good wishes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Big time

You're right, I do owe you! Sorry for dragging you into the Gil-White business. I'm still rather taken aback at Nikola's position on the issue - it's obtuse even for him. Never mind though - I think he's got the message now. Thanks for your assistance, best wishes for your health and I promise not to tax you too hard in the future. :-) -- ChrisO 19:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be a puppy if I didn't whine now and then, but seriously, ping me if you ever need asssistance and if I am able, I will do what I can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks you, sweetie!

Thanks for the wonderful gift, Puppy - you touched me! :) I swear it'll have a place of honor on my userpage ;) It's great to see you again! How's your health, sweetie? Feeling better, I hope? Phaedriel - 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad if it brightened your day a little, as you do so much to brighten this place for everyone else.

I'm not doing better yet - no results yet, but I have good days and bad days and try to edit when I can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good puppy

What the heck was that all about on the Noah's Ark article? Thanks for your support. If I was being uncivil, please tell me, but that was one odd conversation and accusation. Orangemarlin 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You could have been a little more civil, and Fill was frankly getting borderline. I strongly suggest to both of you that you contain your frustration with the editor, who is, after all, new; and confine your comments and responses to discussing the article itself. No good is served by escalation of this mudfest. Thanks for the thanks, and thanks in advance for helping me de-escalate this and help Til learn the ropes here. I am attempting to engage him in discussion on his talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Bah and now you've gone and trolled. I removed it. In the future, if you think of too witty a jibe to manage to keep to yourself, feel free to post it on my talk page or email it to me, and refrain from continuing or escalating a flame war (however small the flame) - thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I will be good. Please don't bite me. Nice doggy...--Filll 23:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. No bites today. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bah, such a party-pooper. •Jim62sch• 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my patience has worn thin on these articles. Have you seen Intelligent Design lately? It's got RBJ being uncivil, the article is locked from editing, and we've gone through 227 different leads without any consensus. Then I get called a troll, after responding to what appears to be trolling, by one of the good guys. This isn't as much fun as it once was. Orangemarlin 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

:-( Hon, I am sorry if my words stung, or seemed unfair. I just landed in this, and I count on experienced editors like you to help bring things back on track... I appreciate very much that you and Filll are toning down the jibes and getting things back in focus, and despite what Jim says about me being a party pooper I hope you realize I did not mean to single you out or be unfair, but rather counted on you to set the example. On re-reading my post above, I can see how it doesn't convey this, and I apologise for assigning you the task of mind-reading as well as unfairly counting on you without clearly explaining. Mea culpa. (and I meant it about posting the witticisms here - newbies too close to the topic may not appreciate your wit but I certainly do!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but come on, that guy was threatening us with everything short of nuclear war. I'm trying to be nice with these guys, but why can't I be more like FeloniousMonk? He doesn't take crap from anyone!!!! Orangemarlin 01:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, by the way, I wasn't at all hurt by what you were saying. I'm glad you're back too. How about kicking some RBJ butt over at ID? Orangemarlin 01:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To paraphrase the Arctic Monkeys, "Maybe trolling is a bit strong, but..." I understand KC's motives, but in this case don't necessarily agree. On the other hand, I've had a really pissy day and am ready to skewer anyone who pisses me off so I might not be in the right frame of mind to pass judgment. •Jim62sch• 00:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Then please, be my guest and return to the Intelligent design fray. Adam is doing his best to get consensus, but I think consensus is one group complaining about another groups POV, and in the end the Discovery Institute is going to get this weasel-worded lead that hides what it's trying to do. Orangemarlin 00:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Delighted you're back!

Glad to see puppy up and giving suitably painful nippy bites to miscreants. Had thought of giving you a random hello, but rather busy of late with kerfuffles which I didn't want to drag a convalescent canine into. But, my goodness, already you've sprung into action!

Have yet to form an opinion on whether ImprobabilityDrive is disruptive or a helpful editor putting effort into questioning poorly sourced statements, but as you'll have seen from Talk:Louisiana Baptist University some editors seem to think that if a WP:OR synthesis of facts has been in an article for a year, it should be retained. Will try to press for more balance, and this at the same time as me being too timid when it comes to dealing with misdemeanours! Thanks for your help, much welcome.. ... dave souza, talk 09:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to dash your hopes, but I'm not back... We haven't even gotten the results of all the tests my doctor ordered. I just have had a day or two which were "good days". I'll take a look at LBU again.

I wouldn't call that a misdemeanor, it took a great deal of effort and RBJ has been here enough (even had he not started by knowing a good bit) to know you simply don't do that to another editor's posts - and I can see no possible motive for the particular changes he made, other than a racist or religious attack - please note that OM asked "why" and has been thoroughly ignored. So RBJ made edits which he was informed are insulting and appear to be attacks on the ethnicity or religious beliefs of OM, he was given the opportunity to explain in some other fashion, and did not. Does this look like misdemeanor to you, or something more? KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that, glad you've been having some good days. Thanks for the help, I'm just too much of an old softy, trying to give RBJ a chance to redeem himorherself. As I recall, the victim bully bit has a link somewhere in the Raspor files, but I'm not going to hunt it out. As for LBU, it just looks like some rather creative interpretation of dubious sources, but hopefully better sources will be found. If I don't first get a disruptive editing RfC myself for daring to question them! Anyway, it'll sort itself out, so not to worry about it. Get well soon, .. dave souza, talk 10:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Puppy. I didn't know you were out on the injured reserve, I just thought you gave up! Maybe you decided to become a mole at the Discovery Institute. Well, I hope they can treat your injuries, short of surgery. Chronic pain can be a.....well...pain. (I know, very useful advice I give.) Thanks for your help in several matters. I just hope the puppy doesn't get too cranky and start biting. But I do hope the puppy gets some rest, gets access to the best of American pain killers, and feels better soon. Orangemarlin 00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Almost missed this, sorry! Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate them... and sometimes I'm just cranky anyway, soooo sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sort of yes

Sort of yes. I got in a pretty massive car accident in 2005 that forced me out of the army. A combination of my loving to rock climb, and having a really bad mattress have been making my back pain really bad...so I'm getting an Epidural spinal injection. Not quite surgery, but not quite routine either. Anyway, it's no biggy, the only reason I mention it is that I'll be under anesthesia so that may affect my editing. Nothing to worry about. Oh, for the latest update, in law schools, I got accepted to American University, Denver University, University of Florida, University of Miami, and a couple of smaller, minor schools. I got waitlisted at University of Colorado- Boulder, Florida State University, Stetson University and Cardozo School of Law/Yeshiva University. In the end, I toured and fell in love with American University up in D.C. (also Washington College of Law. So I've officially decided to attend law school there. Another couple months and I'm free from the clutches of Florida! ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 10:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I had a car totaled around me on the downtown connector in Atlanta several years back, and I had a series of those injections (as well as a lot of other treatment.) If its the same brew they injected in me, it is an experience. Prepare for a very painful injection You may feel some discomfort (as the drs will say), and plan to follow the instructions regarding lying down with ice packs today afterwards. I had the horrible side effect of becoming very bad-tempered, so if you do plan to edit, remember you might not be as tolerant as usual, and take things the wrong way, and excecise more than the usual self-censorship about others. And get a better mattress!!!

Washington College of Law is an outstanding school by all accounts - and DC is a heckuva place to be. I am certain your experiences there will be challenging, and significantly affect your life. You have made a good choice, and I am sure you will do well there. I remain, of course, mired here in the sands, but look forward to hearing about your accomplishments and being able to say "I knew him when". KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. $550 dollars later and I now have a really really soft bed. Apparently eating Ramen for the next month won't hurt my back. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 10:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the procedure wasn't bad at all. I hope this whole deal on my talk isn't me being irritable about it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wemyss Bay station and pier.

Hope you're both recovering well, and don't mind me introducing the tale of a minor incident which relates to the pleasant photo to the right. Well, it did involve a write-off, which I think is UK for totaled. The road continues to the right of the station, goes under a railway bridge then up a hill to Gourock. My parents had a house on the shore of the bay on the other side of the pier, and I had come down the hill and was waiting to turn right when a coach load of Rangers FC supporters arrived, thumping into my rear offside bumper. Apparently the driver was looking to see if the ferry was leaving, then realised I was in front of him and braked too late. Fortunately the head restraint worked well and saved me from injury, and the insurance company paid up rather than trying repairs. Well, I thought it was an amusing tale, if rather trivial. By the way, our improbable friend having been unmasked as a sock, I must admit that to me some of his contributions helped to test and improve the articles. However in too much of a hurry trying to make drastic changes, and rather a wikilawyer. So it goes. .. dave souza, talk 10:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

KC if you don't mind me asking dave here on your talk page, Dave souza: how does insurance work in the UK? For my injury, my auto insurance paid for 100% of my ER stay, the Physical therapy, 2 MRI's and a CT scan, as well as my orthopedic surgeon visits. But my health insurance only paid 80% of my epidural, and with deductible it was $666 (ironic huh?), and my copay for my medications is about $75 per prescription refill. I'm paying for this insurance, but I'm still breaking the bank to try and be treated. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind this chatter, KC. In the UK, National Insurance provides cover for the NHS which means that all medical costs are covered (though there are standard fairly low prescription charges with sort of season tickets if you need a lot, and exemptions for chronic illness etc.) unless you want to pay to go private or take out private insurance as an extra. Car insurance covers fixing your car, or making a deal on the value of the car if it's a write-off, or legal costs if it's the other driver's fault and their insurance doesn't agree to pay up. Drop me a note if you want more detail, your insomniac chum .. dave souza, talk 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Flask and AN/I

Mind weighing in at AN/I on Flask's complaint against me, since you've at least seen the situation at some level? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No need, it is on AN/I, and is clearly nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You..., you are still dangerous...

Hey, thanks for your kind words of advice following my successful RFA! My first task will be to block you for the offensive user name you've adopted.... Yeah, right! Anyway, thanks again, I hope you're on the mend, or at least feeling well enough to keep this place in order, and I look forward to working with you on this great project. All the very, very best... The Rambling Man 19:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah, you must have seen this - how else would you know that I am "one of the worst and most biased sysops in all of wikipedia, and that disagreeing with [you] is downright dangerous"? Yes indeedy, I am still dangerous. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the recipe. Here's one of my own for you, for Steak Diane. Melt 2 tablespoons butter in a skillet over medium heat, immediately adding 1/2 tablespoon chopped green onion, 1/2 chopped vidalia onion, and 1 minced/chopped shallot. Add 3 tablespoons Dijon Mustard. Let cook for 2 minutes, then add 1 clove chopped garlic (or 1 tablespoon minced garlic from a jar). Add 4 more tablespoons butter, and place steak in skillet. Cook steak (should be preseasoned with salt and pepper) to desired doneness, then remove steaks only to a serving plate. Add 1 1/2 tablespoons worcestershire sauce, and a dash of cayene pepper powder (optional). Drain juice drippings from steaks into the skillet, and stir sauce for 2 minutes. Pour sauce back over steaks, and serve.

Serves best with green beans cooked with butter and tarragon, and a baked potato. I'd recommend a light pinot noir to complement the slightly mustardy, tangy taste of the sauce. Enjoy! I've eaten steak 4 times in the past two weeks just so I could use this recipe! ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is bad for recovering puppies. You should be eating a bag of carrots and celery. However, send me the steak. Orangemarlin 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In your dreams. I happen to be anemic right now, among other things, and steak is just what I need. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a soy burger. Send me the steak. Orangemarlin 21:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets get some things clear here:

1. I am the canine with an iron deficiency.
2. You are a funny-colored fish.
3. I get the steak.
4. Bribing me with vegetable products will not work.

All clear now? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Cranky puppy. Carnivorous fish require protein too! But it's clear now...I'll troll for steak elsewhere. Orangemarlin 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Email

Just sent you one. The barbarians are definitely at the gate. Orangemarlin 19:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow Orangemarlin 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

mediation

i need a thrid party opinion on the runescape page i think that a list of guilds would be good but this guy says no what do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elderleo (talk • contribs) 19:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please post a link to the page, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually on second thought, if you are talking about a list of guilds on an online game, that is usually considered unecessary cruft and not included. It is more appropriate to put such information on a Game forum or site than on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Brassai

After your edit to this article, someone removed cat:Hungarian Jews. Brassai is still present on a few lists of Jews, such as List of Hungarian Jews and List of French Jews. Should he be there? 200.252.202.3 05:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he should not. Thanks for letting me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Brassai

I have a reliable source that he was Jewish. End of discussion - thank you.--Runcorn 12:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you have a really crappy source that says his name sounds Jewish, and his biography and his memoirs contradict that. This is most certainly not the end of the discussion. Further, you've been told this is part of an WP:OTRS action. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I quoted exactly what the source said; it is a reliable source that says explicitly that he was Jewish. If this is an OTRS action, please let me know what the basis is.--Runcorn 12:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Read Talk:List of Hungarian Jews. Your source is inadequate and contradicts more reliable sources, including his memoirs and biography. The OTRS ticket is 2007050110002778. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You also may wish to read WP:BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!?

WP:ADOPT input

Hello, KillerChihuahua. The Adopt-a-User program is looking for new ideas and input on the program. If you are still interested please stop by the talk page and read some of the ideas being floated and give a comment. If you want to update or change your information on the adopter's list page, now would be a great time! Thanks! V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions} 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to hear that you are unwell. I wish you a speedy a recovery. If you are well enough to answer this query I would be extremely grateful. It is regarding the deleted page entitled "Cory Williams" - if you could provide the reason why it was deleted (and now protected from recreation). Thanks, and once again, get well soon. Elishan.

Hi, get well soon. Ever helpful, I've given an excessively wordy response at User talk:Elishan, so that's that enquiry answered. All the best, .. dave souza, talk 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, Dave. :-) Always good to have people like you watching my page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Bitten again!

