User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 11

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Privacy essay

Heyas!

You might've noticed the essay on privacy I linked to on the mail list...er, yesterday? I was hoping you'd give it a once-over, though I do understand you're quite busy.

Thanks. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

and which I linked to on my userpage day before yesterday,[1] so clearly I think well of it - but if you want a critique you are right, please be patient - but I will take a look as soon as I can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Yo dog - do you know that NOR has been protected for several days and some people want it unprotected? I haven't been able to sort out the precise cause of the dispute but there is a lot of talk on the page about how stupid the policy is, claiming that it forbids all use of primary sources. I have commented that it allows the use of primary sources if they are verifiable and not used to forward an editors own POV, and some have responded that well that's a stupid policy too. I think it is serious and hope you can check it out. Current discussion is occuring in many different threads which makes it hard to pin down, but the fact that the page was protected tells me something serious is going on, and whatever the source of the dispute editors currently active on the talk page have not reached any consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear me... This is Not Good. I'm terribly buried right now with various things, and probably should have put a busy tag up. I will do my utmost to take a look as soon as possible - thank you very much for drawing my attention to this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Should this be the object of an RFC? I am going to poll other editors I really respect, but thought you should know. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Premature at this time IMO. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But it still concerns me. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Me too, but policy pages have erupted into worse messes than this and then righted themselves )mental image of ship almost swamped, slowly righting.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Note

I'll step away from Jim62sch's talk page at your request. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I just don't see how continuing this will have a positive result at all, especially given all that's been going on. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Giorgio Armani

I disagree with your reasoning in removing the speedy tag. Of course he is notable. But the article as it stands is blatant advertising, not just an article that reads like an ad. Big difference. However, I will not revert you, just point out that you're thinking simplistically. Jeffpw 10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Shopping for a less careful admin by edit warring over the tag is not advised. As an admin here, you're pretty much required to assume good faith with an established editor, aren't you????? I'm not feeling the love, puppy. In any event, I acknowledge the power imbalance in our Wikipedia relationship and am not shopping or (as I stated earlier) reverting. Still reads as blatant advertising in my book, though. Pity you can't see it. Jeffpw 11:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a power imbalance. This has everything to do with speedy criteria, which I explained to you on your page. My comments on edit warring with the admin who denied speedy were a direct reply to your comment of "I will not revert you". I appluad your good judgement in that decision; and the quote which you pasted above is cherry picked from my reply to you, for what reason I cannot imagine, but taking it out of context certainly skews its meaning. As I have neither accused nor insinuated wrongdoing on your part, and in fact said "good thinking" I fail to see your point in bringing up AGF. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

more nor

Since others are taking stabs at rewriting this policy, I have decided to try my own. Before I share it with a wider group, could you go over it and make such edits as you see fit? Thanks [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 14:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Strangest AfD ever?

Hello Huahua. I see that the top secret OTRS handshake or whatever it is has been divulged to you. What the (expleted) do you think "Temporary keep per OTRS Ticket # 2007072910013442" might be about? "Temporary" seems stretching it: actually I'd pretty much forgotten about this fellow until reminded by this. -- Hoary 14:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Another OTRS person is currently looking into this, so I'll contact him. Remember that you can always renominate for deletion - I have looked at the ticket and this should not present a problem unless other issues arise which are not in the current ticket. Hope that wasn't too obscure! KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's first wait till this other OTRS person has done his or her looking (though I wonder how many more weeks this will take). -- Hoary 09:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

COI/N Thread

Hey, KC. I posted a thread about that issue earlier on AN/I, but I was pointed →thataway→ to the COI Noticeboard and have posted the issue there. Your comments would be appreciated! Thanks :) Arky ^¡Hablar! 21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What up dawg!

Congrats,KC!;-) I didn't know that admin meant adminastrator. I thought it was and ad making company trying to win you over. My Bad. I hope there's no offense, KC or other admins. Sorry. So your the Man now! Well, one of the Men and Ladies. Here a nice bone for a new admin. --Angel David^?!?Presents 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been an administrator for over a year now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A year? Wow! I had no clue! Hey I have found the editor who sent me that Ghost Whisperer message his name is "The no erz", the only way I could find out who his indentity was by looking at the history of my talk page since he didn't put in the tildes (~~~~). However, I emailing back to him but he's not responding. In creppier terms he hasn't edited since August 17! It's like he's dead or something. I mean I know a person is sick because they put {{user health inactive}} and I know when a person is on vacation the put {{vacation3}} and I know that when a person is on a break by them putting {{wikibreak}}. Yes, this is strange indeed! --Angel David 23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not always. Sometimes a person is taken suddenly ill, or has a real-life crisis which does not allow for the time to add a message, or takes up a person's attention to a degree that they do not even think of Wikipedia until the crisis is over. Also, there are those who edit occasionally or leave without explanation. Many use those templates, but not all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Now, I get it! But, I'm not sure if that happened. One time before August 15, he did not edit sice June. Oh well. Probably it happened to him twice. And KC,I think you would be interseted in putting the template {{respond conversation start}} because, you know, you respond on your own talk page.--Angel David19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Which I already state, in the Talk to the puppy section at the header, above. I prefer not to have multiple templates cluttering up my talk page - even if there are templates for everything I say there, it would take a screen and a half to scroll past them. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's your talk page, I respect that. I understand. I'm totally fine with that--Angel David 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Gorham Manufacturing Company

Say, do you have a source for Gorham having designed the Davis Cup and the America's Cup? All evidence I can find points the other way... the America's Cup appears to have been made by Garrard & Co in the UK, and the Davis Cup by Shreve, Crump & Low... for the time being, I have removed this mention from the article. Lupo 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm, found it at the company web site. Can we find an independent confirmation of that claim? I consider it highly unlikely that Gorham in the U.S. designed that bowl that Garrard & Co in the UK made in 1848 and sold and that then became the America's Cup... Lupo 19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the America's Cup, but it appears that although the order for the Davis Cup was placed with Shreve, Crump & Low, they outsourced or subcontracted to William B. Durgin Company who actually made the cup, which would make all three articles incorrect. This is according to the Davis Cup site. It is possible something like that happened with the America's cup as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but I can't find any evidence for that. [3] says the America's Cup was "designed and built be Robert Garrard, the Royal Jeweller in England". Lupo 08:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, and don't have time to do any real research. I wrote the article over a year ago, I think, because it was a redlink, and my source for that information was the Gorham website. I applaud your desire to correct any inaccuracies, and wish you luck. I hope the information I located on the Davis cup is helpful to you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy

Enjoy your nice autumn wikibreak, or should I say Fall hol.? ;) ... dave souza, talk 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks dear, I'm just trying for a bit break from the gyte fowk here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Have fun, KC. You deserve it! Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't seem to be taking that thorough a break, but thanks! (I'm trying to cut back.. maybe hypno-therapy would work?) KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oversight?

In your opinion, is this (note the surname removal) enough to warrant oversight intervention? Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

its up to individuals whether they give personal information or not. He's 18, so he's not a minor - which would be automatic oversight. My advice is to discuss it with him, warn him of possible harassment and stalking, and abide by his wishes. If he agrees it should be oversighted, contact an oversight person and have it done asap. If he disagrees, that's his prerogative. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Moulton affair

Sorry to disrupt your break, but after you modified Filll's view to be inside, Moulton made this edit deleting some of Filll's view and adding his own parody, with the edit summary "- Is this section really a kosher part of an RfC?" Not knowing the answer, I re-added Filll's comments under a note saying what I'd done, moved Moulton's comment under a comments heading and told Odd Nature that signing assent might be worth reviewing in light of the changes.[4] Should the whole lot be moved to the talk page? Puzzled, ... dave souza, talk 18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I quote directly from the boilerplate on the Rfc page: "All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." Feel free to remove or move to talk page any content not following this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

...and I removed the "comments" per the above, btw. If Moulton wants to comment, he can do so on the talk page as he has now been repeatedly instructed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will remove my own note in a bit. Notice that you didn't undo Moulton's last edit,[5], which frankly seems a bit off to me. For information, I corrected a grammatical error in the Description after email discussion with Filll, as it seemed rather ambiguous to me. Sorry this is rather tedious, dealing with Moulton's rather like trying to push back treacle. In my opinion. ... dave souza, talk 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, missed that. Its gone now, with a warning about WP:POINT. Is Moulton trying to get blocked over his disruptive behavior in his own Rfc? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I'm from the American south. We don't "push back treacle" we "wrestle grits" - grits are a kind of porridge, sort of... well, grits are hard to explain in any concise fashion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. <grins> Trying to envisage KC grits wrasslin'.... Moulton's behaviour does seem to be consistent. .. dave souza, talk 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling trouble-a-brewing

KC- I notice you've had prior dealings with this user, ao I thougt you'd be the admin to go to. LAEC runs a website that is opposed to the American Library Association, and over the past year since he joined wikipedia, he has devoted the bulk of his wikipedia activities to crusading against Libraries.

His first username was SafeLibraries.org (the url of his website), although at some point he was required to give up that username, since it was his site's url, and instead he chose his site's motto: "Legitimate And Even Compelling" (referring I believe to need to keep children from accessing american libraries).

Along the way, he's caused more than his share of disruption. In Oct '06, and RFC was filed against him. Glancing over his talk page, it seems like he's been causing plenty of stir in the intervening year. And now, he's been editwarring Another American Libraries Association article.