OUCH!!!!!!! I'm never taking your steak again. Orangemarlin 23:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AP is now making Legal threats

See [1]. I'm a bit too involved to block him myself. Could you do so for me? Thanks. JoshuaZ 21:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my interjecting here, especially as a latecomer to the party, but I saw this thread on User talk:Jimbo Wales and now here, and I wonder if I am missing something. Perhaps Mr. Plutonium is just a play-actor in it for the publicity, but my first-blush reaction as a newcomer to this issue is that we may be dealing with a seriously mentally troubled individual. If that is the case, is it appropriate to fight so hard against him to maintain this article? Just a thought, your comments welcome. Newyorkbrad 22:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Two comments, first to the puppy: AP has continued to make reversions and more legal threats despite being warned about both WP:LEGAL(by you) and WP:3RR. See [2]. Now, to NYB- in a word yes. We've gotten threats from all sorts of fringe groups about not wanting notable articles on them. Once we let articles be removed due to threats or risks things will get much worse very quickly. Note that incidentally, AP is well known on usenet for making similar remarks and AP has never harmed anyone. JoshuaZ 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I would not suggest that an article be modified or removed on grounds of threats or risks. I would, however, be prepared in a case of borderline notability to consider whether an article might be seriously affecting the well-being of a troubled or mentally ill person. Newyorkbrad 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Brad, I don't see how that should affect whether we block a repeat offender (to the point of 3RR) of someone who places legal threats in the actual body of the article. My duty is to Wikipedia. If he needs a shrink, he sould make his own appointment. And frankly, yes, I think AP needs a shrink, but I am not a mental healthcare professional so I could be wrong. I'm certainly not going to let Wikipedia be threatned and vandalized on the off chance that someone is slightly unhinged - that's a slippery slope, as the experts tell us that no one is perfectly healthy mentally or physically. In short, its nice to hear your concern, but I don't see how it should affect our actions in this instance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Okay, I'll follow the tips you gave me. By the way, the disclaimer doesn't make sense; there isn't any humor in the box. ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and get well soon! :) · AndonicO ^Talk 07:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

rofl! I can see by your post (re:no humor) that you already understand what it is to be an admin. You're off to a good start! KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for your action over at Talk:Noah's Ark#Human DNA questions. I really get tired of people trolling talk pages with their latest "crushing" argument against biblical literalists, as if their "masterful use of logic" will somehow make a dent in a belief system that has little to do with logic. Part of me wants to speak up, but I know it would only have aggravated the problem. So, thanks again, I think you stepped in at exactly the right moment. Sxeptomaniac 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the thanks! Last time I stepped in on that page it led to one of the editors becoming quite upset at what he percieved to be persecution, so its nice that this one led to no screams of abuse whatsoever, and as a bonus, an actual note of appreciation! Wow! f course, all I did really was emphasize what you were saying already - that talk pges are for discussing the article, not debating the subject - regardless of which side of a debate the editor(s) is(are) on. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with working in oft-thankless jobs, and your timely intervention helped me resist my evil impulses to contribute to the problem, so I thought thanks were in order. Sxeptomaniac 19:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Popups rollback

Will do. My mistake. —Viriditas | Talk 11:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on MacGuffin

Recently, there's been a bit of an edit war on the MacGuffin article. Noticing your kind words on my userpage, I decided to ask you to keep an eye on it, and protect it if necessary. As a party to the discussion, I thought it unwise to do so myself. --Eyrian 19:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I will do so. It is indeed a revert war, but the latest phrasing may stabalize it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Eyrian 05:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Retiring

KillerChihuahua,

I am writing to let you know i am closing this account, shortly after writing this message. I meant to write sooner but it kept slipping my mind. The adoption process went great, i ended up adopting two users, who were both great. Thanks for adopting me also. Hope you get better soon.

All the best and goodbye,

Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 17:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you wish to contact me you can do so through User:ThirtyNineHundred.

Race and intelligence

Heya Puppy, thanks for all your work at RfM! I'm amazed to see you still have a case moving, even after five months (the Kriss Donald one).

I was just dropping in to ask, can I close out Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence and remove it from the list of current tasks, as inactive? A number of suggestions back in March were that it was becoming stalled, and after your last message it appears that no-one has given any further input, and half of the participants are 'inactive'.

This was just a courtesy note, to make sure that there's nothing being done 'privately' to make this still active. If it can be closed due to inactivity, just pop me a line and I'll do it - my desire to clean out Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Open Tasks is ever-raging :)

Cheers, Daniel 06:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your assessment. The case was very active at first, but from the beginning there were problems with a few of the editors not participating, and as you note, many have left, making the mediation more or less defunct. On the positive side, they seem to have taken the ideas they gained from organizing their issues and ideas and done something with that, so I cannot call it a total loss.

We may have to close Kris Donald soon also as a failed mediation; it is only two participants and one of them seems glued to the concept that policy supports his view en toto, which of course if that were the case there would be no case and it would not have been accepted for mediation. I cannot seem to get past that stumbling block with that editor. If you have any bright ideas I would much appreciate it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation for Race

Hello KillerChihuahua,

There is an unassigned case for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race. I was wondering whether you would consider taking it on. I do not believe the case is very complicated so hopefully it wouldn't take up too much of your time.

Regards Muntuwandi 03:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your confidence in me, I am not certain I am the best mediator for the case. We are considering mediators for this case now, and I am sure the case will be assigned an excellent mediator. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Harlequinn

This editor doesn't just not-understand policies, he actively denies that we can have any policies. I don't see how it's possible to have a meaningful dialogue in this situation. Can you see anything short of blocking that might get the point across? Doc Tropics 02:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC) PS - good to see you again : )

Not at this point. I have come to the conclusion he is a troll. I plan to ignore his attacks and insults, cease attempting to explain policies to him, and stick to the user warning templates. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry KC. A direct transcript of your comments with my reply is on my talk page for anyone to see.

I notice you didn't admit your mistake. Why not? If you think you didn't make any mistake then you are suffering from a delusion. As I wrote, your actions which constitute administrative abuse have been duly noted and are of course publicly available in history.

This is not a simple accusation of admin abuse - it is documented admin abuse. There is a big difference.

You should be more careful. Harley 01:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah KC, now we'll have to put you down. Bad puppy, baaaaad! Doc Tropics 01:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Who needs to be put down, KC or the rabid editor?  ;) •Jim62sch• 01:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So many policies prohibit me from answering that the way I'd like to...just use your imagination : ) Doc Tropics 01:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Serious Question

I noticed that you did this revert because of WP:EL. I looked at the link, and it seemed like an odd religious site, but they were trying to build an ark. I read over the EL rules, and this seemed right on the edge. Because you won't feed me steak, I now need to just ask for your reasoning with all good faith. Orangemarlin 20:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You just won't let that steak thing die, will you?

A replica of the ark is inappropriate for the Noah's Ark article for the same reasons as the internal link to Johan's Ark would be - see Talk:Noah's Ark#Mentioning of Johan's Ark - it is simply not information about Noah's Ark. This ark has the further problems that it is not even built, and the site is soliciting donations, making it fall under the commercial spam type category. In short, it is trivia that doesn't even exist yet, and tells us nothing about the subject of the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your health

I won't pry, but you did voluntarily post that you were ill some time ago, and I see there's still a notice at the top of your talk page. I've often wondered how you're doing. I very much hope that whatever it is has been sorted out — you've been one of the kindest admins I've met. I'll send you an email soon. No need to reply to this (or to my email). Take care. ElinorD (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Slowly recovering, according to my doctor. See below. Thank you for asking! KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Hello, are you refering to the {{essay}} template. Did you see my edit summary on one of them? I know I was making a lot of edits there but the syntax was coming out wrong and I was saving it then testing it at the sandbox without saving there, I would have used the show preview button but that did not work with the syntax I was doing so I had to keep saving, apologies for any inconvenince caused by I wouldn't say I was causing harm to the, I'd say I was testing them out to improve them. Thank for pointing it out. Kindest Regards — The Sunshine Man(a.k.a Tellyaddict) 14:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So why not save in sandbox rather than on template, as I suggested? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Because if it was not working then I would have to change the template, with respect I have not harmed the template, I have made some changes to it. — The Sunshine Man(a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I being unclear here? Edit the template in sandbox. Test in sandbox. No need to edit template at all until it is working correctly. You can make additional sandboxes you know, and put templates in your userspace. They do not need to go into template space. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Chat

It don't work. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

I saw dat. Try reversing? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You what? I get this:

[ERROR] Internal error dispatching command “dcc-accept”.
[ERROR] Must be in REQUESTED state and direction GET.

Do you have G-mail chat?

Bishonen | talk 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Um... Not yet? Feh. Never used it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I can speak, but you don't seem to hear. Bishonen | talk 23:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

I've sent you a g-mail invite, i think you pretty much only need to click somewhere to get connected. Bishonen | talk 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC).

Possible article?

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

• Flora and fauna of Greenland

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the sobering but no doubt accurate words of wisdom regarding adminship. Hope you feel better soon. MastCell ^Talk 15:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Entirely accurate, I assure you! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

KC, thank you for your kind support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. Whatever your health issues are, I hope that they resolve themselves quickly and well. Please feel free to drop my a note any time if there is anything I can do for you. Pastordavid 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, I apologize for missing this and not responding sooner. You will make an excellent administrator I think, your calm reasonableness is much needed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the great message you left re: my recent RfA. It was much appreciated, and I'll be sure to take you up on the offer. I also have to say I got a chuckle out of your user name. About a week ago, my 15 year old daughter, who's great around big animals like horses, came across a chihuahua on a sidewalk, got frightened, screamed and ran...yup, scared of a little dog...she laughed later, and then got a chuckle when I told her about your username. Made the evening just a tad brighter. AKRadecki 00:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We little puppies are frightening! Maybe not quite as scary as Bishzilla, but still very scary! Glad you and your daughter got a laugh from my name - and do let me know if you ever need any assistance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

CyclePat reverted all the redirets I did on the AMA to close it down. I have restored them however I donot wish to do so again if they are reverted again (I don't use to be in an edit war wth anyone). Is there anyway to have them protected? Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 01:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be protected, but IMO that would be a bad idea at this time. Its being tagged as historical; he is clearly of the position that it is only temporarily inactive, not permanently. I think he'd view it as similar to somone going on wikibreak and returning to find their pages tagged Retired, and protected - and since this is not an individual editor, and the association must exist on its pages or not at all, it would be like the wikibreak editor being indef blocked as well. Do you see? He is trying to revive interest. To make it active and not historical. He's not vandalizing something, so protection is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see thanks for cleaning that up I was wondering but it does seem that the community woul dlike the AMA to go. Thanks for your help Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 15:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, its a matter of allowing a little time to pass and hopefully Pat will come to the realization on his own that it is beyond recovery. No need to pressure him, or edit war. I see Guy is approaching him about other places he could help Wikipedia which might be a more productive use of his talents and energies. Let him go through the mourning stages, and move forward on his own. And also consider: it is possible the the AMA might actually rise phoenix-like from the ashes. Stranger things have happened. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep it could but thanks to the ANI thread looks like there is now clear consenus to the closing of the AMA. I didin't want it to go far believe me (I had no intention of getting into an edit war as we all have other shings to do lol) Thanks again for the help. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Our dear Katefan

Yes, it's incredible how present she is still, even after a whole year has passed already... :( I know for a fact she's well and enjoying her life, and we all should be happy for her... but still, like you, Puppy, I miss her like she had left yesterday...
I've been following your news about your health, and know that you've been, and will remain in my prayers. You deserve no less, sweetie. Needless to say that if I can ever help you in any way within my modest possibilities, I'm just a click or two away. Love you, Phaedriel - 12:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your sweet response - good to hear she's doing well. Thank you, as always, for your thoughts and prayers. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism vs. misguided editing

Regarding the recent activity at God and User talk:Rip Van Snorlax, I saw your personal note to the editor and the um,...pointed Edit Summary that accompanied it. After some brief consideration, I think I understand your position. It probably wasn't appropriate for me to use the term "vandalsim" in my Edit Summaries, was it? Assuming good faith means I should have treated the edits as well-intentioned but misguided, and tried to provide more constructive comments than just the boilerplate warnings. I also noticed that despite your optimistic handling of Rip, you didn't hesitate to block when it became obviously necessary (at 7RR...LOL). So consider this a "thank you" note KC, from me, since you probably won't get one from Rip. Though you never addressed me directly, I was able to learn from the example that you set, and I hope I'll handle this type of situation properly in the future. I'm glad to see that health issues have diminished neither your bark nor your bite : ) Doc Tropics 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking it so well, especially as you found the summary a bit "pointed" - I do aim for clarity rather than obfuscation, looks like I managed this time.

I actually wrote a rather long response, but when reading it over prior to saving, realized it was a bit long-winded and pontificating. Short version: thanks for feedback, let me know if I ever err on the side of biting rather than AGF - thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Submitted for your approval, or at least your review. I still wouldn't bother with a personal note in many circumstances, but this seemed to merit more than a boilerplate warning. Am I learning, or what? And BTW - one should always eschew obfuscation : ) Doc Tropics 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

LMAO...while I was asking you to review my carefully worded note to the newbie, another Admin blocked him indefinitely. Maybe I learned the right lesson, but picked the wrong case to apply it...Doc Tropics 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And now we have cross-posted. See your talk page; today seems to be the day for edit conflicts and cross-posting. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

dawkins

firstly its not just the book the 'god delusion' he has written numerous articles about this and - its his contention religion is the cause of geopotlicical conflict. Therefore I find your edit capricious - Mywikieditor2007 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on the discussion page. You have been informed by other editors that consensus is to keep the criticism in the article body; hence, the religious contention criticism would be in the religion section, for example. You have been informed other editors about sourcing. You have been informed other editors about WP:BLP. You have, in short, been informed your edits are in violation of our policies. That I also addressed the issue of the correct article for any content about the book does not invalidate any of the concerns which many editors have with your edits. You have not addressed any of these concerns except with dismissal and insults. You are, in short, rapidly making a name for yourself as a disruptive editor. I suggest you attempt to work with other editors and address their concerns in a more civil manner. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For being

For KillerChihuahua for being a cool cat around the wiki! We appreciate your level-headedness and good cheer -- Samir 06:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though you're a puppy, you're still a cool cat here and we appreciate it. Thanks! -- Samir 06:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Aww, Thank you so much!!!! I am honored. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the soapbox

Very nice. I think I'll be reading it often. --Ronz 15:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - if you have any suggestions to improve it, I would appreciate you letting me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to do something with, "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" [3]. I'm also trying to find the origins of "I'm taking my marbles and going home".  ;^) --Ronz 04:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

example of your bias

you removed the criticism/controversy section for dawkins, yet:there is controversy section for M. Behe an 'intelligent design' advocate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe KillerChihuahua, a administrator claiming that this section needs NO controversy section - made extensive edits there yet NEVER removed there. Why the double standard KillerChihuahua? Mywikieditor2007 17:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I tell you why. The section for Dawkins was POV and maybe even slanderous, without any references. The section on Behe is filled with references. I mean Behe babbles a lot, and he's easily quoted. That's why. Dawkins is a brilliant biologist. Behe is someone who's trying to trick school districts into wasting money to lose court cases after attempting to teach religion (in the guise of Intelligent Design) in public schools. By the way, you appear to be stalking KC. Watch it. Orangemarlin 17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

umm no it was it was clearly referenced. Now i am 'stalking' KC for pointing out his bias? And you apparently didn't even READ the controversy section (and you're obviously compeltely bias) it talked about Dawkins BLAMING religion for geo-political conflict like northern ireland, indo-pakistan and israel-palestine and said if religion were to go away so would these conflicts. Talk about babbling ignorance! He also blamed 9/11 on religion when even the 9/11 commission report says its US policy/support of israel. So in this case Dawkins is grossly inaccurate (because of his own hatred). but obviously the knee-jerk defense of him by you and others demonstrate that self identified 'rationaslists' are just as fanatic as fundementalists.Mywikieditor2007 18:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't the reason. The reason is:

I don't write all of Wikipedia.