Because I filed the Oct 06 RFC, people contacted me to see if I had any suggestions for how to resolve his bad behavior. Regrettably, I'm swamped by real life lately, so I don't can't take lots of time to devote to the issue. Would you be willing to take charge of helping deal with LAEC-- or if not, could you please refer the matter to whomever should look at the situation?

Thanks so much! --Alecmconroy 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Anything in particular you wish to point me to, or is it the COI which concerns you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, conflicts of interest is troublesome, but if his edits were in the ballpark of being good ones, I'd wouldn't sweat the COI. It's more the tendentious use of wikipedia as a soapbox-- undertaking a systemic campaign to insert any possible criticisms of libraries into wikipedia, however tenuous.

Take for example the latest edit war. The YALSA, a library organization, does a billion different things, one of which is publish lists of popular books. It once included a book called "The Gossip Girl" on a reader list. Some people think "The Gossip Girl" is controversial. LAEC uses the diseparate facts to contruct an argument that the YALSA is immoral, and he goes to the YALSA repeatedly reinserts an article about "The Gossip Girl is racy reading"-- a news article which doesn't even mention YALSA. The text of the YASLA wikipedia article doesn't mention "The Gossip Girl." The link so inappropriate for the article, I don't know where to begin on what it violates: Battlefield, Soapboxing, Conflict of Interest, Original Research. But LAEC reinserts the link [6][7][8][9]. When 3RR prevents him from readding it, another editor with a suspiciously meaty/socky edit history shows up to add it back in for him. [10]

One or two of these incidents would be overlookable-- I'd just do whatever was necessary to restore the article and move on. But this sort of think has been going on for the better part of a year, despite an RFC against him. I'm at the point where I don't even feel like bothering to do the "edit war, recruit nonpartisan eyeballs, acheive consensus, editwar" cycle-- he'll just stop for a few weeks, move to a different library article, and start the process over again. It's at the point where somebody in the administration has to step in to start the process over again. --Alecmconroy 18:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a topic ban might work. Take it to WP:CSN? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kent Hovind Controversy

I have a reference here... http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/9978 However I am not familiar with how to add it to the article Could you please restore the content and reference it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K Watson1984 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a forum, which is not acceptable as a source. Is that the only one you have for this? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can help a little

I won't be on for a little while later, but I'm willing to help. Sxeptomaniac 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the topic ban discussion accelerated to an indefinite block last night, due to some really poor choices on that editor's part. Sorry I wasn't able to jump in, but don't be afraid to let me know if you would like a hand in the future. Sxeptomaniac 17:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that one went fast. He canvassed, and ignored the issues. I thought there would be time to give him another chance and work with him. Thanks for being available to make the effort, pity he shot himself before you could get there. I will indeed keep you in mind, and I will try not to be so slow to ask next time! Thanks again - KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

KC....sorry about that whole debate comment. I'm not really sure what in the world I was thinking, saying things like that. You're completely right, and I'm sorry. LAEC had no alternative, and after all this, he was rightfully blocked. That's the last time I give in to canvassing from someone. Arky ^¡Hablar! 19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, lesson learned. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

From my relatively short time here, that appears to be the only way for a good lesson to sink in :) Arky ^¡Hablar! 19:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Refresh my memory

What was it about Potter that we were discussing. KC? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In brief, whether cites were needed for content which was a summary of (cited) content from a {{main}} article; specifically, from the section Cultural impact. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

attack sites

Are you aware of [11] and [12]?

At some point I hope you will comment there.Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

if I can manage to make heads or tails of the situation, I will, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rosalind Picard

KC - yes, my edit to Rosalind Picard here was probably ill-timed, at the least. It was, I assure you, a joke, in keeping with the obvious reasons after the protection, and not intended as point-y at all. Thank you for playing. What do we have for him, Johnny-O? ;) --profg 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It was disruption and borderline vandalism, and I for one am not amused. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. --profg 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Email for you

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem

I'm glad I could help out. I see your page got protected. Do you know how you pissed off that guy who kept editing your page? Maybe reverted one of his other vandalism attempts? 66.189.137.113 04:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He'd just come off a one week block and promptly started vandalizing articles. I blocked for a month. He claims he has a life, but apparently was planning to spend part of his precious time disrupting Wikipedia, and since I blocked him, he promptly started making socks to complain. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Health effects of abortion

I notice that you recently got involved in an edit war on the Abortion page. I would appreciate it if you would also contribute to the associated discussion on Talk:Abortion. Thank you. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I? I don't think so. I have made one edit to the article in September, at 20:29, 15 September 2007. Prior to that, I made one edit in June, on the 7th, and two in May. In February I made nine edits, and in January one edit. You surely are not calling my edits back in February an "edit war", are you? Or if you are, you are using the term loosely, as that particular series of edits was almost all reverting vandalism. Perhaps you'd care to reconsider the phrasing of your request? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the edit history looks like this:

Photouploaded removes text
Ferrylodge reverts that edit
Lion's Heart reverts that edit
KillerChihuahua reverts that edit
Lion's Heart reverts that edit
ElinorD reverts that edit

... so hopefully you can understand why I interpreted your edit as "getting involved in an edit war". On reflection, though, since Lion's Heart provided an edit summary that did not include the word "revert", I can see how it would not have looked like revert-warring. I did not mean to imply bad faith on your part and I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

Anyway, I was hoping to get more discussion and less reverting on this issue, hence my request above, but I quite understand if you don't want to involve yourself further in this. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You are my new hero

Just a friendly note to apologize for my past snippetyness. I am starting to see and enjoy the method in your madness. I do think we are ideologically at loggerheads, and I do not think that will change. However, I do hope that we can be friends. Please let me know if you feel I need to make amends and how I might do so. Cheers.LCP 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You just did!!!! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Very confused by your edit summary

Why did you say "Photo, just because there is a discussion about possible changes does NOT mean you get to make any changes you want while the discussion is underway.)"? Lion's Heart was the person who removed the image, not me. All I did was place the "no consensus template", is that some huge problem? Did you think I removed the image? Please explain. Thank you. Photouploaded 17:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies - I read the history wrong, apologies for confusion - I've already left an apology on Lions Heart's page, was going to yours next - however the tag is not necessary, please remember to use tags with discretion - such tags are more appropriate on less-edited articles which are heavily biased or need massive cleanup. An article such as Abortion is always going to offend one side or the other, usually both sides (especially if we're getting the NPOV right) so cluttering the article with tags is not only unhelpful, it is counter-productive. Let me know if you have any questions about this - and apologies again for my confusing edit summary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to apologize. Thank you. I wish to humbly request that in the future, you will try to refrain from making personal remarks in edit summaries. Unfortunately, now there is a permanent record of you chastising me in an edit summary of the article, which really shouldn't be there. I will be happy to accept your apology if you will please try to make your edit summaries neutral from now on. This would reduce the error margin in the record. Thank you for your consideration. Photouploaded 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I understand what you are saying about the template, and though I do think it should be there to help bring some fresh voices to the discussion (since it seems to be the same small group of people arguing the same things over and over again), I won't put it back. Photouploaded 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the permanent record, and I made no personal remarks. I didn't, for example, say "Photouploaded is an idiot" or "Lion's Breath is a jerk". I addressed (erroneously, as it happens) edits made, not individuals, and I addressed my comments to the person I believed had made the edits. I was in error over what was done and who did it, hence my apology; this does not under any circumstances translate to your assertion that I made a personal remark. Your swiftness to accuse others of incivility and personal remarks is growing tiresome; surely you realize that you are alienating other editors by your constant failure to AGF and erroneous accusations? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed, KC, that you would be so cavalier and dismissive. The edit summary you made said, "Photo, just because there is a discussion about possible changes does NOT mean you get to make any changes you want while the discussion is underway." That is a personal remark. No, it is not an insult, but it needlessly makes me look like I did something wrong where I didn't. I humbly and politely as possible asked you to change the behavior that led to the error, and now you sound angry. I guess I just can't ask for anything here, even if I'm being stepped on. Photouploaded 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling me "cavalier and insensitive" is a personal remark.

If you're going to edit Wikipedia, people will address you in posts and edit summaries. If you edit from an IP, people will address you by IP or a portion of the IP number. Otherwise, there is confusion as to who is being addressed. If you do not wish to be addressed, the only way to ensure that is to cease editing Wikipedia. I suggest you instead accept that people will address comments directly to you from time to time, and realize that it is not a "personal remark" when they do so. Consider it synonymous with the address on an envelope. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think you are being too dismissive of my concerns, I don't know how else to say it. It's not meant as an insult, it's meant to try to bring something you don't seem to care about to your attention.

My impression is that edit summaries are meant to be a neutral record, available to all, of the changes to an encyclopedia article. They are not like envelopes being sent to one person or another. They are more like a signature on a work log, where it wouldn't be appropriate to say "10:35AM - Removed 4 struts that MARK SAFFORD put in backwards" (when Mark Safford didn't make that change). Photouploaded 18:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Check any high-traffic page's history - try WP:ANI, for example. Summaries are frequently used to communicate brief messages rather than using the talk page. Errors are sometimes made; and sometimes apologies are made for the errors and sometimes (much more often) not. The world will not end tomorrow if there is an occasional edit summary which is erroneous, poorly phrased, or names the wrong party. Its an oops, not a personal attack. Accept apologies if offered, and if not, then usually its best to not make a big deal out of it - its almost certain nothing was meant by it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

take a look?

Could you take a look at this discussion? I think we have a repeat of similar POV issues elsewhere and would appreciate your input. Thanks (By the way, my cousin Peewee, a chihuahua, bit me - well, nipped my thumb - when I was about 5, but I've forgiven him and don't hold it against you...) Tvoz |talk 19:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I will brt. I am also pleased to hear that you are not holding all chihuahuas accountable for your cousins (?!!) actions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you knew my aunt, you'd understand. I've laughed every time I've seen your name, remembering that scoundrel Peewee. Tvoz |talk 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, one of those. Yes, chihuahuas and poodles are common "babies" for those without children of their own, and sometimes even for those with children in residence. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Help?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported

Thanks.LCP 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I found a workaround. Sorry to have bothered you.LCP 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Help?

KC, would you please help me? The problem I am having is that LCP keeps editing a comment I made on their talk page. They inserted a link into my comment that I did not put there, it was not part of my original comment. This "substantially changes its meaning" and thus I see it as vandalism. Would you please help me? Photouploaded 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I need a dif. Do you know how to paste a dif? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, be right there with it. Photouploaded 22:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh ok, I think I have this figured out. You posted [13] and later, when you blanked that from your page (with, I might add, the edit summary of "removing trolling"), he copied the posts from your page. Is that close enough, or am I missing any strongly relevant details? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost. Before I added the whole conversation, I first tried just adding (about half a dozen times) a live link to the conversation. That is what Photo calls “changing his meaning” and reverted a half dozen times or so. In the process, I also added a general warning to my page warning unauthorized people off of deleting or modifying content. I said that I would consider unauthorized editing and deleting as vandalism. This had no effect on Photo’s behavior on my talk page. I then added a warning directly to Photo’s Talk page and asked him to stop changing my talk page. That didn’t help either. Sorry to bother you with all of this.LCP 22:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. You edited the link to go to an old version, so it wasn't rendered meaningless, yes?

(interjection) No! That isn't what LCP did. LCP didn't link to an old version for posterity, he linked to the diff of me removing the conversation. When I pointed out that the edit was not accurate, he reverted it SIX TIMES and threatened to report me if I didn't let his edit stand: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). - Photouploaded 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Read my post below. He can revert 200 times on his own talk page, it isn't against 3RR. You, Photo, have violated 3RR, HARASS, EW. Drop it. Apologize. Be done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22: 56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, that is modifying another's post. However, as the "meaning" wasn't changed a damn bit, Photo, you're being anal about it. I am perplexed at why anyone would bitch about someone correcting a minor link on a talk page, and I'm not impressed that you violated several policies to edit war on LCP's talk page about it rather than attempting a polite and civil resolution, such as we now have. I'm too nice by far; according to the very clear warning I gave you, by all rights you should be blocked for harassment and 3RR on someone else's talk page.

In the future, LCP, add a secondary post of your own, with commentary such as "link no longer valid, here is link to content referenced in previous post" or somesuch. If its one of my posts, however, feel free to fix the link, I won't object. It is generally frowned upon to edit other editors posts for any reason, so unless you're fairly sure the editor won't object, use the "add a post" method. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, it's OK now. Photouploaded 22:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I totally felt harassed, and if it wasn’t my Talk page, I would have let it go. What you suggested is what I f-i-n-a-l-l-y figured out. Again, I am sorry that didn't figure that out sooner and instead you ended up getting dragged into the tediousness. I can be a little dense sometimes. Thanks for your help.LCP 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Not a problem, I'm here to help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of SPHERE article

Hello,

may i politely ask, why my contribution on SPHERE was deleted? i know, i'm part of the project, but you can verify information on MPIA's (www.mpia.de) and ESO web-pages. (www.eso.org)

best

m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfeldt (talk • contribs) 11:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. The page was speedy deleted as a copyvio. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Barneca RfA thank you spam

KillerChihuahua, thank you for your support during my RfA, especially after the concerns that were brought up by other editors. I'll keep all of the comments in mind in the coming months, and will try again later. In the mean time, if you see me doing something stupid, please let me know. See you around. --barneca (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Question for you

At Talk:Abortion in this diff, a question; it would be hard to find if you weren't looking for it. Photouploaded 02:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that is directed to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think KC mis-typed - if I'm not mistaken, I think KC meant to say that like Kuronue said, "womb" and "mother" and "baby" in this context were "emotion-laden, pro-life" terms, not "pro-choice". Tvoz |talk 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, yes that's correct. Apologies for any confusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The club

Yeah, well, I don't like being accused by innuendo, and this is at least the 4th time that that particular editor misrepresented me - I've called him on it each time I've noticed it, and have yet to get anything remotely like an apology. I don't know, when I'm wrong I acknowledge it - apologize for it - explain it - something. This guy just flails around and doesn't respond or reverses the attack when he's called on his misrepresentations, without any evidence. Disagreement, even very vocal disagreement, is not harassment, and I'm not the type to be intimidated by false accusations. Feel free to email me if you have any suggestions. Tvoz |talk 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cloning

Just saw you semi protect scientifc method. Cloning is in desperate need of a semi protect, again. The vandalism there is cronic. Any chance you could do the honors? David D. (Talk) 03:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. In the future, WP:RFPP is more likely to get a quick response. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Puppy Surfing

You have seen this before, but I just want everyone else to see it. Yes, I am trying to take a break. But...it...is...so...hard. *sniff* The Puppy Surfing. Have a good one. M.^(er) 03:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Note to my stalkers - click on the link, its amusing (and you'll see why its appropriate for my talk page.) Note to Miranda: This is not adhering to your break very well, is it? Go take a walk, smell the flowers, dance the cha-cha, and come back refreshed! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Clever puppy! And all clean in the water... mmmmm... delicious-looking puppy! Finger-lickin' good eating! bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC).

Nice puppy! Puppy is pet, not food, remember? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Zilla, remember puppy have tiny bones, make sharp pain in gums when eating. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, good thinking, Swat! (/me hides behind the Jester) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Zilla has spoken, puppy is done! (Medium rare.) [Majestic chuckle at own wit.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC).

Myth

According to my sources, what I wrote is one among a couple of possible meanings. It should be added because there isn't one single definition for "Myth" and its uses. Miguelzinho 13:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

that's been a perennial argument on Myth. I suggest you take this to the talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Can you vote her, comment, and if you see any way to improve it, make any edits to the proposal as you see fit? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please help unblock my account

You appear to be perhaps the only obstacle to unblocking by account at memestream. You commented that you may have got the wrong end of the stick, and then you asked why I needed two accounts. I have given exceptionally good reasons (I made an undertaking with my former partner not to edit psychology topics in the name of lindosland becuase of close links with her business and the fact that we are both called P. Skirrow leading her colleagues (who edit those pages) to mistake my edits for her (she does not edit).

Many editors and admins have testified to a mistake being made. I did nothing outside the rules, I did not edit war, I was always civil and polite, I never edited the same page using both names, and I never deliberately stirred things up. I am currently editing in an intense but very successful fashion with Tim Vickers at neo-Darwinism, the very problematic page that started this, and you are welcome to look there. While that page, which I created, is up for deletion, it now has 15 votes to keep, and has become a good page. I have also listed many pages where I have made huge contributions, always without any problems.

There has been a big mistake (actually I was warned and set up by an anti-creationist group who mistook me for something I am not and will do anything to stop the page I created, but it's futile to go into that - you will see that allegation made by GettaGrippa without prompting from me.

Please take another look (I've summarised to make it easier) and unblock. Regards --Lindosland 11:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have replied. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

BIG problems with PAS page pointed out by IronAngelAlice

Please see the discussion here [14].

Thanks!LCP 18:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Profg

I'd be inclined to block Profg for the stalking, given his previous history William M. Connolley 20:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind doing it? I'm worn out from the Ferrylodge debacle, and as I have been trying to reason with him, then if you block, it will at least be clear to him that its not personal, he really is stalking according to more than one administrator and perhpas he will be motivated to change his behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thats fine William M. Connolley 21:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, much obliged. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Abortion talk page

Hi KC, I'd like your opinion on the topic of mental health at the bottom of the Abortion Talk page. Regards, --[User:IronAngelAlice|IronAngelAlice] 17:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick reminder

Hey, KC! Just thought I'd remind you (sorry if I sound a bit like I'm nagging you ;D) but I answered your question here. Happy editing, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 02:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Favour?

Hi, KC. Could you do me a favour? Could you restore my talk page and talk archives (Archive 1 through Archive 7) if you've got time? Thanks! -Severa 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you're back? That would be lovely! I can do it if Puppy's not online, but I don't want to step on her tail. ElinorD (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting off now, would you please Elinor? Thanks very much!!!