Surprised? Its clear you think I do, or at least I have total control over these two articles! Strange to say, others here have a say in how articles are written. We like to call it consensus. The editors on the Dawkins article have decided to integrate criticism into the article body, adding criticism of Dawkins views on religion in the religion section, for example. This has been discussed repeatedly on talk, and the consensus has been to not have a separate criticism section. I don't watch the Behe article as closely - it gets a lot less vandalism, probably because Behe is far less well known - so I cannot say whether the subject has ever come up to integrate the criticism as is done in Dawkins. If it does, I would support that. The last time I edited the Behe article was on July 18, 2006, when I added three references. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

gould, controversy's section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Gould#Controversies george bush controversy section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Criticism_and_public_perception YOU under the guise of 'administrator' and alleged impartiality are defending Dawkins and letting his 'cheerleaders' protect his page rather than have a controversy section which is quite common among bios. you specifically chose to remove the section from dawkins the alleged 'consensus' is just a small clique of pro dawkins editors who tell numerous people who object to the removal of the controversy section that 'hey we've come to a consensus'. Mywikieditor2007 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

you also capriciously removed criticism of Gandhi which was referenced. Mywikieditor2007 18:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

While there are a huge number of adjectives that might be used to describe the puppy (and I'd be happy to go into detail) "capricious" isn't on the list. I assure you that any changes KC made were carefully thought out and completely in accordance with WP policies and guidelines. Very few editors or admins are as dedicated as KC, or as well-versed in the fine details of how this project works. At this point your ongoing complaints and nit-picking comments seem to border on harrassment and I urge you to desist. Doc Tropics 18:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

now asking questions and pointing out bias is 'stalking' and 'harassment'? pathetic.Mywikieditor2007 18:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear: I assure you, I do not control every editor on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should try addressing the community about perceived bias on articles which I do not even edit. So far as I recall, I have never edited Bush even once, for example. Cease singling me out for venting your frustration at what you perceive to be bias on Wikipedia. Go to the Village pump, where you will be able to address the community as a whole. The best place would probably be Policy or Miscellaneous. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mywikieditor2007, I think you need to take a step back and try to assume good faith on KC's part. I think her edits at Richard Dawkins have less to do with "bias," and more to do with upholding consensus, especially since she is not the only editor who has objected to the addition of a "Criticism" section in that article. I have not been involved in writing the Dawkins article, but I have watched it, and a "Criticism" section has been proposed a number of times before on the Talk page. If you wish to see a "Criticism" section, or something like it, added to the Dawkins article, I think that it would be more effective for you to propose this idea on the article's Talk page and work with other editors to create a section that will address everyone's concerns. I don't think this is going to be achieved by singling out one editor out of the many who has objected to or reverted the addition of "Criticism" sections at Richard Dawkins in the past. -Severa (!!!) 19:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

...for the congrats. Please take care and get well quickly :) I wish you all the best. PeaceNT 18:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you, for being willing to take on the burden of sysop chores to help Wikipedia! Let me know if I can ever be of assistance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

Would you mind having a look at Talk:Miscarriage? There is an editor there who keeps changing a long-standing wording in the article, and, when asked to clarify why he feels this change is warranted, his explanation was, essentially, "I think it should be that way, and that's that." I do not think this is a reasonable basis from which to make editorial judgments. If you have the time, a third opinion might be helpful. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 11:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have commented. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind checking out Minors and abortion? An anon editor keeps inserting the same information into the article despite being pointed to past discussion at Talk:Abortion about the problematic nature of this study and the way it's being presented. -Severa (!!!) 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not information, that's an essay! I reverted and left a note on the anon's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith

KillerChihuahua, thank you for your suggestion at my talk page. When I revert vandalism, I am now attempting to leave messages at the vandals' talk pages, as you suggested. As you know, it is less time-consuming to merely revert the vandalism without choosing, formatting, and posting a message at the vandals' talk pages, but I will try to do so as you suggested. I hope you do not think that there was anything disruptive about reverting vandalism without leaving messages for the vandals; disruption was not my intention, and I will assume that you assume good faith.

However, you recently accused me of being "disruptive," when you reverted this edit. I take that to be an accusation of bad faith, and I ask you to please assume good faith.

Your edit summary stated: "Reverting disruptive edit. You do not have consensus, and indeed have considerable opposition for this OR edit." You did not write anything at the discussion page, even though my edit summary said, "Rewriting section on abortion. Please see discussion page." I had explained in detail at the discussion page why I made the edit that I did, and yet you simply reverted the edit without any response at the talk page. Wikipedia has a policy that editors should explain their reverts, and I hardly think your edit summary was sufficient.

As I explained at the talk page prior to your revert, you are the one who suggested the language of my edit (i.e. that opposing reduction in abortion time limits might be a pro-choice position). I also explained at the talk page that Severa had not "explained anywhere why she thinks that ... opposing reduction of abortion time limits ... is not a pro-choice position." Thus, your edit summary was premature, to say the least, as neither you nor Severa had yet addressed the content of my edit.

Thank you in advance for thinking this over.Ferrylodge 15:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive. Assuming good faith means there is a question about the editor's intent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and you may find the user warning templates useful - they are found at WP:UTM. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you consider the possibility that you yourself have been edit-warring in this instance, for the reasons explained (and ignored) in my previous comment, above.Ferrylodge 18:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, don't see any edit-warring on KC's part. Sorry. •Jim62sch• 19:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And do you see any on my part? And do you see any evidence that KC read or responded to the explanation that I provided above?Ferrylodge 19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, edit-warring is trying to repeatedly insert disputed material into (or, conversely, to remove uncontested material from) an article. Restoring the non-disputed version to ensure that edits must be made through consensus is not edit-warring. -Severa (!!!) 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement that KC removed was: "RCOG takes a pro-choice position against 'reduction in the time limits for abortion.'" That statement had only been inserted into the article ONCE. For inserting that statement ONCE, I'm accused of edit-warring, being disruptive, and editing in bad faith. It's totally ridiculous, and if anyone here had an ounce of objectivity you would see that.  :-) Ferrylodge 00:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) As you'd also placed that in another article, twice, and moved to the RCOG article after other editors protested, where you added virtually the same contested assertion not once but three times - why yes, its edit warring. Five times doesn't equal once, even when you bold it and italicise it and place in all caps. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your omission of links is conspicuous. Show me once other than here where I edited any Wikipedia article to characterize a position against reduction of abortion time limits as a "pro-choice position." Just show me once.Ferrylodge 01:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The contested edit is characterizing RCOG as "pro-choice".

On Fetal pain article, where a number of editors disagreed with the edit on the talk page and in edit summaries

• 04:13, 24 May 2007 - this was adding a cite to the disputed content, as added two edits before by Stadler981 at 22:24, 23 May 2007 Dispute proceeded on talk, with you stating the cite supported labeling RCOG "pro-choice" and other editors disagreeing to varying degrees.
• 22:39, 24 May 2007

On RCOG article

• (1) 17:26, 25 May 2007 Edit summary "Wikilinking abortion and pro-choice." but this is where the "pro-choice" was first added to this article
• (2) 17:06, 26 May 2007
• (3) 21:46, 26 May 2007

Now I'm done. If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands. This is enough for an Rfc right here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken, KillerChihuahua. You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice: "You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group."Ferrylodge 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And I hope I will not have to waste my time dealing with your disruptive editing again.Ferrylodge 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's enough of that. Ferrylodge, you're done posting on this page. Do it again and you'll face a block for harassment. Bishonen | talk 02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

I am glad to be done posting on this page, but, for the record, I dispute any suggestion of harassment. Please do not delete this comment.Ferrylodge 04:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one?[4] [5] You've got to be kidding me. You have been blocked. Bishonen | talk 04:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

Rbj

Hi. After your recent block of this user, they have requested to be unblocked. Could you please comment on the request for diffs at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Rbj blocked? Thanks, Sandstein 05:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comparison

[6] vs. [7] 151.151.73.163 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that is highly interesting. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hello. I am Arknascar44 and i noticed on the admin coaching page that you were a fully available coach without a student, and I was wondering if you wanted to be my coach. By the way, sorry to impose if you are having health issues as described on the top of this page.

Arknascar44 18:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Arknascar44 - this is no imposition at all. I'd be happy to be your coach, if you wish. I'll give you the situation, and you decide. I am having health issues, but its a long-term situation, not a brief illness, so I won't be available at times. I am usually on at least once a day and often throughout the day, but at times several days can pass without me making an appearance here. At times my posts will be brief - please don't take that personally, but if I only have time or energy for a brief answer that's what I post. I'm not the kind of coach who gives "classes" or "assignments" - although there is a brief reading list I will suggest, and I will from time to time make suggestions. I am *always* open for questions. If you wonder about anything at all, you can always ask me here on my talk page - that goes whether you decide you want me as your coach or not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you soooo much!! I've been sitting on the coaching request page for a long time, and this is such a relief. And yes, I would love to be your student, regardless of the situation that you are in. In fact, these complications combined with your willingness to teach me only makes me respect you more as an editor, and as a person. Thanks again, Arknascar44 00:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You've picked a good coach. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Response

KC, in response to your request, I invited the editor in question to this discussion. He respectfully declined my request, so I don't know that there is anything further to pursue in regard to this. I am sorry that I could not be of more help. Pastordavid 21:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and care to create that page (as I suspected, you're good at this kind of thing). It is a pity The Transhumanist has declined, as from his response to you it seems clear to me he is still misunderstanding a fundamental issue, and I believe this could have helped him considerably. I appreciate your efforts on his and my behalf. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Myth and ritual

A while back, you told me that the myth and ritual article seemed to contain a lot of original research. I've made some changes to the article, and I think I've cleared up the problem. As far as I can see, the article seemed like "original research" not because it went too far but, rather, because it didn't go far enough: I only cited a few scholars as representative examples, while leaving huge gaps, making the article seem more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Now that I've added more information and more citations, I feel comfortable removing the "original research" notice. However, since you're the one who added it, you might want to take a look for yourself. I'd appreciate your feedback on this article. --Phatius McBluff 23:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting format. It looks very well cited to me, although I confess I did not check all the references, etc. I suggest you put the article up for feedback as a next step, to get suggestions on how to improve the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Spring Heeled Jack

Thank you for your kind words. The article holds a gruesome fascination for me: The more I dig, the fewer are the vestiges of credibility. Pity, because I enjoy reading gamey 19th-century spine-tinglers as much as anybody. Morenoodles 07:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Back-up

KC, I wonder if I could turn the tables, and ask you for a little help. I received a request to check into some stalking this morning on my talk page, and I am going to be offline all day today. Would you mind checking into it for me (it's the stalking thread on my talk page). Thanks so much. Pastordavid 12:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to - KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your rapid and able assessment of the situation. Pastordavid 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am delighted to have been of assitance. Please let me know if you ever need me again - KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Roy Meadow and the mothers who lost babies

Hi, Puppy. I very much liked your suggestion at User talk:JzG regarding Roy Meadow and the women he gave evidence against. I'm a little doubtful as to how easy it would be to get support for it. Something similar has been tried at Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, getting rid of a biography of a victim who only became notable because of misfortune, and moving it to an article about the actual case instead, but has met with some resistance. Nevertheless, I'd certainly support it. I'm less sure about Sally Clark, as she's the most famous of the four women, and is dead — not that that I think the death of someone gives Wikipedia the right to consider her "fair game". But anyway, thanks for your wise suggestion, and for the kindness you've always shown me, and here's hoping that your health continues to improve. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy Puppy's Day!

KillerChihuahua has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as The Puppy's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Puppy! Love, Phaedriel 00:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Oh! Phaedriel, you are too kind. Thank you so much! I don't know whether I deserve this (and I know a lot of people I am sure deserve it more than I) but I thank you from the bottom of my heart. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Puppy. I hope you enjoy your day, and yes, you do deserve it. Though I can't help wondering wouldn't this image have been more appropriate. Your husband, perhaps? ElinorD (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Elinor! Only, not that chihuahua! I like the one on my user page much better. I'll let you in on a little secret though - I'm not really a dog, and I'm not really Mexican. So I'm not quibbling about the image. The puppy Phadriel picked is so cute, too. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Dang. I guess you've just disproven my theory that great apes aren't only ones with keyboarding skills. But enjoy your Day! -Severa (!!!) 01:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats KC! Good call Phaedriel. Guettarda 05:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet dear Puppy, for once, I am "so" happy that you disagree with my judgement ;) Your modesty is only matched by your beautiful spirit. The words of that poem I chose for you sum up all I wish to tell you these days, when some who don't know you and don't make an effort to do so either may be bothering you. This humble gift is just a token of my admiration and the friendship that we share. You are wonderful, Puppy! :) Have a beautiful Puppy day and a lovely weekend! Love, Phaedriel - 18:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy wishes on this special day from me too! ♠Tom@sBat 20:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I emailed puppy pictures in celebration!!!!⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats KC, you definitely deserve this award! •Jim62sch• 12:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Belated congrats Puppy, on this well-deserved bit of recognition. As a special treat, you'll also get an extra bowl of kibble : ) Doc Tropics 17:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Doc, but I don't do kibble. Steak is nice though. (hint, hint) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a nice juicey steak set aside for you, but OrangeMarlin swiped it. Blame the fish that I had nothing left to offer but kibble. Doc Tropics 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That fish had better watch himself, or I'll be having Marlin Espanole or Grilled Marlin over Spaghetti Squash. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Delicious steak. Slurp. By the way, Marlin is all greasy and yucky. Nothing a small hairless dog would eat. Orangemarlin 20:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Care for a nice milk bone?--Filll 02:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rbj

I have unblocked Rbj to participate in an appeal. He is limited to editing his own user and talk pages, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Fred Bauder 12:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Rbj has filed the arbitration request, and has listed you as a party. (Just letting you know since he's agreed to edit nothing but the arbitration case as a condition of unblock.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Countless vs. numerous

Every single monotheistic believer who lives or who has ever lived has his own unique conception of "God". It seems to me "numerous" is a gross understatement, and "countless" is more accurate. More on the talk page. --Serge 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. your post at Lsi john's talk page ;)

Actually, there was, Puppy... don't tell me you forgot about this gem... ;) Love you, Phaedriel - 05:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Rofl, you're right, Phae, I wasn't even thinking of that. I was thinking in the context of the current episode. Oh my, that was funny. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, my post still stands on Lsi john's page... no one ever accused her of abusing Georgre, just of cross-dressing. ;-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm one. Or, maybe Phae is? Or, maybe I've been editing in the conspiracy theory anti-cult articles far too much! hugs to you both. Lsi john 17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Eeeewwwww -- a "love-fest" on Wikipedia? What are you thinking?  ;) •Jim62sch• 17:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore this hearless cynic, Phae and John. His mock-horror is doubtless jealously at not getting enough hugs and friendly attention himself, which would doubtless happen more often, if he used Latin less. One puppy's opinion. (oh, and Memento te amari btw - and don't you dare correct it, even if its wrong) KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proud. /me hugs Jim too. :) Lsi john 21:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No hugs for puppy, she didn't even comment on my dogs. (sadface) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Did too!!! Not online but I sent a gushing email. Bah. I thought you sent the pics because you wanted to share, not so you'd get public attention. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't wish to hug the Puppy, Swat, I know someone will in your place ;) Phaedriel - 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Awww, swoon!! Lsi john 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My sig

Hello KillerChihuahua/Archive 10, I just got this from PMC and he/she say it was ok please see my talk page, so how could I change it again?Thank you for your time,Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, glad to see you've changed it. Much better, and apologies for my out-of-date comment. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I had this signature for like 4 days now anyway thank you for taking your time looking into my sig and I hope your feeling better:).Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 20:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I am indeed improving steadily (if slowly) as my doctor assured me I would. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice.