I agree with Elinor, this is very very good news if you're back, Severa. Please let one of us know if someone starts harassing you again. I learned from this that the "bully-victim" while almost impossible to counter, can be countered and I hope not to lose any more good editors to someone who maligns people with that type of harassment and character assassination. I am so glad to see you're giving Wikipedia another chance! KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding: chuckle at "step on tail" - one of the better puppy puns I've gotten! KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It'll save KC time, so, really, I don't think she'd mind if you did it yourself, ElinorD. I was about to say I don't mind waiting, but it appears one of you has already started at it, so thanks in advance. Also thank you for the thoughtful message you left on my talk page a while back, ElinorD. Needless to say, I gave Wikipedia a wide berth for a couple of months, so I didn't catch it until recently, and it looks as though I've got a lot more catching up to do! Thanks again! -Severa 21:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Elinor, and again, Welcome Back, Severa! KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, KC. It's easy enough falling back in stride but it still look as if I've got a lot of catching up to do around here! -Severa 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you ever wonder if your contributions were missed, now you know. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The pictorial pun you left on my talk page a couple of days ago amused me greatly. Below, you will find my own attempt at silliness, which pretty much depends on ignoring German pronunciation. -Severa 10:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank
You
So
Much -Severa 10:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Help!

KC something terrible has happened. After The no erz came back he saw me redo and edit that I made that he erased. He saw that I did it. But even worse. I was a sensitive person back then. Because another Wikipedian erased. And I called that user a harsh name and the no erz thinks that I was reffering him and went I sent him a message...he dissapeared again! I wish I contact him and tell him what really happened but I don't know his email address or if he works on another Wiki/pedia. What am I going to do!?--Angel David 00:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You've left a message on his talk page, and at this point it appears to me you have done all you can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Theories and concepts

Thanks for catching this... misuse of the word "theory" is one of my pet peeves. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mine as well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Abortion edits

I have recently noticed two different editors making similar reversions on the same group of articles, including Abortion,[15][16] Post-abortion syndrome,[17][18] and Mexico City Policy [19][20]. Both have also made similar edits to David Reardon.[21][22] What do you make of this correlation in patterns of editing? -Severa (!!!) 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be that they are merely interested in the same articles, although IMO there is enough there for a cu request. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your advice. The evidence was actually a lot more substanial than I'd originally thought. -Severa (!!!) 23:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Haizum

KC, can you have a look at a situation which developed overnight with the entries for Blackwater USA and Blackwater USA arms smuggling and User:Haizum a hostile and emotional guy with an extensive block log. In addition to his general uncivility, he keeps adding POV tags inappropriately. He has made no attempt to reach consensus with anyone about the articles. He's just very upset by them. --Pleasantville 10:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Recall question

Hey, KC. I've seen this come up in numerous RfAs, and so I figured I'd ask you :) What are your thoughts on Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? I'm personally divided on the issue; I think it's fair to be desysopped if someone misuses admin tools, but I don't think I'd like to have a potential recall hanging over my head...hmm. Oh well, just looking for your thoughts, and happy editing, ( ar ky ) 03:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

{butting in) The "recall" process really has no teeth, feel free to claim you're open to recall if you feel it will help you get sysopped. I know of at least one admin who has openly admitted to lying about being open for recall in his RfA, and at least one other who got his admin bit based on a promise to be open to recall, and then simply removed himself from the recall category when people began questioning his admin actions. There's no need to fear that process, it's completely voluntary and (frankly) a joke. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

← And,as a side note, what do you think about this? Cheers, ( ar ky ) 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrylodge arbitration request

In the Ferrylodge arbitration case, you state that "Also typical is his initial naming of "Ferrylodge v. FeloniousMonk", indicating his mindset of Me. v Them." This connection between the naming and his motives does not follow, because the use of "v." was once the standard for two-person disputes that didn't have any other reasonable name (see Category:Wikipedia Arbitration cases). Only recently was this changed, to make case names sound less adversarial. So what you are attributing to his state of mind may very well just be left-over knowledge of the old case naming conventions. I'd like to request you remove this claim unless you can back it up, because users shouldn't be blamed for shifts in procedure they were unaware of. Picaroon (t) 01:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen that in the last two years that I've been on en.wp. I'd venture to say it's more likely than note that Ferrylodge was not aware of this either. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As a followup, looking in that category you posted, on the first page (A through R), the latest case with "v." (or the like) in the name is May 2006. The others were all in 2004 or 2005. Ferrylodge has no arbcom edits in 2006 or earlier. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please comment

Your input would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi ScienceApologist 21:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had limited experience with Martinhi. In what way can I assist you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation plz

Hi KC. Today, an editor named Equidistant put on the Conservapedia entry some related articles he thought were appropiate. They were deleted by other users, so Equidistant opened a discussion on the talk page. Only user Hut 8.5 replied. I supported Edquidistant. Given that nobody said nothing else, I thought it was fine to make the edit again, but user Fredrick day reverted it. Anyway, an admin named Bbatsell intervened and deleted the "See also" section completely, arguing no relation to Conservapedia, as per WP:SEEALSO.

Please, help. Dukered 01:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to tell you that at this time I do not have sufficient time to devote to this. I advise you seek assistance elsewhere. Good luck! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Chidiac

Hi KC, hope you are well. Listen, I posted up a complete re-write and stub for chidiac, and did a big oopsy and put it back up into namespace. It got G4'd quicker than you could say G. I have the stub in my discussion page, can you help with it? Its notable, short, and not a train wreck anymore. all the best! T --T3Smile 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

update woof to you KC. Anthony Chidiac article (now a rewrite and a STUB) nominated for AfD again, because rdpaperclip put a paragraph on personal life without citing sources. Offending material removed, can you help by lending your positivity to the preservation of the stub?. A keep would do me wonders and a comment on such, on how to improve on it if necessary. Appreciate your attention to the matter. Thanks and hope you are well. Rgds T.--T3Smile 11:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

rawr

I'm pretty sure it's been ages since we've run into each other on Wikipedia or IRC. How are you? I'm stressed to the gills with law school, but I'm flying down to Florida tomorrow for the weekend, I can't wait to get a taste of home.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Notification

Hi KillerChihuahua, I have filed an arbitration request pertaining to the indefinite ban on me that you proposed. Here is the link.Ferrylodge 23:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

May I have your permission to use the emails you sent me on September 14, at the arbitration?Ferrylodge 15:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

At the suggestion of Bishonen,[23] I would like to ask you again for your permission to use the emails that you sent me on September 14, at the arbitration. May I?Ferrylodge 22:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your views requested re Kosovo arbitration enforcement

You'll recall that a few months ago you participated in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO, which involved User:Nikola Smolenski arguing in favour of using an unreliable source. Another issue has arisen with the same editor repeatedly disrupting an article currently under article probation. I can't take action myself, since I've edited the same article, but I'd be grateful if you could review the facts set out at WP:AE#Enforcement request re Kosovo. -- ChrisO 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

I would like to be adopted. Please adopt me. Pokemon Buffy Titan 01:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rawrjester

⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Same here, KC. Hope everything is alright in Chihuahualand :) ( ar ky ) 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I just ran across some eminently sensible contribution from you in an archive page, and realized I hadn't seen you in a while. I hope all is well, and look forward to your eventual return. William Pietri 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Committee has found that Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion, but has edited reasonably on unrelated topics, and that he was blocked after a discussion on the Community Sanction Noticeboard that did not have a clear consensus. Ferrylodge is unbanned, but is put on an indefinite editing restriction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." The Community is urged by the Committee to develop a coherent policy regarding the method by which community bans are to be imposed. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Moulton Request for Arbitration

There is a current Request for Arbitration, to which you are a listed party, regarding Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The Request can be found at this section of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

Kind regards,
Anthøny 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. [24] MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sake. He lists a pile of reasons for being here, none of which involve writing an encyclopedia, then accuses me of formulating a "Theory of Mind" because I draw the obvious conclusion? Not to mention yet another bit of evidence that he really doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, in criticizing me for not responding to his unblock request - as the blocking admin, I am the only admin barred specifically from responding, but hey - we didn't actually need any further evidence of his general state of Cluelessness, did we? I see the tireless Yamla came in as co-supporter for the Theory of Mind as well. bah. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My honest opinion about his behavior, and the self-image he attempted to create, are probably not constructively sharable on Wikipedia. Suffice to say that ArbCom acted quickly, appropriately, and decisively, and perhaps we'll see our names in print whenever Moulton convinces one of his contacts to let him write up his sojourns on Wikipedia in a college paper again. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arf! Arf!

Puppy! You're back! Have some fishapod plushies! bishapod splash! 21:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Bishy! A pod of pods, thank you so much!!!! You have such a generous nature. I see while I was gone there was at least one Quixotic proposal, and am glad to see you were equal to the task of sharing logic with those who have misplaced their own. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cookie

Cbrown1023 talk has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I hope everything is going okay in real life and you come back soon! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 00:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here! Hope everything is okay. I've been hanging out with this puppy lately and I've realized that you are so much more animated =P Come back soon KC!! ( ar ky ) 22:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I expected to have limited time here; I did not expect to take a complete break, or I would have used a different template.

For those who are interested, I now have two new daughters-in-law, and have survived my daughter's 21st birthday, complete with kegger. In less happy news, the flu is alive and well and laying waste in my locale. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you back. Congratulations! And thanks for your vote. You didn't miss much. I hope our article on the vaccine controversy didn't dissuade you from getting a flu shot. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much - no, the article didn't dissuade me - I've never gotten one, although the reasons have more to do with an irrational dislike for needles and a further irrational view of myself as Young, which I should probably discard now that all of my children are of legal age. :-( (Puppy toddles off to find a walker.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a dislike of being poked with needles is quite rational. It took 2 or 3 consecutive winters of getting the flu before I accepted the necessity myself. :) MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to see signs of life over here. Take care of your life, but then get editing again!. -- Donald Albury 20:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Check your email - and welcome back Tvoz |talk 07:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm really, really glad to see you back around, and especially glad to learn that your absence was at least partially due to being busy with two marriages and a birthday. :-) -Severa (!!!) 05:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, everyone! Tvoz, I have received your email and promise to reply as soon as I have time to do so - thanks in advance for your patience. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back.