Nice move. :) Good work on ending that revert war. Acalamari 21:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hang onto your lunch

Hey, KC. If you've got a stomach for this sort of thing (pun intended), would you mind checking out Talk:Vomiting#Street_image, where I've begun a discussion on the encyclopaedic value of a photo of someone's lunch on the sidewalk that's featured in the article? The image was added to the article without discussion a few months ago, and, after a perusal of the talk page of the editor who added the image, I'm convinced that this is a bad joke that's slipped under the radar. Now another editor is defending the value of the image and I could use an opinion on whether my perspective is out of line here. -Severa (!!!) 10:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You always bring me the most... interesting issues. On my way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being intrepid enough to give it a look. It seemed rather clear-cut to me, but it's better to discuss things and build consensus first. -Severa (!!!) 11:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Offer of help

Hi KC - I saw your comment on Orangemarlin's page. I'm planning to start work on the article in the next couple of weeks as I have a bit of spare time coming up. I would certainly appreciate an outside view as this is a tricky subject and opinions on it are quite different depending on what you have read. I'll drop you a note if things get tough - thanks for the offer of help. Sophia 11:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nods, this issue has caused enough mess, pardon me. If I can be of any assistance in bringing other eyes to the issue, do not hesitate to let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

MEDCAB

Hey there! I was just wondering how to mediate a case on the Mediation Cabal Case Page because whenever a new case comes up, someone grabs it before I have a chance to even throw my name in there. Arknascar44 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be a little new to Wikipedia for MedCab cases; I suggest you try Third opinion and following some Rfc's for a bit. You might want to drop a note to User:Addhoc or User:SebastianHelm; they are MedCab coordinators. User:Vassyana is also; but he is currently being considered for MedCom so I'm not sure how long he'll be in MedCab.

Also, change your signature. Never use a templatized sig; it is forbidden per WP:SIG#Transclusion_of_templates. Paste the sig code into the signature box under your "Preferences" tab; be sure to check the box next to "Raw". Then sign your name with four tildes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, KC. The problem is all sorted out: Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Str1977

Hi KillerChihuahua, might you unblock User:Str1977? Jossi indicated he wasn't sure, and asked for review - no one seems to agree that he violated anything. I'm sure you'd agree that we shouldn't be blocking editors for defective reports of non-violations, and I doubt that's what Jossi meant to do.Proabivouac 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos

Good to know I'm getting high scores in the World's Largest Whac-A-Mole Game...  :-) --Finngall ^talk 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Kxen

Could you please explain me why you deleted the Kxen Page ? what did not suit ? and moreover, why pages like SAS System or SPSS exists ? txs. Chrisguyot 08:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Not only for your "help" box, but for your comment on the article, I consider it something to work on, so I can be a better admin. SirFozzie 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for wishing me a happy SlimVirgin Day. ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Lick sockpuppets

User:Pro-Lick, who still appears to be indefinitely blocked, recently created two sockpuppet accounts, User:Pro-Linguous and User:Pro-FreeLife, apparently to "take care of vandals on my page and to communicate on admin pages." However, all he has done with either of these accounts is remove a sockpuppet notice from his user page, then refer to Musical Linguist as a "vandal" and "stalker" when she restored it. [8] [9] ML closed the Pro-Linguous sock, [10] but the Pro-FreeLife account is still open, so I just thought I'd alert another admin so that this didn't go under the radar. -Severa (!!!) 00:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added notices to Pro-Lick's page. This seems to have been overlooked in PL's case, as both Cindery's and Alienus' pages have notices. -Severa (!!!) 01:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!!

Thanks for reverting the edits of that IP vandal on my userpage!! You are the MAN! Arknascar44 01:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. May I suggest you remove the "no vandalism" notice on your page? It really seems to be a dare, and may attract more vandalism than if you simply left your page without it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the invisible comment or the boilerplate on th page itself? Arknascar44 03:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and intelligence regarding the John Wayne troll. All the best to you on your health issues, too. Monkeyzpop 02:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• He's back again today, btw. New name: BreckColeman (talk · contribs). Weird that the guy who despises John Wayne so much has taken the name of Wayne's character in The Big Trail as today's pseudonym. Monkeyzpop 21:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hey! I provided a third opinion for a case. It is right here. Just thought you might want to review it and give me some advice for later on. Thanks, Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 19:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC

I actually did see this, but haven't had time to comment on it - quick note, I would not have used the word "silly" - might be taken as an insult. Not that there aren't times to use it, mind you! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yeah....that was one of those things where you wish you could magically go back in time and change what you wrote. Oh well--I sure won't do that again! Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 13:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but if you do something stupid less optimal again, you can just strike through and add better phrasing, like this. Use an edit summary with an apology, if it seems appropriate - or simply say edit own comment. Or you can post immediately below your comment, with an apology and better phrasing, like That came out judgemental - I'm sorry. I meant to say... It isn't always worth the effort, but if you want to change what you wrote, nothing is stopping you! The only caveat is unless you do it immediately after you hit save, it is best to leave the original there and strike through it, rather than edit it. But if its just happened and no one has replied, you can simply make adjustments. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll remember that. I don't know where I'd be without you! :) Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 14:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Lesane Parish Crooks known as Tupac Amaru Shakur

I've read the article about 2pac,and i saw that it missed that his given birthname is Lesane Parish Crooks. I found out that you needed back up on his LPC name,so here it is. I'm a big Pac fan,have his portait on my right chest. I've done thousands of hours research surrounding his death and all the theories about him faking his death. In 2005 i've met Leila Steinberg,the lady who took him in her home in Marin City,and we are close friends now. an if you want to find out more about Tupac mail me

Morphlex-7@hotmail.com

Lex Vick, Los Angeles,CA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.75.192 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the offer, if you have a source we can use on Wikipedia which states that his birth name is LPC, please post information about it on the talk page of that article. Right now, we have two sources which state LPC was an alias of Tupac, and no source which meets Wikipedia's requirements of reliable sourcing.

Please do post on the talk page of the article, and not on my talk page, so that other editors will be able to contribute to the discussion about the article. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy while AfD is running

You have speedily deleted several school articles with active AfD discussions. I suggest you undelete them and let the AfD's run. Dhaluza 19:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. They were G4s. I didn't even delete them as A7s. Take it to Drv if you feel there is a case for nn elementary school articles with no content which are recreations of deleted articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

it wasn't a G4... G4 doesn't apply to articles that have been rewritten, or that were originally speedy deleted for that matter. --W.marsh 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pity Dhaluza couldn't wait until I saw this before opening the Drv, where I note he has been a little loose with what he's requested of me. I thought G4 applied for some reason, thanks for the civil and helpful information. A little late, as you can see. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As you wish. I submitted the worst case for Drv. Dhaluza 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that for a G4 speedy, ther must be a previous deletion by AFD (or XfD for non-articles) and it is very good practice to link the former deletion discussion in the deletion comment. If an article was previously speedy deleted, it can be deleted again if and only if a speedy criterion currently applies, regardless of previous speedies. Also speedy deletes during an afd are often a bad idea if anyone has expressed an opnion favoring keeping the article (excpet possibly the article's creator) in good faith. Check WT:CSD if you like. And the general consensus is that CSD A7 should not be used on school articles because they are so often contested, and speedies are supposed to be for clear cases. DES ^(talk) 04:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On the speedied vs. afd's, thanks, I'd forgotten that. On the "rewritten" - does not apply, there was NO content. No one had expressed Keep in the Afds. Why exactly are you all here ? KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You brought us here by your actions. Someone started a bunch of AfD's, and you jumped in to the process and broke it. By speedy deleting the articles again, you erase the edit history, and the cycle repeats. By doing a proper merge and redirect, as the AfD's votes indicated, we preserve the history, and stop the endless cycle of create/delete. So if you want us to go away and leave you alone:

1. Delete the new redirects you created
2. Undelete the original articles
3. Do a proper merge and redirect, preserving the history
4. Update the AfD entries to reflect this

Or just relist it at AfD. Dhaluza 10:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what. Go off to your Drv which you've already started and lied on. Whatever happens there happens, I'm done with this nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Submit photo to Jon-Erik Beckjord page?

Hey Killer C.

          Can you submit a photo for me to my Beckjord page?

Have NO idea how to do it, and yes, I can give rights to the Wiki thing you mentioned.

Have no idea how to do that. Do not have current Wiki reg.

Need your help. Seems only admins can submit anything that sticks.

Photo url is http://www.beckjord.com/ebness.jpg

thanks, best of luck with health.

                         Beckjord

Hi Beckjord, nice photo. A little grainy, pity. Do you have a higher resolution? I'll need to know where and when the picture was taken, a description of sorts - something like "Jon-Erik Beckjord at Lake Watsis June 2006" so that I can put a description in when I load the image. I will also need the photographer's name and contact information, since as you're a public figure, the photographer may well hold rights and will need to release them. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

You're assuming I can handle a speedy when I just learned how to enter dates correctly after 9 months on Wikipedia? I'll take that as a compliment, but, no, I can't speedy--literally can't figure out how to do it, not am unwilling to or disagree with the concept. KP Botany 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

replied on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try it. Not right now, but I'll give it a try. Thanks. KP Botany 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I did it. I prodded a nasty attack BLP that had been up for speedy before, and no one had checked the sources it supposedly referenced. I was a little supsicious, so I checked the sources, which said nothing that was nastily claimed in the article, edited them out of the article, added what I guessed! would be the appropriate speedy tag (although I tried two, and can't remember what worked) for an attack article, it worked and showed up to say what it was supposed to, and within seconds the article and all its nastiness was gone from Wikipedia--including from my edit history! Thank you. Your post may even survive my next temper tantrum. KP Botany 04:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject

Since you said this I wonder if you might opine on the civility and offensiveness of making snide comments about a mental disability. --Ideogram 21:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As the edit you link to has nothing to do with mental disability, I'm wondering about the relevance. I will certainly offer an opinion, if asked for, about any specific comment. I prefer not to make general comments about "snide comments" about "mental disabilities" without seeing context and phrasing. Perhaps you could paste a diff? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is unmistakably a reference to my mental disability. --Ideogram 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Or it could be an expression of concern, or a joke - its not anything like the remark I was commenting on in the post to whcih you linked. This is not "on the subject" this is two totally different things. No background is required to see that "shake sand out of their vaginas" addressed at large is crude and offensive. The post you linked to clearly requires some context, which I do not have, nor do I have time to read up on any disabilities you may or may not have, and your past interactions with another editor. I'm sorry, I really cannot be of any assistance with this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My Quagmire

Hey KC!! Just wondering, I spend a lot of time reverting pages and warning users, so the majority of my mainspace edits are reverts. I just want to contribute something else to the Mainspace, but don't understand how people can get 500+ edits there in a month, not much of which are reverts. It just seems like I could contribute more, but I don't know how to edit on that scale. Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 21:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't go for volume, go for quality. Check cleanup, or simply Random page until you find an article you can help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lillian Stewart Carl

Please consider undeleting Lillian Stewart Carl. You deleted it as an A7 (no assertion of significance). The version you deleted included publication info on over a dozen books (which alone is at least a claim of significance, IMO. It also included the statrement that Carl was instrumental in inducing Lois McMaster Bujold to start writing. No LMB is a very notable writer indeed -- she is tied with Robert A. Heinlein for the most Hugo awards for novels ever, for example. This statement was poorly sourced in the article, but can be sourced better -- in fact the introduction to Dreamweaver's Dilemma by LMB says the same thing. The notability of this author might be debated at an AfD (although i would make a case for keeping at an AfD), but I don't think it is at all qualified for an A7 Speedy delete. DES ^(talk) 05:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources about her other than her home page? Anything which might indicate she's notable? Any articles about any of those books? Anyone can have a book published, and we've all had childhood friends. There was no assertion of notability. If you can find a couple of good sources, say a review of one of her books in the NYT, let me know and I'll undelete so you can add all of that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that is the kind of request that would be proper at an AfD, but not on a speedy delete under A7. Any claim of notability is enough that an A7 is improper, and while a published book is certianly not conclusive proof of notability, and might well not suffice at an AfD, it is IMO a claim of notability. It is not true, BTW, that "Anyone can have a book published" -- if you exclude vnity publications which these were not, it is by no means easy to have a book, much less a dozen books, published by a mainstream publisher. Note that the article as you delted it listed multiple books published by Wildside Press, which is a smaller independant publisher, but a legitimate non-vanity publisher, and no less than four books by Ace, which is a major publisher of fiction, particualrly science fiction. I think that alone establishes enough notability to avoid a speedy. I have also mentioned the published account in Dreamweaver's Dilemma. Note that WP:DP says "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an admin may choose to undelete it immediately." I think that I would be justified in simply restoring without further discussion under this provision. I am sure that if brought to deletion review as the matter stands the page would be undeleted, an possibly sent to AFD. Do you seriously belive that the article as it stood when you deleted it failed to "assert the importance or significance of its subject" as per WP:CSD#A7? You do understand that to "assert" as used in the CSD is far less than to "prove", and that supporting references are not required to avoid a speedy? I am not going to just undeleted or use DRV at this point, but please rethink not only this deletion but your standards for speedy deletion in general, if this is typical of them. DES ^(talk) 15:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I Have found 4 online reveiws of her work that would be IMO citable, plus several other online sources that i would include in the article, BTW. None are at the NYT level, but lots of authors we include aren't, and such sources are often not easily available online anyway. I still maintain that the article as you delted it, with nothing more, was not a proper speedy. DES ^(talk) 16:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The article makes ZERO claims of notability. Many of the books are on either a vanity press or eBooks, Wildstar and Ace notwithstanding, and not all of the authors published by them are notable - and regardless, a list is a list, not an assertion of notability. Gastrich has published books which are for sale on Amazon, for crying out loud. And a one-liner that she knew another author and encouraged that author is not even close to a claim of notability. My point in asking was that if there were a claim of notability which could be sourced, I would undelete so you could add that. I agree, its not the usual method with an A7 - but I'm trying to work with you. The information you gave is unidentified sources for reviews, but I'm not going to be on much for a few days. I've undeleted, try to add some content with third party sources, ok? KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on what constitues a "claim of notability". I was about to take this to DRV. I might add that NONE of the books were published by vanity presses, adn of those published as e-books, all had previously been published in paper, by legitimate publishers. That said, i will add multiple third-party sources today, and clean up the article significantly. Thanks for undeleting. DES ^(talk) 13:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have more that I will be adding to this, when i have a chance, but I think you will agree that the article as it now stands is a long way from an A7 deletion. I hope so, at least. DES ^(talk) 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry iof you found my tone uncivil -- I didn't intend to attack you. I do disagree, strongly, with a spcific action you took, and with what I percieve to be the standard behind that action. Specifically, you seem to be saying that an A7 is approprate unless claims of contability are a) supported by references, and b) sufficent to pass WP:BIO or to surviuve an AfD. Perhaps i misunderstnd you. But if that is what you are stating, i strongly disagree. There was a proposal to require all bios to be sourcd or face speedy deletion: it was defeated at the same time that A7 was first approved. The examples at that time make it clear that even a faint claim is sufficient. indeed I woudl assert that being the author of even one book published by a mainstream (non-vanity) print publisher is enough of a claim to avoid an A7. It might well not be enough at an AfD, depending on what coulod be found about the book, but that is another matter. If you review the various discussions at WT:CSD, I think that my view is failry common on the scope of A7. Remember that A7 was devised largely to avoid clutering up AfD (then VfD) with auto-bios of high-shcool and college students, and similar obvious junk. Where there is a reasoable chance that future editing or an AfD could produce evidence of true notability, then IMO speedy deletion should not be used. Perhaps you disagree. DES ^(talk) 22:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alton C. Crews Middle School in light of changes