Good to see you back in action. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Miranda 06:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandargh (talk • contribs)

*jumps on bandwagon* Welcome back! Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed you're back. I've been busy myself recently, or I would have noticed earlier. I had been worried that you were ill, and had been meaning to write to you. Congratulations on weddings and birthdays, and I hope the 'flu is nicely under control. ElinorD (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all! I'm still dreadfully busy but hopefully will be able to ease back into normal participation levels after the holidays. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Rejoyce

Joy

Angel David hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Holidays

Greetings KillerChihuahua! This user has just wished you Happy Holidays. This user sent this message to you. This template is made for Christians, Jews, and Afican Americans. Wishing you a Happy Holidays promotes WikiLove and hopefully, this has made your holidays even better. So Happy {{{1}}} to you!

sockpuppet

I am no good tracking these things down but I think that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Centrum99 may be a sockpuppet for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MoritzB

When you have time can you look into it? Thanks and happy holidays, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the same person, or a very similar person - the vocabulary is the same, the view is the same - but I could not find any "tells" which would confirm beyond a reasonable doubt. Have you had a check run? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

1345

Check out this year article. We're trying to get it up to GA status and I noticed that in earlier discussions you had expressed interest in turning year articles into prose. Any help you could lend would be great. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL...

Chihuahua undercover agent. :-P miranda 20:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

hey, I'm very good under the covers... I mean.... um. Thanks for the link! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD for Category:Intellectually impaired

Hiya lovely puppy, guess what? My prediction was correct; you are welcome to comment here. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I did but it didn't seem to help much, which is discouraging. Ah well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh never mind, I see it was moved not deleted. Excellent. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ghs bigred.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Ghs bigred.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Privacy

I was very surprised when I saw that you changed the tag on that page from "historic" to "guideline" without announcing the change at all [25], months after it had been tagged "historic". I changed it back to proposed. If you think it has consensus, I encourage you to announce it more broadly. You can't expect people to continue to watch a page that is marked as historical for months on end; the point of the tag is to indicate that the proposal has been rejected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And now you can be surprised at yourself, as well, since you changed it to "proposed" after four months, without announcing the change at all yourself. If you think it does not have consensus, I encourage you to announce it more broadly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I announced it on the village pump for policy when I changed it back to proposed; no large group of people complained that it had consensus.[26] I changed it back to proposed rather than rejected to give you and any other supporters a chance to make a case. But unless consensus materializes soon, changing it back to rejected will make sense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale [27] was that it had been a guideline until 8 march 2007, when in fact on that day it was tagged as a guideline for the first time and removed that same day. Did you not analyze the history thoroughly enough? —Random832 04:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Findings of fact vs Accusations

I am wondering what you, as an experienced admin, think of the current RfArb system, in which "Findings of fact" are often indistinguishable from mere "accusations", which are allowed to stand as if they actually have been proven findings, when they sometimes are only poorly (or even undocumented) documented accusations. This situation seems to exist because the one raising the RfArb is always the accuser. While they often do raise legitimate concerns, in some cases they may actually be carrying out a vendetta against someone, and their accusations are then framed as findings of fact. What do you think about this situation and what can be done about it? -- Fyslee / talk 16:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. The workshop page has "Proposed findings of fact" and the proposed decision page has "Proposed findings of fact", which are only placed as "Findings of fact" in the final decision if the ArbCom members conclude they are accurate. Does that help illuminate anything or were you talking about something else? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I'd rather communicate by email. Since your email isn't activated, please use mine so I can discuss this with you privately. -- Fyslee / talk 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Bother, when did that get turned off? Massive apologies, it is on again now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

What the heck. I was just trying to make the first sentence of abortion easyer to read.

Your first edit was to add the word "Fart" to an article and your edits haven't improved much since. I'm surprised you haven't been indef blocked as a vandal already, but hope you'll reconsider and try to be more productive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Im trying to tell others an easyer way to read. My friends couldn't understand it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanurdar (talk • contribs)

"Little stalker"

I am not stalking anyone. I would prefer you do not refer to me as such. If the source bothers you so much, I'll go remove it. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

changes to pregnancy page

Hello KillerChihuahua. True I am new to editing on wkp. True I have made a few changes to the pregnancy page. I, too, am very busy in real life being a Consultant Obstetrician/Gynaecologist. The changes I made were all scientifically correct (w/o reference to sources as I noticed that most of what I was reading - and correcting - was also not referenced). Believe me changes were made with the best of intention and according to EBM.

I re-iterate that the correct medical terms are the ones I illustrated: term, preterm, postterm and postdate. Premature and postmature are error-inducing terms and best avoided in this context: Obstetricians and Gynaecologists certainly avoid this ambiguous use of these terms. (You will find that this is consistent with all recent medical literature on this subject). Premature in Obstetrics is best limited to another pregnancy related condition: PROM as in premature rupture of membranes. Definition of "term" = 37 W to 41 weeks + 6 days. This is universally accepted. (NO-ONE defines term as including the period from 42 weeks to 43 weeks). Consequently preterm = up to 36 weeks + 6 days and postterm = 42 weeks and beyond. Using premature and postmature in this context is an ERROR (that's probably why I felt it necessary to correct this). You will find that common sense suffices: mature, and consequently premature and postmature are biological terms whereas we are discussing temporal terms i.e. time-related - weeks and days.

My consideration on the mathematical/statistical vs biological/clinical importance of these terms was also to the point. You will find that this derives from a slightly skewed bell-shaped normal distribution of curve of term delivery dates.

The only point that could be open to discussion is the point I made about the term "postdate". Postdate is best left related to the period from 40 weeks + 1 day up to 41 weeks + 6 days. THIS, I grant, is not universally accepted but is a suggestion that I make put this term to better and preciser use.

Cervical ripening is a correct medical expression and believe I do not need to be chastised for my use of the term. I stated that seminal liquid contains certain chemical substances (prostaglandins) that can favour cervical ripening: this is a fact. I did not state that intercourse should be used to induce labour (which would be rubbish).

I feel the need to avoid reference to the Gregorian calendar as this adds nothing to knowledge of pregnancy dating.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrem (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to weigh in on Talk:Pregnancy#Seminal fluid to discuss this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

''Kaiserlich_und_königlich''

Hi, I noticed that you declined speedy deletion for this. That's my fault in part; I was in too much of a hurry when I noticed it was still around. In fact there was a recent RfD on this (Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_16#.27.27Kaiserlich_und_k.C3.B6niglich.27.27_.E2.86.92_Kaiserlich_und_k.C3.B6niglich); I assumed it was a recreation but it appears that it was just never deleted in the first place. I should have noted the RfD in my db tag, and would have if I wasn't hurrying. Would you mind carrying out the result of the existing deletion discussion? Thanks in advance. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It had been deleted, but was then restored:01:36, 9 January 2008 Toby Bartels (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Kaiserlich und königlich" ‎ (4 revisions restored: There was hardly a consensus for deletion, and it had a rather long history at this unfortunate name; many possible outside links.) As deleting a redirect is more work for the servers than leaving one in place, I suggest we just leave this one alone. It isn't hurting anything where it is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hurm, well, all right. At this point, I guess it would need DRV, and I don't think it's worth it - so I guess it's time to let it be. Oh well, I'm sure I can find something else to do; maybe write an encyclopedia or something... — Gavia immer (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: It's been marked for speedy again, this time not by me (and I had nothing to do with it, just for the record). That's likely to keep happening, so I may end up putting it through DRV anyhow. This is way too much of a time sink at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. I've deleted it, so that should be the end of it... unless someone actually types that when looking, and recreates the redirect. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I hope not. Rossami has been making noises about requesting a bugfix so the interface doesn't trick people into making these redirects; I believe I'll go encourage him to do it. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your input is required.