Hi,

A large number of improvements have been made to the Alton C. Crews Middle School article since you voted. Please take another look and reconsider. Thanks! Noroton 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling from an idiot

Just happened to stumble on the this...and I don't have time for "prove-my-intelligence" gobbledygook. Is this the puppy that doesn't pay his CHILDSUPPORT! Intelligence should, and is, for some people based on social and MORAL responsibility! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.154.14.213 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently intelligence is not based on grammar. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to disappoint you.

I really am. I feel really bad to say this but...... I adopted two kittens! And they are the CUTEST things ever. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just throw a steak to the puppy, and I'm sure she'll forgive you. She's pretty protective of steaks, rarely sharing them with anyone. Orangemarlin 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the funny colored fish. He tried to steal my steak once, and we'll be old and grey before he stops whimpering about it. Please to place images on this page? Cute kittens are always good. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed they are, particularly in a light white wine sauce.--Alf ^melmac 17:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you add Tarragon to yours? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Only if I'm trying to impress my date.--Alf ^melmac 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Your Archive Pages.

Would you like me to add {{talkarchive}} to them?Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind offer, but why? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

On some of your Talk Archive you have the following"DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.", So I just wanted to know if you would like me to put {{talkarchive}} on them.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 13:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are pages which were archived before {{talkarchive}} was written, or at any rate before the bright orange confusing wording version was replaced. I'm aware of what is on my archives, my question is; why do you want to templatize my archives? Does it bother you that much that they aren't standardized? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of deleted files

I realize that when I wasnt paying attention, a few articles I would like to have access to were deleted. Can I give you a short list to get restored? What is the best way to do this? Thanks...nice doggy.--Filll 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me the list, and then we'll discuss the best way to proceed. Also, please note whether you want them available to you, in userspace, or in mainspace - it will make a difference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Hi. I saw your username, and remembered a picture I made a long time ago. So I uploaded it here. I hope you like it! :) *Cremepuff222* 18:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, KillerChihuahua', from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:Mysdaao (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

FROM YOUR FRIEND:  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing KillerChihuahua/Archive 10 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Lemonflash^talk 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, KillerChihuahua/Archive 10, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a really great day!

-BigBrotherIsWatchingYou 09:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day KC!

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing KillerChihuahua/Archive 10 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Cheers and best wishes! --RobNS 01:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday! Sophia 08:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC).

Happy First Edit Day! -Severa (!!!) 09:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day from ElinorD, and hope the biscuits are tastier than the bone! 00:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust

A nice juicy bone for the puppy

Hi, Puppy, so sorry to see that the health notice is still at the top of your page. I was starting to email you earlier today, when I was temporarily without internet access, but then the internet access came back on! I do owe you an email, though, and you will get it. I'm really at your talk page to thank you for your support at my RfA. I don't intend to go through all the names of people who supported me and leave boilerplate thank yous, as I know it annoys some people, so I had decided to wait until I actually had something to say, and then to slip in my thank you at the same time. However, you've been so kind from the start that I feel confident that you're not someone who'll be annoyed by a thank you. I've been leaving some nice Viennese biscuits for some of the people who supported me, but I thought for a puppy, a nice, juicy bone would be more appropriate. Anyway, it's very nice to have the trust of the person who welcomed me to Wikipedia and answered all my early questions. I've read various instructions, and have tried out all the buttons, even semi-protecting my user page for a few hours. I was a little puzzled by the "cascading protection", but think I've figured out what it is, and don't expect to use it anyway. Please feel free to let me know if you ever think I'm doing anything wrong. I hope your health continues to improve, and I hope the juicy bone will put new strength in you! ElinorD (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you so much, sweetie! You are more than deserving of any help I have given you, or trust I have shown you.

For future reference, actually prefer more mainstream foods... Steak... Beer... Cake... I loved the ice cream you gave me that one time! Although now that Bishzilla has eaten the machine, I guess that's in the past. *sigh* Perhaps Geogre can make another cake... KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's most unfortunate that 'Zilla has eaten the machine. With the summer approaching, I'm already beginning to regret my generosity in giving it to her. Perhaps she might consider returning it to me if she's unable to digest it, as I was planning to make some more ice creams for Wikipedia. In the meantime, this is the best I can do! ElinorD (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[Wonderingly.] "Unable to digest" mean what? [Burp pleasurably, causing a flurry of vanilla-scented tornados.]. bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Oh, I'm sorry, 'Zilla. I forgot that you were a little weak on verbs, though exceptionally strong on nouns and adjectives. What I meant was that after it had arrived in your stomach, you might find that your body was not able to take any nourishment from it, and you might consider, erm, burping a little more energetically, so that I could have the whole machine back, in an undamaged state. I promise if you do that, I'll even give an ice cream to Bishonen. ElinorD (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No problemo! ['Zilla burp atomic vanilla deathray energetically in direction of little Elinor. Little user instantly acquire becoming deep tan and very curly hair. Hopefully, but dubiously: ] Little user make icecream of that? Little 'shonen be so pleased... probably. bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

I've procured a replacement as the original device is undoubtedly no longer functional. Enjoy! Peace.Lsi john 00:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Little user also offers ElinorD a large bottle of SPF-Zilla. Peace.Lsi john 14:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The sunscreen was helpful, as I did get a bit scorched. And the replacement machine is even more helpful, as I'm afraid the original was a little the worse for wear. Thank you so much for giving it back, dear 'Zilla. By the way, where is the Puppy? Wikipedia isn't the same without her! ElinorD (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, just not able to be on much right now!!! The ice cream is loverly, and a good inducement for my presence - puppies, alas, can be bribed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Great to see that you're still around even a little bit. (Perhaps even an incentive for me to make more ice cream in the next few days.) Look after yourself. ElinorD (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom Snijders

Hello KillerChihuahua, a long time ago you placed an Unsourced tag on this article. It was one of the first articles I wrote, the first in English for certain (I'm Dutch). Everything in the article is sourced in the links and the books mentioned. If you have some spare time, take a look and tell me what to do about the article to make it right. I think it's not Unsourced anymore. Soczyczi 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks much better - good job on adding the references. I have removed the tag. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope you will be fully active again soon. Soczyczi 17:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day! - Thanks much!!!

Many thanks to all who took the time and effort to wish me a happy first edit day! It is much appreciated, and really brightned my day! I cannot believe it has been three years, time has passed so rapidly! One of the best things about the time I have spent here is meeting and working with so many bright, kind, and generous people - you have all enriched my life, and I am a better person for it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Killer Chihuahua

I am Angel David. I just want to ask somthing. There was a guy who offered me a golden opportunity to help him make a list of Ghost Whisperer characters. Was that you? I know you are unable to tell me know since you are sick but when you become a healthy puppy again please respond. Oh! and one more question, why was your heading titled "God" on my talk page? -Angel David 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not I, and I confess that although I am certain I had a reason for linking to the God article in my post to you, I cannot at this time remember what it was! I am very sorry for any obscurity or confusion that may have caused. Good luck finding the Ghost Whisperer editor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks,good dog. Good luck on curing that nasty cold or whatever it is. May God help you. Wait! Know I know why you named that part God! Either because I am an Angel and you are naming it after master or god is dog spelled backward. Waut! You know what is a cociendence? I am catching a cold too! For real!

Look! I gave you the finest and juiciest bone Wikipedia had.

-14:42,Angel David 4 July 2007 (UTC)~~

KC, n/m. I mis-read it. Welcome back though!. Peace.Lsi john 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Archiving

Hey KC--quick question(s). How long should a talk page be before it is archived, and, on a similar note, how do you archive a talk page (my first guess would be to move it to User Talk:Something/Archive X, or maybe a copy and paste). Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 01:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There are differing opinions on how long a page should be before it is archived. At or before 250 kilobytes someone should strongly be considering archiving older sections. It also depends on how rapidly the page is edited - a page with more activity will be archived more frequently than one with little activity. A good rule of thumb is if a section has seen no activity for at least 1-3 months, it can be archived. If a page is very slow, sections may sit for months or even a year or more before archiving, because there is no need to archive if the page is short. There are also two methods of archiving - cut and paste, which keeps all the history in one place, or move. Most editors prefer cut and paste, which works much better when archiving sections based on lack of recent activity - move may be preferred for whole page archiving. Pick one and stick to it, on any talk page. See Help:Archiving a talk page for a description of, and discussion of the pros and cons of, each method. Finally, there is automated archiving, which I use on my talk page. There are several bots which will perform automated cut and paste moves of sections with no activity; they are configurable for varying time lapses from last post and some will automatically increment to the next archive number when the archive reaches a certain size - also a configurable value. I use MiszaBot, and my parameters are set for archiving threads with no new activity for 14 days and to switch to the next archive when archive size reaches 250K. Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Killer Chihuahua,read this!

There is some ad on your page! How did that get there? What is adminship? Oh My Gosh!- Angel David,19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Smiles

Good to see you active again. Not that we work the same pages or anything, but 9 of your last 10 edits showed up on my watchlist : ) Doc Tropics 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I second what Doc said above. I guess I can put away the "Has anyone seen this puppy?" posters now. :-) -Severa (!!!) 16:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Was beginning to watch for your activity resuming, with baited breath as the cat said. Trust you won't overdo the frolicking, and will relax appropriately. Have been blundering along with a summer cold myself, rests have helped greatly but the odd spot of editing is also fun. Enjoy, ... dave souza, talk 23:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc, Severa, Dave. Severa, you may wish to save the posters for later use - you never can tell. Dave: Sorry to hear about your cold - Evula is in a kind and generous mood, perhaps you can get in the chicken soup line (see below.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems sound advice, as ever. I got a can of Baxters' chicken broth from the Co-op yesterday, it's not really home made, but pretty good for soup in tins. Think that'll do? Will eat it at dinnertime anyway.  ;) .. dave souza, talk 08:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice to a sick puppy

I have heard that eating grass can be good...Welcome back!--Filll 16:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're on the road to recovery! Keeping my fingers crossed for you here... -- ChrisO 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks much, dear. (I'm ignoring the grass advice - see Evula's much more helpful offer below!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfB

Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.

I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again!

As an aside, I hope you're feeling better. I can send you a can of chicken soup, if you need it. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Homemade? This is critical. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused....

Hey there KC (again)!

Firstly, I've been looking through a few RfAs and this same question kept coming up (I read some policy but I still don't quite get it): What is the difference between a block and a ban??

Secondly, what is the difference between prodding an article and nominating it for deletion (if there is one at all)?

Thanks =) Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 01:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good questions, especially the block/ban one. Users often confuse those. Block is temporary - from 1 minute to a year or more, but temporary. A ban is 'Go away forever, and all new accounts you make will be blocked forever too'. Bans are usually from Arbcom, but can be from Jimbo or from the community as a whole. The brief explanation of the community ban is that no one is willing to unblock. See Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Blocking policy for all the details.

Prod and Afd are two methods of proposing an article for deletion. There is a third, CSD. I will start with CSD. CSD is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and is commonly called "speedy". This is for completely irredeemable stuff. Prod is for articles which seem clearly not appropriate, but not do not meet any of the speedy criteria. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion explains the details, but the short version is that one places {{prod}} on an article, and if no one objects for 5 days, the article is deleted. The third path is Afd. The process is appropriate for any article which does not meet Speedy or Prod criteria, and involves a multi-step (but fairly easy) process, outlined on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion - but I suggest you read all of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion prior to nominating an article in this fashion. Nominating an article for Afd results in a discussion by members of the community, which is then closed and the appropriate action carried out on the article - Kept, in which case a link is added to the Afd discussion on the article talk page; merge, delete, or transwiki. Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Humph. You could have taught me this too. No steak for you. Well, I think I actually get it. Thanks  :) Orangemarlin 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You could have asked, OM. See how nicely Arknascar asks?

Adding to the above: any admin can block. A ban requires Arbcom, Jimbo, or community consensus. On the subject of deletions, all attack articles and all copyright violation articles should be speedied - get them deleted ASAP. Attack articles are not negative articles, they are blatant attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review: Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --FOo 09:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Feliz cumpleaños

Feliz cumpleaños, perrita! •Jim62sch• 12:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Joyeux anniversaire, petit chien!--Filll 14:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Otanjou-bi omedetou, chiwawa-san! -Severa (!!!) 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you so much!!! How nice to be remembered. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My Welcome template

I have created a welcome template (since {{WelcomeMenu}} has too many links and {{Welcome}} is too boring) at this page. Just wanted to know what you though about it. :) Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 02:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the syntax for it is '{{User:Arknascar44/Welcome|message goes here|~~~~}} Arknascar44 ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: The syntax has since been changed to {{User:Arknascar44/Welcome|msg= message here|sig= ~~~~}} Arky ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Its very bright. Why did you add the HRs and dots? FYI, the dots don't even show on my screen very well, the yellows are too similar. Welcome messages are very much a personal preference thing. I prefer the short {{Welcome}}, which is simple and not overly loud or intrusive - again, a personal preference. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Need welcome template?