Diff. · AndonicO ^Hail! 01:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Simon Bolivar

Friend I respectfully direct you to note #4 in the Simon Bolívar article.Nord1 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Which states quite clearly that he was called names, not seriously thought to be of African descent, and that further, very few biographers even mention that. Your point? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're reading too much into it. The fact is it that this was said and continues to be said about him and merits inclusion in the article, I also cited three other sources.Nord1 (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are in error. I am reading less into it than you, hence I cannot possibly be the one reading "too much" into it. Please see the talk page for the article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

Hi there. I didn't realise I was coming close to a three reverts warning - I thought I was acting in good faith, trying to take account of the people's objections each time. I'll be more careful in future! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome! - do please read the WP:BRD page, it can really help with how to ensure you're working with other editors to achieve consensus on difficult articles. Basically, its not the BOLD part, its what happens afterwards, which determines how things go. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks KC

and for the little bit of sunshine about getting users banned. Humour lures Victuallers (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Meditation

Thank you for notifying the matter. I almost forgot about it until the notice. However honestly to say, although I've set on the page on my watchlist for a long time, I'm very ignorant of the field and meditation procedure. I just restored JJL's reverting to the previous version one time after edit warring occurred between JJL and Manacpowers or melonbarnmonster. Once JJL put my name on the meditation page, I just simply agreed to engage in the matter without much consideration. I don't know I'm qualified to discuss its origin and how to write my comment on there. I must fully acknowledgy the whole content and relevant articles and sources. Do you think that writing my opinion on the page is urgent to proceed? If not, I still need a time to check all citation attached to the article. Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful. It need not be elaborate. If you want to simply leave a brief message stating basically what you say above, that would be fine for now. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

2Pac

Regarding this change, can you show me the section where it explicitly states that a word can only be linked one time? Please respond on your talk page, I'm watching it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked, third bullet. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Why didn't you unlink the others then? Examples: "Suge Knight", "Fan(s)", "Biggie Smalls", "violence", "crime", "law", "gang" (I think), "murder", and there are others I saw. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We do what we can, but none of us can do everything. -- Donald Albury 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Rapper was the one I noticed. If other words are linked multiple times feel free to correct them also. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: what if the word is wiki-linked in one section, and again but in an image caption and/or template? Does it still have to be delinked per the guideline? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories

I saw that you speedied this article as a copyvio. No quarrel with that - but the article had an open AfD at the time - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories, which you didn't close when you deleted the article. I went ahead and did it; but it's helpful if the deleting admin also closes the AfD. Verbum sapienti satis. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

abortion

I have a comment and question in my talk page regarding your erasing my contributions to abortion. If you could read and comment. Thanks.

daviddaniel37 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddaniel37 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The most recent time your edits (which you have inserted four times) were removed, if you had read the comment you would know there was already a discussion on the talk page concerning your edits. Please join the discussion Talk:Abortion#More undue weight. Remember to sign your posts - As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Request input

I regret to say that recent contact with two individuals, User:Latebird and User:GabrielVelasquez, have caused me to behave inappropriately. I wish review of this matter by an objective outside, eminently reliable source. I believe you clearly qualify. Please indicate any opinion at User:John Carter/Adminship. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to review it, only currently the page you indicate has no diffs, no statement of the situation, and no option for input except to call for you to step down. Perhaps you are not quite ready? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Losar

K9KC, Losar is currenting happening, how may I ensure that it is flagged as a current event? Is there a News Wiki article that this Wikipedia article can interwiki? How may I progress this? Is there anything else you recommend?
Blessings in the mindstream
B9 hummingbird hovering^{(talk • contribs)} 06:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories

Why was our page deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.4.146 (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories

Why was our page deleted? This is a standard page of our company such as other companies that appear on the Wikipedia! The communication with admins whom decide what they want, without understanding what they are doing, is so bad, that I do not even have the possibility to explain. Yermi Herut (yermi@sela-semi.co.il) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.4.146 (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read your talk page. You keep recreating a page about a company using copyrighted material, without asserting notability of the company, without multiple non-trivial sources, and it has been deleted numerous times. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Compromise

Let's compromise. Leave the legit biography up and we'll leave your controversy part up as well. What say you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junia3 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories

Thanks for your answer.

Could you help on receiving the article backup, in order to analyse and restart?

I did not save a copy of the article.

Yermi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yermih (talk • contribs) 08:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yermih, you've asked others about arranging this. KC has pointed out ill health above, you'd be better pursuing your enquiries elsewhere. .. dave souza, talk 11:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yermih, you are an WP:SPA with WP:COI]] and you haven't bothered to learn any of the rules here on Wikipedia. You created AIM - Adaptive Ion Milling, a recreation of the article you created called AIM Adaptive Ion Milling which was speedy deleted by Od Mishehu on 26 December 2007 under CSD G11. You uploaded an image over the current Image:AIM.jpg, which had been in place since 2005, and when you were either told or discovered that you'd overwritten the image, you didn't seek assistance to fix the problem, you removed the image from the article which had been using it[28]. You have created your SELA article under SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories and SELA - SEMICONDUCTOR ENGINEERING LABORATORIES both of which have been deleted - the one in all caps three times, by Marasmusine:

15:06, 4 January 2008
15:01, 4 January 2008
14:59, 4 January 2008

the one in mixed case has been deleted twice, as G11 and G12:

02:45, 1 February 2008 KillerChihuahua deleted "SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories" (CSD G12: Blatant copyright infringement)
16:00, 5 January 2008 Hiberniantears deleted "SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories" ? (CSD G11: Blatant Advertising)

If you want either of these articles, go to WP:DRV. Stop recreating them. Do not, under any circumstances, overwrite an image with another image. Name your image something else. If you have any questions, put {{helpme}} on your talk page, and someone will come and help you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Expansion request for Ferrylodge arbitration remedies

Hello. I've filed a request at WP:RfArb for the expansion of remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge. Briefly, I'm asking that the sanctions allowing Ferrylodge to be banned from specific articles for disruptive behavior be extended to apply to all pages (talkspace, projectspace, etc) where his conduct is disruptive, rather than applying solely to articlespace. I'm notifying you as an involved party in the original ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

SELA

Thanks for your comments. I'll verify again how to restart within Wikipedia rules. Yermih (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)YermiH

Admin Coaching Re-confirmation

Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Get well soon

Sorry to note the tag at the top, get well soon and don't worry about WP issues, we'll try to keep things under a semblance of control to the best of our ability ;) .. dave souza, talk 11:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks much. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you are not feeling well. Being ill sucks. :-( miranda 06:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge amendmnet

I have filed a new request at WP:RfArb for the Ferrylodge case sanctions to be amended or clarified to apply to Ferrylodge's editing in all namespaces, rather than solely in articlespace. This is a courtesy notification as you've been an involved party to the original decision; your statement or other input is welcome at the WP:RfArb page. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Super Chihuahua

:-P miranda 17:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. One more. KC in an Obama t-shirt. :-P miranda 19:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Port of Miami-Dade

I have a question about why you moved this article from its correct name to its current name (in 2005; I know it's been a while). If you could respond to the discussion I initiated at Talk:Port of Miami-Dade, I'd greatly appreciate it. It looks like you are on a wiki-break due to health-related issues; I hope you recover soon. Horologium (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:BellsCrossed.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BellsCrossed.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Human

An editor has nominated Human, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

...April Fool's already? Wow. If it keeps it up and this is like previous years, this AfD bot thing is going to make it a whole lot more interesting, to say the least. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration has been made on a matter in which you were involved. You may add yourself as a party and comment if desired at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Appeal_of_commuity_ban_of_Iantresman. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Woof!? Good to see you back around, Puppy :) Daniel (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone was kind enough to email me about this arbcom request, or I would likely have not edited even yet. Thanks for the kind words, Daniel, it is nice to know one is missed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Also am glad to see you back and barking, regretfully just reading the above case has brought on a severe attack of Wikisloth so I'll say no more. .. dave souza, talk 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

What is going on? I just watched an excellent documentary tonight, just got back, and I wanted to insert some information that was presented in this film. But low and behold, the articles I want to edit are locked down. It's like the Berlin Wall. The documentary must be true. Please unlock this article and allow academic freedom. Yhvh777 (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You have now spammed four user talk pages and two article talk pages with this precise post - and I assure you, no one will give you any answer which is substantially different from that which you received from Baegis. Read the links on the welcome message I posted, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules, and learn what is acceptable and what is not before you attempt to rewrite major articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I can assure you that the exact same time I posted this message, was the time that Baegis posted his or her response, 3:46. Your tone is unacceptable, and your rash conclusions indicitative of bigger problems. Yhvh777 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to wonder about someone whose user name is "G-d777". Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for putting Category:Propaganda back in Expelled. That movie is full of shit. Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agnosticism

Hello KillerChihuahua. I hope you will recover soon. Some users have added the views of Benedict XVI on the article agnosticism. That's rediciulous! Agnosticism is not a religious ideology. The view of Benedict XVI should be in his biography. I think you should take appropriate action against POV pushers. And, nice to know that you are a rationalist. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Palming

The this user is continuously complaining that because The God Who Wasn't There isn't listed as propaganda, that Expelled shouldn't be. Can you explain to this user that these two pages are completely independent of each other and that The God Who Wasn't There does not have any where as many neutral sources calling it propaganda as Expelled does. Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agnosticism

Hello KC. How are you? Some people are pushing their POV in the article agnosticism. I strongly oppose that. Please help me. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

blanking of Jon Awbrey

This was done per Alison at [this link]. Alison is traveling, otherwise she would have done it herself. Could you please unban the other editor who has been blocked because of this? Jayneofthejungle (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If Brad or Alison wish to discuss it with me, they may do so here. I blocked (not "banned") the IP for 3 hours for page-blanking, and there has been no request for unblock on the IP talk page. Decisions about page blanking, blocking, etc. are accomplished here on Wikipedia, not on Wikipedia Review or any other site or venue. I am unimpressed with any rationale for decisions made elsewhere, and take exception to the implication that I, or any administrator, should do so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares where - if anywhere - this was discussed? What about because it's the right thing to do? Is there a _reason_ to have "This user has been banned" as the top google hit for someone's real name? Or are you just being obsessed with process? --Random832 (contribs) 22:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, they both said that this page should be blanked and they are pretty high on the totem pole. Take that as you will. Why wait, since Alison is going to do this when she gets back anyway? cheers, Jayneofthejungle (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall that either of them had much to do with Aubrey or are aware of the details of his history here. I fail to see that I should be impressed with anything anyone says on WR. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

How's it being on WR make it different from what an arbitrator and a checkuser/oversight say anywhere else? --Random832 (contribs) 22:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The point, or one of them, is that if we really believe in BLP, then the #1 google hit for a real life person should probably not be a page that says "Jon Awbrey is banned from editing Wikipedia." True, this is a complex issue when someone who has chosen to edit under his real name gets blocked or banned or taken to Arbcom. However, Awbrey is not such a currently pressing problem that his ban needs to be posted so prominently. It will certainly remain in the history and the block log. Thatcher 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I could argue that is not the case at all. BLP is that we should be very careful that what is in an article about someone is well sourced. This is not an article, and it is certainly factual. However, that's not the issue here. My objection is to WR even being mentioned on my talk page as a place to make decisions on what to do on Wikipeida, followed by the rather insulting insinuation that Brad and Alison "outrank" me in the sense that their off-the-cuff decision elsewhere somehow translates into marching orders for me. This has nothing to do with ArbCom nor checkuser; therefore their "rank" precisely equals mine. I am, in short, highly insulted with how this was handled. I await a civil post from either Brad or Alison, and prefer to drop the subject unless and until that transpires. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think BLP is explicit that it applies everywhere, not just articles, and if it isn't it should be. Certainly it applies to article talk pages. What about an AfD of a person where one commenter says, "He's a crackpot but a notable crackpot and antisemite so we should have an article on him." If the article is deleted, should the AfD remain in that form? If the article is kept but does not contain properly sourced allegations of antisemitism or being a crackpot, should the comment be left in the AfD? Personally I think we should be careful in all our spaces. A number of arbitration cases have been "courtesy blanked" for similar reasons. Thatcher 22:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur, and courtesy is not even (or should not be) dependant upon BLP. However, although JA is not a "pressing" issue, he is still an active and annoyng sockmaster, who has stated his intentions to continue to create socks with the intent to cause trouble here. He has not, to the best of my knowledge, ever hinted that he might ever stop. I fail to see why we should extend courtesy to one who is not willing to extend courtesy back. He certainly earned and re-earned his banning. If he wants it off, I feel rather strongly that he should make a commitment to cease making socks here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair request. Thatcher 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And that's the only objection I have. I would prefer it be discussed on ANI once he does make such a commitment, as well - but my personal objection to blanking would be alleviated by such a statement from Awbrey. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If their "rank" precisely equals yours - and mine - why is a civil post from me worth less than one from one of them? And with I don't recall that either of them had much to do with Aubrey you imply that you do and therefore that your opinion matters somehow more than theirs, therefore you get to overrule anyone else on this. Well, to that I say - at least they can spell Awbrey. --Random832 (contribs) 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Good god, that's a snotty comment. Do you always make snide remarks when someone misspells something? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, only when they implicitly claim to be especially "aware of the details of his history here." --Random832 (contribs) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And I wasn't implying that they "outrank" you - I was simply implying that the fact that one is an arbitrator and the other a checkuser/oversight - in other words, that they're both highly respected users in good standing - might serve to contradict the idea that it should be ignored because it's a BADSITE. --Random832 (contribs) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The "rank" comment is in response to Jayne's "pretty high on the totem pole" comment.
So anyone who is knowledgeable about any small chunk of history is open to snide and childish rudeness? Interesting approach. I cannot say I condone it.
"should be ignored because its a BADSITE" - you seem to be missing the point by a rather large margin. Its not BADSITE that's the issue. It never was. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that _you_ claimed to "outrank" _them_ on this issue, implicitly, when you overrode them. Unless you're our resident Awbrey expert, I fail to see how this is the case. And by saying "I fail to see that I should be impressed with anything anyone says on WR." - even when that "anyone" is otherwise highly respected, you are making an issue of the fact that it's WR. --Random832 (contribs) 22:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. I over-rode an IPs first ever edit, then a newbie who seems to be here to make nonsense articles and tell me I should do what two people, who I have no way of confirming are or are not who they claim to be (being on a completely different site - ANY different site, or IRC, or anywhere NOT Wikipedia) regardless of who they claim to be. If they claimed to be Jimbo I'd revert the IP and put a note on Jimbo's page, and/or email him. This is absurd. Other sites are NOT where to make decisions about Wikipedia, I've said that several times now, and you persist in painting me as irrationally opposed to one site in particular. Cease this bizarre accusation, nothing can come of it. I certainly "outrank" an IP and two unknowns who aren't even on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"So anyone who is knowledgeable about any small chunk of history" - You haven't established that you're knowledgeable about this. You haven't even asserted it. Would you like to assert it? And if you know so much about this case, why don't you explain it to the rest of us - why it's so bloody important to put a scarlet letter on this person? --Random832 (contribs) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE please take any future comments on this subject to WP:ANI#User:Jon Awbrey. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but it doesn't make a difference what he believes. I'm not doing this for Awbrey‎ or WR; WP:BLP is non-negotiable policy, and it weighs in favor of blanking. Do no harm. Cool Hand Luke 23:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

KC: I have commented at more length on the ANI thread but since I have a great deal of respect for you, I just want to say this to you directly for you to think about: BLP applies everywhere on the project, not just in article space. And we should do what's right, even if the subject of our doing right is the biggest weenie the project has ever seen. That makes us better than the weenies. Finally, as a CU, I can tell you I will not be hindered in any way by his page being blanked (not deleted, just blanked)... I know who he is already. So should ever other CU here. ++Lar: t/c 03:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Then let it be across-the-board, by open discussion and consensus, not a Special Case for one still-disruptive sockmaster; decided offsite on a completely different forum by two individuals. This is completely unacceptable. If we're making a special exception for this person, there need to be special circumstances. If we're changing standard operating procedure for sockmasters, that needs to be made clear. Either way, it needs to be decided here, not anywhere else. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, KC. As things have moved on over to ANI, I've commented over there regarding the blanking of JA's userpage. It is my opinion that it should be blanked in deference to the man's RL name. Luke put it rather well when he said "do no harm" and I concur. We're not here to punish people, nor bring their name into disrepute.

Re. the "rank" issue above; I have rather strong opinions on that matter myself. As far as I'm concerned, bits - be they sysop, checkuser or whatever - do not confer greater authority nor standing upon any person. We're all editors on here, IMO, and we all should have equal weight in these matters. Like Lar says, though we've not met much, I've also a great deal of respect for you however I think we're going to have to disagree on this one - Alison ^❤ 07:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you're disagreeing with me about? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, I missed your comment. The part I disagree about is where you said to Thatcher above, "I fail to see why we should extend courtesy to one who is not willing to extend courtesy back." I'm of the opinion that, as it's his RL name, we are somewhat obliged to redact it as it's the proper thing to do, regardless of this editor's actions. WP should not be a battleground, and that applies to Mr. Awbrey, too - Alison ^❤ 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, it should apply to all editors who use their real names - what is being proposed is a special, or extra, courtesy to someone who is still vandalizing Wikipedia on a regular basis. I suspect we agree in principle and disagree in application. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're largely in agreement on most of the above (including that whole "rank" thing :) ) but disagree in application. Were any editor to request same, I'd likely consider. It's not a simple issue, though ... - Alison ^❤ 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

When you have a sec

KC, would you reading/mind commenting here. I think I've done a better job of framing my concerns. Thanks! Angry Christian (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Good call, pup

Regarding this. Maybe more on that page could be trimmed? I've tried mostly to skip over most of the bramble. Also, please let us know if you hear back from Myers one way or the other about a free picture. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nods, that page is getting slow to load and scroll, I think it would be bad to trim any more now, but I plan to watch and remove any other off-topic threads - thanks for the support.

I rec'd a reply with photo, and its on the article now! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Although I don't know if you'll need to send the permission emails to OTRS or some other way of tracking. Brilliantly fast turnaround though. :-) --Ali'i 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well... I linked to the pic we had in my email. I suspect he was nearly as horrified as we, although he joked it off rather well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey pup, it really cheered me up to see your pawprints on this article when I logged in today. Good to see you again : ) Doc Tropics 04:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user

⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for stepping in and sorting things out on my talk page. I still can't believe that two separate editors thought I was calling an admin a troll. Strange times. But thanks for helping out. Baegis (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries - I had trouble believing it as well, but it seems I'm [User_talk:MZMcBride#OM_and_Twinkle|being misunderstood] just as completely, so perhaps its something about the phase of the moon (astrology joke, eh? perhaps illness joke better? its contagious? or maybe its just the In Thing to do) KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOLD

Hi, the edit summary you used here seems to discourage any attempt to change the article without obtaining prior approval. This is not the way Wikipedia works, and I would like to encourage you to familiarize yourself with some of our policies and guidelines. The guideline at issue is that of WP:BOLD, which is explicitly mentioned in the five pillars of Wikipedia. You may also want to review the WP:CONSENSUS policy: I think you will find that, although it is important to gain consensus for edits, one way to do this is to make the edits by being bold. Discouraging all editing on the basis of prior discussion can have a chilling effect, and potentially terrible consequences. I appreciate your attention to this matter in the future. Thank you, silly rabbit (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I assure you, I am quite familiar with the WP:RULES. The cycle is Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were bold, I reverted, and reminded you to discuss. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Gain consensus BEFORE changing" suggests that it was wrong of me to attempt to make a change without obtaining prior approval. Did I misinterpret you? Perhaps you can clarify your intentions further. silly rabbit (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

lol

There is no such thing as too much time spent on lol cats. However, in deference to your tastes, check out this.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI : ReUser_talk:Gnevin#National_sport

Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#WP:CON Gnevin (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Plushy?