Little puppy getting better? Please feel free join in noble graphic efforts on Bishonen page. Puppy have any advice how get rid of pest sock? 'Zilla think twice before creating sock again! Hmmm, what can do cheer up puppy--want to use Bishzilla Welcome Template, welcome newbies? Feel free! Concise template, not so many verbs! Tell chaff from wheat: only brave newbies continue editing when welcomed by monster, ho ho. (Little monster joke!) bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Zilla can eat annoying little sock, surely? Leave helpful template on user page explaining what happened, to encourage other little socks to hide in sock drawer and not annoy mommy accounts so much. Use Tabasco, make even most whiny sock taste good!

Puppy likes welcome message very much! Especially like clarity of Help! and Help, help! bullet points. If sexy and kindly 'Zilla keep this up, will have to start adopting other monsters to teach them how to be wonderful editor on Wikipedia! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a really nice welcome back message for you. But all I can find in its place are a small pile of dove feathers. /me L@@Ks at zilla. Peace.Lsi john 19:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, not even enough for a pillow... and they smell a little singed. Still, I cannot be unhappy with the Zilla - see wonderful welcome message 'Zilla made? Also see ice cream being offered again, 'Zilla kindly gave ice cream maker back to Elinor. Also, Puppy has horrible history with little birds on page, was well before your time but I still have nightmares. Thank you kindly for the thought just the same! KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

More ice cream

Tempting the puppy back with a chocolate ice cream

I'm very glad you're back, dear puppy. I've missed you, and I've also been a little worried, as I knew you were having health problems. It led me to click on your contributions a few times in the last week, so I was so pleased to see your name appearing on my watchlist again. I promised you an email a while ago, and I'm ashamed to say how long it's taking me to send it. That's because I'm writing separate emails to about ten people at the same time. However, I will finish and send it soon. In the meantime, I hope your health continues to improve, and I hope the chocolate ice cream cheers you up. ElinorD (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ice cream is good! (How is your hair?) No worries on the email - I am a patient puppy. Anytime is good to hear from you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

File:83415-2.jpg

Needs a little more vanilla.

---

The file File:83415-2.jpg has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

Oh, she ruined my hair, but luckily, I have a hair straightener. I'm wondering if I should give her one, not for her own use, but just in the same way that a non-smoker might have an ashtray in her house — for the benefit of those who come to visit. ElinorD (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[Bishzilla is interested. ] Little nutcracker..? [Eats it. ] Not bad! [Recollects it was for guests. ] Oops. bishzilla _ROARR!! 08:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Replaceable fair use Image:BRoopBelt.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:BRoopBelt.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 08:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Need advice

KC, I'm in a bit of a fix, and I could use a bit of advice. Although I do not edit the article in question, or have particular knowledge of or interest in its subject, I am concerned by how strongly-worded this comment on the article's talk page came across to me — particularly, I'm concerned by the example it sets, as, in my experience, strongly-worded comments often serve to carry the focus of discussion away from the article itself. Do I approach the editor in question with my concerns, or does he already have enough on his plate? -Severa (!!!) 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, KC. This issue has been well discussed by others to the point of tedium, with Bish putting in notable contributions. Hardly worth wading through the acres of debate, as I've suggested to Severa. Will avoid cigars since I don't smoke, heads off for Cuban coffee and orange juice instead. .. dave souza, talk 10:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It does appear to have resolved a bit, which is good as several days passed before I was online and able to check. Please note that the situation was handled on the article talk page, and the point by Bish that "ordinary editor" is not something one can don and remove at will. If any editor makes such a statement about an article, don't worry whether he or she has too much on their plate - they opened the subject and presumably it mattered enough to them to start the discussion. For what its worth, I think the poster in question is unaware of his own bias on the subject, and he certainly made some strong statements with no supporting sources. Had he actually been an "ordinary editor" I think he might well have been on the receiving end of some sharply pointed comments to keep his POV in check and educate himself about a subject before involving himself in it - but of course that is speculation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, had it been a page I was watching, I'd have promptly added my usual policy reminders asking for RS etc. It was also discussed on said editor's page, not clear if the point got across. Glad to note you're in action, at least a bit!. This may be too fierce and complex, but a troubling situation has just arisen at User talk:Hrafn42 where an admin who'd been in a dispute with H raised points alleging NPA, then took H's response as an attack and blocked H. All seems very odd to me, do you know of someone who could review if this should be taken further? Advice welcome, hope that's not excessive hassle. Ta, .. dave souza, talk 13:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like clear personal attacks to me. Although IMO Radiant might have considered ignoring rather than responding and feeding, followed by blocking, I see no request for block review nor would I have overturned the block had there been one. I suggest leaving it alone - an 8-hour block is hardly earth-shattering, and perhaps the editor will return in a calmer and less aggressive frame of mind. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your sound advice. As you rightly point out, aggression is entirely counterproductive in these situations. All rather off topic, thanks for your time and, much more importantly, hope you're feeling a bit better now. All the best, .. dave souza, talk 14:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, its not a simple situation. I think Radiant was completely wrong about the canvassing charge, but Hrafn42 didn't handle matters very civilly - had he simply not escalated the situation, Guettarda and others had already replied dismissing the canvassing charge on the Drv page, and it would have simply been a non-issue. As I said, I wouldn't have blocked, but I wouldn't have reversed the block either. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I was dimly aware of the complexities, and due to other commitments couldn't unravel them at that point. It mow seems to have been fully dealt with. Also, a list seemed to me a reasonable option, so that didn't get my attention, but have now noticed that the outcome of the Drv is that the cat's amongst the pigeons again. :) . . dave souza, talk 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No fair

No fair using your puppy sniffer to find us!

YY U R

YY U B

I C U R

YY 4 ME.

Peace.Lsi john 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair has nothing to do with using Secret Sniffer to dig up nefarious nogoodniks. Puppy is beyond Fair; Puppy IS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you decode my super secret captain marvel message? Peace.Lsi john 17:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Tupac

Hi KillerChihuahua, I noticed your name in Talk:Tupac Shakur as an active contributor. I see the 2pac page has a mugshot of him under fair use. Are mugshots generally acceptable under fair use? I'm asking because an editor inserted Image:Mugshot 50-Cent-a.jpg on the 50 Cent article and I just want to make sure there's no copyvio issues. Spellcast 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am absolutely the last person to ask about fair use. I wish I could help, but I'm more likely to confuse and/or give inaccurate information. The experts can be located on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Good luck, and I hope you find Fair use less murky than I! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Broader AFA issues

Hi KC. I was quite serious about having your input on the AFA article. I made some changes just now and would like you to vet them for me (if you have time or inclination). [11] [12]

Regards. Hal Cross 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling block

I've asked you this on the AFA board, and I will ask you again here: have you read the complete dispute? If not, then I'll summarize it here, because it's very relevant to the block that was placed on LegitimateAndEvenCompelling: one month ago, a Wikipedia admin and member of the Countering Systematic Bias wikiproject removed three categories, providing a detailed explanation for doing so on the talk page. Since then, an edit war has been going on, with the categories appearing and disappearing on a daily basis. Legitimate and myself have been quoting Wikipedia policy and guidelines to support the initial decision to remove the categories (I say this because you accused Legitimate of "Wikilawyering"). The editors in favor of retaining the categories have dismissed our concerns about bias and actively refused to compromise, even temporarily, by replacing the categories with lists or criticism in the "criticism" section of the article. Legitimate interpreted this as vandalism and, while I do not necessarily agree with that interpretation, it's not a far cry considering that the other editors involved in this dispute have refused to give the concerns of an admin and four other editors the consideration they deserve. I'm not agreeing with Legitimate's methods, but I want to make sure that you hear both sides of the story. Thanks. Citadel18080 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block him for his actions on the content dispute, I did it for his NPA violations, which he continued after being warned. A content violation is not "vandalism" and no amount of "warnings" issued by LAEC can make it so.

AFA board? What do you mean? Please provide a link. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant the talk page for the American Family Association, which has now been archived. Sorry for the confusion.

If you weren't talking about the content dispute, where exactly did LegitimateAndEvenCompelling engage in Wikilawyering?

Finally, on an unrelated topic, how would you advise we go about resolving this content dispute? Our RfC has provided no comments, and editors on both sides have stated that they do not see any benefit in mediation. Is there some other course of resolution we can take, or have we hit a brick wall? Thanks. Citadel18080 01:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the dispute. He engaged in wiki-lawyering when he argued that his interpretation of WP:VAN supported his calling contributors "vandals". He's violating AGF and NPA and CIVIL to the point of disruption and harassment. He's also wiki-lawyered on CAT, the basis of the content dispute, again violating AGF, NPA and CIVIL in his interactions with those who disagree with him, even slightly. Categories cannot be placed within lists or sections, so that compromise won't work. An article is either in a CAT or not, there is no "compromise" possible. And it is precisely LAEC's methods which have led to his block. He needs to learn to treat other editors with courtesy and civility, not write long polemics in which he uses the word "vandal" with abandon to describe good-faith editors with whom he disagrees. No discussion has occurred which was not marred by these increasingly lenghtly character assasinations. I think you will find that if LAEC is civil and polite, and stops throwing insults around, discussion about the CATs will not stall. No one wants to work with someone who is basically doing the online version of screaming insults in their face. Imagine this: if someone starts screaming "whore! whore! bitch! whore!" at me, they really don't get my respect and I don't have much interest in following their "reasoning" or point of view, do you see what I mean?

I seriously considered telling LAEC to report all vandalism to WP:AIV, which is where vandalism should be reported, but then he might plaster vandal warnings all over everyone's talk page - which would be extending his harassment of other editors. I still think in the long run it might help him, as he's now attacking FM and myself on his talk page and just wrote yet another polemic with "vandal" all over it, combined now with "censorship". If there is vandalism, it should be reported on AIV, and I assure you, he will receive confirmation that what he's complaining about is not by any stretch of the imagination "vandalism". But he seems determined to view anyone who doesn't agree with his (incredibly poor and wrong) interpretation of vandalism as The Enemy. Perhaps you could try? I've posted on ANI asking for assistance, but no one seems to have any idea how to get through to LAEC at all.

As far as the content dispute itself, remember to read and apply WP:ATT, NPOV. WP:WFTE might help a lot, too. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.Citadel18080 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rbj sock

Well, the userpage was the real clincher. If you look at the contribution list it seems pretty clear that Rbj has a really unhealthy level of obsession with Orangemarlin. JoshuaZ 19:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone more interesting have an unhealthy obsession with me? If Paris Hilton had an unhealthy obsession with me, at least that would make for good conversation around the office. Orangemarlin 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Continuing mediation

I noticed you are a part of the mediation committee. Please help me out with this vital issue. This mediation request needs to be resumed. The dispute is based primarily on two users, others were later invited. The mediation should not be cancelled due to one disruptive user who has played a minor role. The naming policy has not yet been taken into consideration. This isssue has long been unresolved. Please let me know if this mediation can be continued, or let me know what can be done otherwise. It is very important that this be solved, as the major parties are determined to help get there. Thank you. --Shamir1 13:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If one of the parties named rejects mediation, mediation does not occur. You may wish to talk to the mediators involved about the possibility of opening a new mediation about the naming only. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Illuminati

Shadow bot
It's not what you think it is.

That would be a new sock of User:Truesalomon who repeatedly vandalised the Illuminati article using multiple IP addresses and sock accounts a few days ago. IPSOS (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, glad I brought it to your attention, then. I see it has been handled. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He's already created yet another account which needs to be blocked User:Atheistsfailed. IPSOS (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Persistant, isn't he? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I expect he'll try 5 or 6 more times. Can we blacklist his URLs? That oughta stop him. IPSOS (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The only way to blacklist is to blacklist the domain at m:Spam blacklist, domains can only be added by a meta admin, and it is encouraged that other means be used if at all possible. You may want to add the links to User:AntiSpamBot/Blacklist requests if you can figure out the format. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

All I did was blocked a few of his socks and protected IPSOS's pages, and I'm now part of the international Illuminati conspiracy, cool that's just made my week. Have a good weekend. ^Khukri 09:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How many do you have to block? I've blocked one so far, not enough to get me on the list it appears. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My Cabal

I was bored, so I started a little pet project. I've already added a little heart on your userpage, so its not vandalism, don't worry =) Arky ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. Well, while I appreciate that you are trying to spread good-will among Wikipedeans, there may be some issues with this. First, there is the non-existant category I've been added to, which if created, will almost certainly be placed on Cfd - its an exclusionary category which does not serve to help the encyclopedia in any way, and may be viewed as divisive. Second, this type of thing is not well received by all. I personally routinely either ignore or revert any Smiles placed on my talk page - I find them silly, mindless clutter as a general rule. You may want to investigate the history of Esperanza; the idea was to "promote wiki-love" via a variety of programs such as User Page Awards, the Coffee Lounge, and the Barnstar Brigade - but it degenerated into a cabal of people with an inflated sense of their value to the community. A certain bias exists towards anything which smells Esperanza-like. Thirdly, regardless of how the heart is intended, editing someone's user page and adding them to a category without their permission is usually not encouraged, and is even advised against. And finally, (and almost not worth mentioning) a cabal of one rather defeats the meaning of "cabal" does it not? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a small start...could you speedy the category under CSD G7? Arky ^{¡Hablar Conmigo!} 01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Grins, you're right. Mighty oaks from small acorns grow, etc. I have deleted the cat. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Need Help!!

I need help to stop TTN mergeing mario and pokemon pages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wizkids (talk • contribs) 04:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss this with TTN, and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nintendo and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. This is a content dispute; see WP:Resolving disputes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Background

Thanks for your message and apologies for the delay replying but I've only just received it as I haven't been on Wiki since the day I commented on ANI. As a few days have passed, I didn't want to flare things up again by replying on-site, so I've replied via email. I hope that is okay. Cheers, Sarah 13:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all; I completely understand r/l taking time and attention, and appreciate your desire to not "stir the pot" after things seem to have settled. I have replied; no reply necessary (although your feedback is always welcome.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Quick question - what does "after EC" mean? Orpheus 17:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict. It means I'm replying to a message above, and edits have made since I started writing my edit, and before I read those edits. It helps explain if there is some confusion about who I'm replying to, or if my comments make no sense in light of intervening edits. Of course, I also confuse people who aren't familiar with "ec" so Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! applies. Apologies for any confusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured out from context that it had something to do with the order of replies, but I couldn't work out how it related to indent level or any of the other usual measures of reply hierachy :) Orpheus 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing mediation

Hi KillerChihuahua, I received your message and am assuming you have now closed the mediation on the Kriss Donald article. It's a shame your time was wasted, but thanks for your input. I would hope the mediation page can remain as a reference on those particular issues that were mediated. --Guardian sickness 20:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider my time wasted; although it is a pity Ldxr1 didn't see it through to the end. It is in archive 25, easily accessible from the WP:RFM page; scroll down to the archives links. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Chidiac Deletion (Again!)

Hi There KC. Hope you are getting better. Us editors based in Australia would kindly appreciate the opportunity of working on such article. It is unfair that you deleted and protected this page from creation again. The subject is noteworthy, the mention of sources was noted in the discussion page as being worked on - and twice the amount was listed - all that was needed were links to such sources if they could get restored. The author (whom is now different to the original author, but from the looks of it, collaborate) Invited others to verify/post or bring up such sources as links. Could you please reconsider your decision so that the people that know of this person can complete such work on this notary? The editors enlisted others for support/edits and due to timezones it takes longer than just an hour or two to get others working on any "frills" to the article. It is a FAR DIFFERENT Article than the original article placed, and I don't think anyone would argue such. So please, allow us the opportunity to work on errors in document when highlighted. I would otherwise login but I feel that I would rather complain about it after I allowed this such process to occur.--210.18.215.162 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The article had very few differences from the original that T3Smile made. The author did not address any of the problems that were pointed out and instead merely added more unnecessary material. Nobody else was really trying to edit the article, besides myself. The other person that was there agreed with me and suggested that it be salted. The article was extremely unencyclopedic, the author repeatedly ignored the problems and continued to add the article without proper editing. Fair, protected deletion. - Cyborg Ninja 10:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It was Afd'd, then deleted twice as recreation of deleted article. This article has had more than its share of chances, if you'll forgive the poor grammar, and it is still a BLP unsourced mess. One cannot write a huge article about a living person in this manner with zero inline citations. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was referenced directly. Instead, there were numerous questionable statements, including allegations of child abuse, marital troubles, manipulation regarding an interaction with Bill Gates, etc. None of these were directly sourced. This is completely unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a nasty little tabloid. We are an encyclopedia. The article has been userfied, and if the editors interested in this article manage to trim it, source it, and copyedit it so it is an encyclopedia article rather than a collection of unsourced rumor and trash, I'll be happy to move it back to mainspace. Until then, it stays salted, with very good reason. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: Kurykh has removed the salting and placed in PT. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi KC, what is "PT" and how can you trace the IP of the person leaving last note? - T--T3Smile 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:PT. There is no need to trace anyone's IP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

John Brumby

Killer, Article on John Brumby is expressing a non-neutral viewpoint. Important note now that this guy is likely to become premier of victoria after resignation of Steve Bracks and John Thwaites today, People viewing Wikipedia in the interim (weekend) may get a non-neutral view of such. Please help...I want to hang onto your shirt tails and see how you handle it. Thanks! T. PS look in discussion page as to issues. --T3Smile 14:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am leaving for a week on Sunday, and will be spending most of the rest of the day and Saturday getting ready for the trip and taking care of personal business, so I won't be able to assist much. You need to note what precisely you think is POV in the article for any progress to be made at all "article is not NPOV" is non-specific and likely to be ignored. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Chidiac

I don't quite understand. WP:PT is just another way of salting the article. It utilizes cascading protection at WP:PT. Is there a problem? —Kurykh 18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

BillRodgers = HarveyCarter = a host of sockpuppets

I saw on another DrKiernan talk page you talking with Monkeyzpop about a persistant sock puppet. He has hit various dead celebrity articles particular hits on Jimmy Stewart, Elvis, John Wayne, Steve McQueen and a host of others. I set up 3 reports on him for a slew of sock puppet accounts - [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] The thing that works against him is himself. He uses a pattern in his names and his edits are word for word identical many times from account to account. He's even picked up conversations as one account got blocked as if nothing is wrong with avoiding his sockpuppet block by setting up another. (and another and another and so on). To make a long story short. Is there one place we can get all these names together and make it easier for editors to see how many fake accounts he had. I recall a link I tried working on like that months ago but can't seem to find it. All these new incarnations should be added. I have been on a short wiki break due to work and I am slowly coming back up to speed. Also user BillRodgers is what I see as his newest. Same edits in Elvis and Jimmy Stewart as other accounts. Hope you are feeling better soon (saw the tag on top of userpage). Take care and thanks for your time. --Xiahou 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Depending on how many you consider a "host", puppetmaster and a specific cat is the way we do it. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets gives information. User:Jon Awbrey is one with a lot; see his user page, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey for how it looks, check the pages to see use on sock account pages, etc. Is this what you were asking about? Oh, and if you do it, remember not to subst. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks using the link and changing the name to HarveyCarter I found it at [[16]]. Looks like people have added to it. The thing is when I go to the sock puppet page to search cases only my 3 come up so how did the others get added? [[17]]. Thanks again. I appreciate it. --Xiahou 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to use the {{SockpuppetCheckuser}}. See here and here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.(about template to add name to list)See what happens to me when I take a few weeks off wiki. I used to have all kinds of time. Now I am at the desk, away, back, away, throughout the night. Hopefully back to normal soon. But I was also wondering is how other names got listed on there without opening for example HarveyCarter case #4 and so on. Was it just admins blcoking and adding the template without opening a case? Sorry if I ask to many questions. Anyway, Thanks for everything. I'll have to keep an eye out for his new one and others and start copy and pasting a report on notepad or something unless someone beats me to it. --Xiahou 00:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably. I've added several to sockmasters I know well, such as Jason Gastrich and Jon Awbrey. Sometimes the edits are clear enough without troubling with CU. In those cases, I add to suspected sock, not checkuser sock, but sometimes after that someone with checkuser checks, confirms, and changes the tag to SockpuppetCheckuser. In those cases, although a checkuser checked, there is no RFCU to point to. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know I filed a 4th case against him for the new account plus one I missed back when I turned in the others. [[18]]. Thanks and have a great day. --Xiahou 01:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion: Tenielle Cooper Article

Uh, yeah - I wrote that article based upon information I had, and I cited 5 sources, including the California Bar page referencing Cooper, two website addresses with her published articles, and two internet addresses that have articles written about her multi-million dollar law suits. This young lady is well-known in SoCal legal/art circles, and her admission to Wikipedia is just as relevant as any other person's because she is quasi-famous, published, and in the media. I worked really hard on that damn article, too, so that it had cited sources and wouldn't be deleted. And I planned to continuously update with more. Maybe you failed to see the 5 cited sources at the bottom of the article, but I didn't know how to insert the footnotes in the text, only at the bottom. Please advise me as to how to get my article back up, since you DELETED IT claiming there were no legitimate sources, when, in fact, there were 5 - which is many more than most articles have. Did you even read it????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revolution999 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete that article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenielle cooper. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion: Greg Stein

Hi there... I noticed that you deleted my wikipedia page on the grounds that I'm "just another engineering manager at Google". While that fact it true, I believe that you've missed some of the other things that I've done (in general: lots of Open Source contributions, which is why I was specifically invited to speak here at Wikimania in Taipei). The sad part is that I could not put that information onto my own page due to wikipedia's self-editing policy (proper!). So I think that you've missed a number of things that do qualify myself as a notable person. What is the best way / your favored approach for discussion of reversing the deletion?

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gstein (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that wasn't the grounds, and I don't know where you got that phrase, but I don't recall making that comment nor can I find it in the logs. It had been tagged for deletion with the summary "placing for deletion due to failure of WP:BLP completely lacking non-trivial sources". The only source was a personal homepage, which btw I notice hasn't been updated since Feb 13, 2005 - although updating wouldn't make it any less trivial as a source. Deletion discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Stein KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry... that comment was actually from Burntsauce. Regardless, you're right, so ignore my homepage. If lack of sources was the grounds (doesn't seem to be per the discussion), then I can drag up a bunch of sources for a dozen years of open source development work, talks, keynotes, and whatnot. I could not add that to my wikipedia page by myself, but that data is actually out there. Regarding the discussion page, it has a note that it is now archived and comments should not be added. One of the wikipedia doc pages about deletion said to talk to the admin who removed the page, so I came here. Gstein 17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is quite correct, and now we've cleared up the little misunderstanding about why the article was deleted and who made the comment to which you objected. That behind us, the article is deleted and the deletion discussion is closed, as you note. My advice is to let it go - as the subject of the article, you have a clear conflict of interest. You may wish to watchlist the article title, so you will be alerted if someone writes a different article about you. Note the statement in WP:AUTO: If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later.. In that case, you can certainly offer the sources on the article talk page, as appropriate. Meanwhile, continue contributing to Wikipedia in whatever other ways you feel you can assist with the project. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough... I was tempted to let it go, too, but one of the devs at Wikimania told me to go ahead and post ("be bold"). Maybe it will be recreated at some point. Thanks for your time. Gstein 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For fueling my edits on Doug Stone (singer) with needed coffee, Ten Pound Hammer and the otters award you the barnstar of good humor. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 13:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Glad I gave you a smile. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology for disappearing

Just wanted to apologise for stopping contributing on the Kriss Donald mediation - basically I was finding the whole thing too stressful and increasingly futile and came to the view an agreement was unlikely - I didn't expect a result from mediation after the last few exchanges and couldn't stomach going to arbitrartion - and my university term was starting again, so my usage basically dropped off. And yeh, I've basically stopped contributing for now - more because it's too much hard work than anything else - though I stand by what I've said on this case.

-Ldxar1 22:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks for the efforts you did make - mediation can be long and tedious. If it was taking too much attention away from your schooling, you certainly made the correct decision in prioritizing. I hope to see you back contributing when you have a little more free time, and hopefully you won't land on such a contentious issue next time! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

File:AnonymousDesigner.jpg

Anonymous greetings!

In the name of the Anonymous Designer, hi! and hope you enjoyed the outing. .. dave souza, talk 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh Noes! An AD now competing with ID? Hopefully we won't have a war like BCE and BC. :-D Seriously,t hank you, that's too funny.

The outing was a mixed experience, but parts were excellent. If you ever go to the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta, I suggest allocating most of your time for the Big Tank, the one with the whale sharks. 6.3 million gallons of water and thousands of lifeforms, including rays, sharks, and lotsa fish. Did I mention the huge viewing wall and the part where they're swimming over your head? Awesome. How have things been here? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Heavy weather!

Hey, that was actually a serious attempt at a freely licensed illustration for the ID article! Well, fairly serious. The outing spot looks excellent, far grander than the Scottish Sea Life Sanctuary we visited near Oban about a decade ago. Not too likely to visit in the near future, am a bit stuck in the British Isles – the article, at least. It's taking ages to get my thoughts together on condensing the development of the name, in discussion with others, so haven't been paying so much attention elsewhere. Except when goofing off, which is much of the time. Anyway, keep well, be in touch.. dave souza, talk 16:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey, KC, and welcome back! Quick question: since I have a good deal of edits, and know Wikipedia policy pretty much inside and out, do you think I could adopt a user? I value your opinion, and wouldn't want to go into this without it. Don't be afraid to say no...I've got plenty of time to mature. Cheers, Arky^¡Hablar! 02:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're more than ready for adopting someone, IMO. Your adoptee will be lucky to get you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! That sure made my day :) Arky^¡Hablar! 23:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Blogs etc as references

I am wondering about when blogs become useful as references. Some blogs are written by known figures who are notable already from their other writing, or from their qualifications or expertise. Some are associated with people who give their real names and professional positions and credentials. Some science blogs have been highly rated. For example, Nature magazine placed a "review of some of the best blogs written by working scientists" on its website in July 2006.[19][20].

Some examples:

• Pharyngula (weblog) by PZ Myers, a biologist from the University of Minnesota, science category winner in the 2006 Weblogs Awards
• Panda's Thumb (weblog), with many professional scientist posters, also highly rated (second place winner?). Almost every poster I have seen on there already has a WP article, and is noted for other writing already. Usually with good sources.
• talkorigins not a blog exactly, but with many articles written by well-known professional scientists and well-sourced
• RealClimate, a blog produced by "real climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union"
• Aetiology, found at [21], written by Tara C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in Iowa
• scienceblogs, a provider of science blogs includes many interesting and useful blogs [22]. Note that they are selective in who gets to blog, in fact.
• Nature itself hosts assorted science-related blogs [23]

Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?--Filll 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The short answer to your question is always, under certain circumstances. A blog which is very well known, by a notable author, can always be used for quotes and frequently can be used for postion or belief statements. In other circumstances blogs are less reliable and are, where the author is unknown and the blog is not notable, completely unacceptable. So its not that blogs are RS; it is that some blogs are RS for some purposes. I hope that helped. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Question about an article

Recently, the article 'Otherkin' has come to my attention. The article use to be fairly long, but is now, literally, a stub. However, I'm curious to why this was done; while I can understand such things as WP:RS and WP:V, I'm wondering what Wikipedia's policy or guidelines are for when an article is 'cleaned up' to the point of being an introduction and a list of books/articles.

Many of the older edits have a lot more information on the topic, such as this edit [24] . I'm wondering if you could give me some advise on what to do; to me, it seems perhaps they article is a good example of somewhere that WP:IAR would apply, and perhaps reverting to a very old version of the article may improve the over all quality (and try to clean up from there) of the article, but I fear that such an action would lead to an edit war and an endless discussion.

Thanks --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems from the article talk page that the content which was removed was unsourced or poorly sourced. If that is the case, then it needs to stay removed. If not, then you have a content dispute, and I suggest you attempt the usual steps in dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting problem on talk page

Hello, this guy is reverting talk page, i simply do not want him to associate me with some suspended user, i told him of civility and warned him many times, he needs to keep the talk page clear and clean, can you assist me in suspending the member and cleaning the talk page. I thought he was administrator, he is trying to be. We had some problems on sports articles and he took sides, argued over one tenth of a pound, i will give you link when you reply. I hope i found good administrator, as they are hard to find. I am not posting this to incident pages as i dont want other involved, looking forward to resolving this problem with you. I always try to follow the rules, this individual lacks civility. It seems this guy was pretending he was administrator. And he has buddy helping him, administrator giving out real names. How long have u been administrator, is it stressful? I am administrator on one of the new encyclopedias, but we must give real info about us, even average editors. Whats difference between meditation and arbitration commit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.84 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please provide links to diffs. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, severo is a huge problem,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Severo&diff=150982447&oldid=150977191 He was told many times in a civilized manner to stop it, to stop comparing me to users i am not, if you see the link, he keeps on adding what some other user added, i removed that, i toldhim it's ucivil, you are breaking wiki civility rules ( i always try to follow, including all other rules, especially accuracy ) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility He is creating problems and edit wars. Today, I had to redo it, erase it, then put back the new talk, so it does not look i deleted other people's work, then deleted insulting material. He keeps on deleting my reply, only leaves his, then I look like a idiot without a reply and he seems to be correct. All of this started because of 1/10 of a pound. 90.71 or 91 kg, over a heavyweight division, mkil started it, left a note, he always does compare me to some other suspended user i am not. He was told not to. Its a problem, public library has many users and you can easily be linked toa vandal you know. So, i have a simple request:

1. Severo to be suspended 2. My edit and reply to remain, without connections to other users as the above link tells you. It is against policy to delete talk, i already allowed him to delete over half of my replies. We argued over boxing, he pretended he was administrator (i do not see hs is on his page) He is trying to become administrator, so he is bossy. Because of him heavyweight boxing page was changed and good things reverted, i asked to email me, i have tons of evidence on what is heavyweight what is not, he refused to listen. If you can give me your email, i can give you tons of evidence. Its best you email him in private. I told him nicely (before he told me to hit the road) do not create problems by linking me with others. Its like giving out private info. His job was to help, he did not do, it's possible he worked together with others to discredit me.

My contributions are always accurate, precise. I corrected many wrong things on wiki over time and that speaks for itself...

Sign your posts or in the future I will delete them.

Severo is an experienced editor who does not claim to be an admin. Either provide a diff where Severo actually made that claim, or stop making the accusation that s/he did.

I don't want evidence about your content dispute. If you give it to me, I will delete it. I'm not here to play referee.

You provided one diff, which is an edit you made. What is that supposed to be evidence of? I see no evidence of any wrongdoing by Severo on his/her talk page at all. I do, however, see you harassing Severo and making accusations without evidence. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rant removal

Hey you, thanks for removing the incessant rantings! The Rambling Man 11:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. I see Dweller has blocked that account, so hopefully you can get something productive done now. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you got it

my post on thatso page was a joke: "sarcasm" ie saying the opposite of what i mean see steven colbert as an example I was not insulting jewish people I was pointing out attitudes against them in a humorous way which we get I was defending jesus/jewish people my post was against editors silencing other peoples point of view. read between the lines!Esmehwp 06:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have been happier if you were not a christian with strong beliefs, as I was going through your record I was hoping not to find that bias cause then I could feel better about WP and know that your sudden focus on me was fair and legitimate, its more painful to know you are corrupting WP than to be called a troll(which i try not to be) and have my account closed not that you could ever do such a thing... I honestly feel bad I really had a lot of respect for admin folk but you have shown me that admin status is really no substitute for ...Esmehwp 06:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Message received and understood. See AN. ... dave souza, talk 08:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Potter edits

In this edit summary, you might have found that being polite would have helped you out a bit more. You misinterpreted the need for a cn tag. Someone was seeking the actual existence of the bands mentioned, as well as the Wizard Rock movement, whioch seems crufty as hell. I don't need to tell you that while admins make mistakes, it is their politeness and helpfulness that tends to separate them from the heard. Maybe you didn't get the memo? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Being clear and offering an example does not necessarily mean being rude. Being succinct does not necessarily translate into lack of politeness. Perhaps you misunderstand the distinction?

I fail to see where I misunderstood anything. "Someone" seeking the actual existance of the bands mentioned might have noticed they are wikilinks to the actual band articles. When "someone" is looking for sources that cats exists, the place to look is the Cat article, not the Egypt article. If sources for "cats" are lacking, tag that article, not the Egypt article; or in some cases, the article should be placed on Afd, and if deleted, the links to said article removed. I am delighted to have been helpful in this regard, and hope your understanding of where to place CN tags has improved. Oh and nota bene: sarcasm and/or patronizing lecturing rarely results in the target of said comments feeling gratitude or goodwill towards the comment maker. Perhaps you might consider adjusting your communication style accordingly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And now I see you've done a basic Revert on my edit, without waiting for me to reply here or even asking for my reasons on the article talk page. Indeed, before you even bothered to post here at all, you rolled back both my edits. Basic reverts with orders to follow instructions are generally reserved for vandals or clueless newbies. Which do you consider me, for clearly you have skipped the first step in DR (discussing with me) in favor of treating me like a vandal. I look forward to your reconciliation of simultaneously lecturing me on "politeness" while treating me like a common vandal. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me of your responses; as I don't watchlist your page, I was unaware that you had taken issue with the revert. While I did revert your edit as being both unnecessarily snarky and uncited, I did notify you of the edit reasoning (and not a "basic revert" implying one without explanation) less than a minute later, which is atypical of most first reverts. DR usually begins when a dispue appears to be looming. You presented statements which require connection and citation; you failed to do so, and were reverted. Allow me to be clear: I do not object to the info being added; I object to uncited info being added. I don't consider you a vandal, common or otherwise. If I did, I would have simply have cited 'rvv' in the edit summary and reported you to the approrpiate admin nocticeboard. You will note that neither actions occurred.

As for my own sarcasm in asking about the memo about being polite, I do apologize for that. Dealing with the cruft which seems to collect in these articles makes me less than interested in being patient sometimes. As for your comments, consider that they were inspired by the tone of your edit summary which in no way came across as being succinct but instead as patronizing and snarky. As well, I am delighted to have assisted in enlarging your knowledge of how actions are perceived in Wikipedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Lets try for accuracy here, shall we? I did not "present statements" - I removed three citeneeded tags. In the second and third instances, there are "main" articles, where the cites are indeed to be located. In the first instance, there is no cite needed for the band names, that is what is clearly Potter inspired. As far as a "Wizard Rock" movement, I've never heard of it and would not be surprised to find it was total BS; I suggest a rephrase. These to my mind are two separate issues: do you concur? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, you might want to practice what you preach; getting snippy with me ("let's try for accuracy her, shall we", implying I'm lying) isn't going to garner you any good faith. Your first instance of cn tag removal, regarding Wizard Rock, being inspired by HP, requires citation - your opinions as to what is "obvious" isn't citable; secondary sources are required.

Your second and third sources relate to other articles. That there are other articles in Wikipedia is immaterial and doesn't relive the editor od the responsibility of citation. Any claims made in an article require citation. You argument that citation isn't needed due to the presence of other articles is silly, for if the other articles were deleted, there would no citation whatsoever for the statemetns which were tagged. This is not to suggest that one cannot use the same citations presented in those articles; put simply, you cannot use other WP articles as sources - they are side-reading, not support. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) This is getting worse and worse. You think I am snarky and rude; now you think I am snippy and accusing you of lying because I used the word "accurate". I assure you, neither is the case. While I appreciate that text is notoriously difficult to convey tone in, and easily mis-read, this constant attack on my motives and methods is ABF on the face of it, and is not helping us resolve the issues at hand.

My mention of accuracy is paramount to the issue of whether it is incumbent upon me, as you have implied, to add citations. As I did not add the content, the onus is not on me - the question is whether citeneeded tags are indicated in the three instances. If you disagree, please let me know so we can work forward from common ground; if you disagree, please let me know so we can find common ground; and in either instance, please attempt to refrain from allegations of ill-will or hidden motives on my part, which again I assure you is not the case. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Let's start over. :) I understand that it wasn't you that added the info. Hoever, it is my understanding that 'cn' tags that are placed are to remain unless the statement is being removed en toto, or if citations are replacing them. Otherwise, they remain in place. If you feel the statemetns are unnecessary, then we can remove them (and this matter should be brought up on the Discussion page so that others can weigh in). If this is a matter of you feeling the info doesn't require citing, that becomes a content dispute, seeing as I feel it does require citation.

I hope I am making myself clear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite correct; in many instances cn tags lead to either a source being added or the content, being deemed unsupported (usually after a "reasonable" period of time) being removed. In other instances, however, citeneeded tags are simply removed, which happens fairly frequently, when they are added unecessarily - which of course is sometimes a matter for debate. It seems our first division of opinion is about outright removal of cn tags - do you think they should never be removed for any reason? I except replacing with a cite, of course.

Regarding the Wizard Rock segment, IMO this is inappropriate in this article. It is obvious any band named Harry and the Potters or The Cruciatus Curse has a Potter-inspired name. Google gives the combined term search of "Wizard Rock" "Harry Potter" 106,000 English pages. But we shouldn't be covering this in the main Harry Potter article at all: this is already covered in Harry Potter fandom#Wizard rock, which btw has 11 cites. I suggest removing the Wizard Rock segment from the main Harry Potter article, and adding Harry Potter fandom to the "see also" section of the main article. Had I taken more time to investigate this at the outset, that is what I would have done in the beginning.

I'll wait until we've resolved this one before discussing the other two, as they are fundamentally different in nature. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your solution is reasonable, and I can agree with that. In answer yo your earlier question, I do think that cn tags should remain, but not in perpetuity. After a certain amount of time, they - along with the uncited information - should be removed. Usually (if I think it can be cited), I remove it to the discussion page, allowing for someone to cite it before re-adding it back in. If it is utter rubbish, I simply purge it from the body Wiki.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will reply to this in detail as soon as I find time - thanks for your patience. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Arky Needs Your Help!

Hey KC. I, by chance, landed myself right into a good faith, yet very burocratic and ownership-oriented crusade on the article Yoshiki (musician) on the IRC help channel. The users Yskent and ExtasyRecordings (the record label Hayashi works for), along with several others whom I have yet to track down, are promoting the artist's POV by adding information that he himself approved (Yskent has confirmed over IRC that he is a member of Yoshiki's staff) and planning to protect the article once it is added, and even canvassing to become administrators (confirmed over IRC and by [25] and [26]). Of course, the RfAs and/or RFPPs of these users will never succeed, but action needs to be taken. Use your discretion, but I suggest an indefinite block of ExtasyRecordings (I'll report them to WP:UAA if you want) and a temporary block of Yskent along with a stern warning. Of course, I'll be working to track down more perpetrators, as they are all meatpuppets in the least, although I'll hold my tounge when it comes to sockpuppetting until I gather further evidence. Cheers, Arky^¡Hablar! 13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I will get back to you as soon as possible, if the situation is urgent pls contact another admin or place note on AN/I - sorry, I have only minutes here today. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

 Note: ExtasyRecordings indef blocked, autoblock disabled per WP:UAA. I will start an AN/I thread soon. Arky^¡Hablar! 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I need some help, please

The Wikimedia essay, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles used to have a shortcut WP direct of 'WP:GAY'. Recently, there was a decision to change the redirect to the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, kinda leaving the essay hanging. I created a new article, WP:NOTGAY, and put a redirect there, cut I think I've screwed the pooch somewhere there. As I notice that you are part of Wikipedia too, and have been able to work through an earlier issue without clubbing me like a baby harp seal, I was hoping you could help me fix the issue. I would love to know what i did wrong. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hard redirects across projects have been disabled. I put in a soft redirect. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Why were they disabled? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Soft redirect. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Puppy, question

Arf. Please see this and offer your thoughts. Am I correct in recalling that this is the same person who was harassing you and Bishzilla?? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks, seen and posted. Appreciate you bringing that to my attention. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving Anthony Chidiac Article back into MainSpace

Hi KillerChuhuahua, I'd like you to review my currently adopted piece on Anthony Chidiac for consideration of moving into mainspace.

I believe that: 1) with the work I have done to provide factual pieces of information to support this biography, and 2) with the rumour of Chidiac being shortly announced as playing a pivotal part of the billion dollar University Hill Development in Bundoora, creating worldwide attention. This article should now be moved into mainspace.

Don't forget, I also successfully picked John Brumby as being the new Premier of Victoria, Australia and noted such in other admins pages, and do have the inside track on news pertaining to major technology developments here in australia with encyclopedic notability, so based on such and the promise that I will progress this article as well as some other key players in this major announcement, I hope you find my work of a quality that meets your exacting standards. Thanking you in advance for your positivity and assistance in getting my first article in wikipedia published.--T3Smile 16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your expertise and knowledge are valuable, no doubt; however, unless they are backed by strong references to reliable sources, they are original research. Your rewrite has no inline citations - I count three external links (not cites) within bodycopy, one of which is to YouTube. This is manifestly insufficient, and one of your links is to a commonly disallowed source. Without dredging though all your sources and notes and checking every sentence of your article against them, no one can verify that any of your statements are sourced at all. Please trim the article to only statements you can source directly with inline citations - and I do mean trim. I realize I'm being a hardass about this; but this article has been beyond problematic. If you don't know how to use inline citiations, there is a wealth of information at Wikipedia:Inline citation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A wealth but not a health. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

Smiles, good to see you on my page, Bish. KillerChihuahua^?!? 05:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Compare HUGE pleasure of seeing Bishzilla on page ! [Zilla chuckles majestically, then looks hungrily at little deathdoggie. Admonishes self. ] Puppy too clever to eat ! Clever almost like Corvax ! [Zilla meditates briefly on charms of Muzzy, blushes girlishly.] Er... yes! Clever little puppy perhaps code template Zilla welcome ? Puny 'shonen so conceited about her {{vww}} template! Always boasting ![27] Newbie welcome more useful! bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

What, you mean I can simply dumb it right down, quote the newspaper and headline news articles, and keep it to a few paragraphs and make it a stub? And I can get it published here? Gee, here I was trying to dig up every little bit of anything I could get my hands on when all I needed was to just keep it to the published articles? Why didn't anybody tell me wikipedia was this easy to do?!!  :) Hey ok, I'll do a nice trim, taut re-write from scratch, get his bio published in a big publication (like the one I work for) and...voila, let someone else do the other work!! Gee, and all this time I was thinking I wasnt giving enough information! OK, I see it clearly now...I'll msg you again once i start and finish which would take 5 minutes but before I do I'm going to watch some TV :) and chuckle at those entries in the uncyclopedia. Oh, one more thing, KillerChihuahua you are a crazy nut and so are your friends, and - well I'm nuttier than you and smaller than a chihuahua so that makes me better :) hehee rgds --T3Smile 14:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm is hardly helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

True

The small percentage of dogs that bite people is monumental proof that the dog is the most benign, forgiving creature on earth. ~W.R. Koehler

Truer words were never spoken. AR Argon 06:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jibe from someone else

You were of course right that someone else will have to make that jibe. --Irpen 06:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Blu Aardvark

Why did you delete this page? This isn't really an obvious attack page, it's just written in the same format as the Long-Term Abuse pages. At the exact same minute when you deleted it, the MFD for the page (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MER-C/Blu Aardvark) was deleted per CSD G5 (created by a banned user). Melsaran (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry, I meant to leave a note on Mer-c's page about this, but determined delete reason would suffice for why, and it is indeed a complex question, and I will be back sometime today for discussion of this - apologies but this hit right as I was leaving - and long term abuse pages should be there not in userspace eh? and so on and remember can be undeleted which I will do if after discussion that appears to be the correct course of action but damit, we have too many userspace pages which are for tracking people which are most often used by trolls to harass, and that this was being used by "the good guys" to track a "bad guy" doesn't make it necessarily a valid exception regardless of format - hope that helps give some idea of my thinking in this regard. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon - please let me know if my run-on scribble above answered your questions, or if clarification and/or discussion is called for. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)