How are you little homicidedoggie? Have a waspy fishapod plushy for comfort and cosiness! Yomangan sewn outstanding plushy collection for your friend Little Stupid. bishapod splash! 18:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC).

Podbaby, it is good to hear from you (fun plushy is nice bonus!!!) I don't know who is available these days. Leaving Bishonen's page alone as measure of respect for her semi-retirement - also if you must have the truth too darn sad about it to post anything coherent. Zilla was gone then at arbcom then was burning down Reichstaag, I think... I lose track, have been on and off interweb due to my own situation. :-( All very much sadness. But it looks like at least one of the clan is up to friendly visits! Massive hugs and encouragement to all of you. Puppy misses you all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of 143.231.249.138‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Thanks for the help with that user this morning. In my AIV report I mentioned that it was from the US House of Representatives. That makes it a "Sensitive IP address", so you are supposed to notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee here. I just saw that the IP added something that could be a threat on the IP's talk page and went to report that, but it doesn't look like you got to update the Communications committee. You probably should do that quickly. Toddst1 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I emailed them per m:Communications committee#Contacting the committee as soon as I blocked that IP, so they were notified right away. Thanks for the concern, tho. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the puppy gratz, I'll keep them in mind :D weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 08:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Heh, thanks for the warning, I'll try to keep those points in mind :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Blanking of vandal warnings

Hello

May I ask why you did the above? Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I read, it appeared that evn if the editor(s) using that IP were the same as the IP(s) who had made the edits on your talk page, they didn't do it with that IP - hopefully that isn't too convoluted to follow. That being the case, I blanked the page, as the situation has been handled by other means, and that particular IP talk page would not be the correct placement of the warnings issued. In short, to prevent future confusion. I blanked rather than deleted so the history would be there if needed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, I understand. Thank you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome - please don't hesitate to let me know if anything I do is ever unclear to you, and I will be happy to discuss it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

KillerChihuahua/Archive 11, just a note of thanks for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks once again! Gatoclass (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you know already, but everybody gets one of these regardless :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kewl, thankee muchly. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Spidey

Truer words were never said. Shame it was deleted, but I suppose the truth is the suck. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Guy already tried, Raymond Arritt tried, others have tried, but she's still at it, and when she started complaining about the attention on her talk page - um, excuse me? She curses and fumes and creates divisive userboxes, creating more drama than I've seen since Kelly Martin's last Rfc, and then complains about the attention? Pardon me, but that's horse hockey. No one is that stupid, at least not anyone who can type. You don't roll out the red carpet for attention and then cry "woe is me, people won't leave me alone!"[29] unless you think your audience is extremely naive and stupid, and you can somehow frame things so that you're the injured party by such puerile means. I tried to get her to stop with Teh Dramaz, but apparently that makes me "ignorant" - I guess she feels its "intelligent" to Make With Teh Racist Dramaz. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well at any rate it was intentional - I knew no one who could type could be that stupid.[30] KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe she has an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of computers typing and then picks the best written response. ;)

And of course, Equazcion requested that the thread be closed. Not that the discussion was done. I just love those wusses who start shit and then run away or otherwise pretend that the shitstorm they helped start died down as it still rages. Anyway, InDeBiz closed it.Jim62sch^dissera! 18:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to help me play a going away song with a violin for that thread, teh dramaz caused, and people's poor hurt feelings? I have the world's smallest one (

), but I bet I could find a few extras for this ensemble. Baegis (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be good ...

Pathétique Sonata

Piano Sonata No. 8 in C minor, 1st & 2nd movements

Problems playing this file? See media help.

Jim62sch^dissera! 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Bigfoot

Well, apparently I'm a god, which explains how I can keep up. If only my acolytes would learn to spell my name correctly :-) Best, Gwernol 19:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, i don't know how to post the MfD page for the category. Can you do that for me? Jek Tono Porkins (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Johnny - Alison ^❤ 10:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

A request for arbitration to look into your conduct has been made here. Please make a statement. Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 02:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Succession crisis

I have apologized to both users. Best --Eustress (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on editor's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignorance

your editing of movies involving pedophilia and/or sexual abuse demonstrate ignorance of the topic and the movies. To delete L.I.E. for instance is very worrying. Tony (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Tony

My removal had nothing to do with my knowledge, ignorance, or even the movie. It has to do with WP:V. In short, do you have a source? If so, feel free to re-add L.I.E. If not, then this is a pointless discussion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am a bit confused by the message you left on my talk page. The IP's edit was vandalism, in that it was the deliberate introduction of false material. WP:VANDAL is explicit that warnings are not a necessary precondition for a block; in any case, the IP's talk page is full of warnings. In November, 64.58.187.23 was blocked for six months, and appears to have immediately resumed vandalism after the expiration of that block. If you feel that their behavior does not warrant a block, you may decline to issue one, but your ultimate judgment does not control the propriety of reporting sustained abuse to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 21:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Its an IP. We cannot know whether this person is the same as the November one. If you want to start with BV, fine - but some kind of warning is necessary in virtually all cases. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Hey K.C., I just wanted to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. please note that I am taking steps to address the CSD issue that you raised as your main concern, further comments are welcome here. I've also left you some templated thank-spam below. ¡Yo quiero Mop & Bucket! xenocidic (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

Thank you for your support

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Get better soon

Hiya. Noticed you weren't feeling well. Best of wishes in getting better soon. :)

Btw, I thought I'd drop an Elizabethan collar your way for good measure. :P --slakr^\ talk / 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Roflmao, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nyom!

Sorry to hear you've not been well. Fingers crossed for a speedy recovery - Alison ^❤ 22:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks much, Alison! That's so sweet of you. It looks homemade, too. Now, if they can just agree on what's wrong with me (no comments from the peanut gallery, please!) I'd feel better. Meanwhile, they test and frown at me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From a sick clown, to a sick puppy, hope you feel better. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Aw, thanks muchly, Swat! I hope your treatment is going well, and that you are doing as well as possible. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite our other disputes, KC. Hope you feel better. SirFozzie (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fozzie - much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Creationism2

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design RfC

You've been named as an involved party at this RfAR. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of William Norman Grigg

I have nominated William Norman Grigg, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Norman Grigg. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? RJaguar3 | u | t 07:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What the...?

Just a note - I really don't appreciate being told I have "the brains of a brickbat", or that I am dense, or brainwashed, or malicious. I don't think I know anyone who does. Kelly ^hi! 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have done none of those things, I cannot imagine why you're telling me this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, OK. I guess you don't remember making those comments a few minutes ago. ~~Not just a river in Egypt, I guess.~~ Kelly ^hi! 20:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking to the same post a second time does not change its meaning. Did you read my reply to you on that page? Perhaps you should enroll in a reading comprehension class, as you seem to be confused (and conflating your confusion, which exists, with my denial, which does not exist.) Please let me know if you are still unclear on my meaning, and I will be happy to elucidate any portion which you find difficult to understand. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

KC: I've known you and respected you for a long time, you know that. But using phrasing like "Kelly, continuing to repeat that nonsense indicates to me that you have the brains of a brick-brat; or else you're congenitally dense; or else you've been brainwashed; or else you're happy maligning a group of people based on the actions of a few: which is it?" is just Not On. It reads exactly like a personal attack... regardless of any rhetorical escape clauses. Please don't repeat phrasing like that. Kelly, dial down a notch too "Not just a river in Egypt" is sarcasm. Stick to being unfailingly polite please. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I gave her multiple choice, including (which you did NOT copy) the option to offer an explanation of which I had not thought, in response to HER slanderous and egregarious personal attack. She has been screaming NPA ever since and not clarified her rationale, except to cite an Argumentum ad populum, which I find nauseating rather than exculpatory. As she has in fact engaged in personal attacks, and I merely am attempting to find out why, I would appreciate your either being more even-handed, or recusing yourself from chiding me, as you seem to be a bit confused and/or biased, Lar. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't repeat all of the choices, no. Didn't need to. It reads like a PA even if you left an escape clause. If it reads like a PA, it's a PA. Just don't do it, please. You are way smarter and better than that old rhetorical trick. Make your point without it. I know you can. As for Kelly, I've chided Kelly before and will again. Did here, in fact. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Privacy essay

NOR

Note

Giorgio Armani

more nor

Strangest AfD ever?

COI/N Thread

What up dawg!

Enjoy

Oversight?

The Moulton affair

Arbitration request

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling trouble-a-brewing

Kent Hovind Controversy

I can help a little

Refresh my memory

attack sites

Email for you

No problem

Health effects of abortion

You are my new hero

Very confused by your edit summary

take a look?

Help?

Help?

Deletion of SPHERE article

Barneca RfA thank you spam

Question for you

The club

Puppy Surfing

NOR

Thanks!

Please help unblock my account

BIG problems with PAS page pointed out by IronAngelAlice

Profg

Meta

Abortion talk page

Quick reminder

Favour?

Help!

Theories and concepts

Abortion edits

User:Haizum

Deletion review

Recall question

Ferrylodge arbitration request

Please comment

Mediation plz

Anthony Chidiac

rawr

ArbCom Notification

Your views requested re Kosovo arbitration enforcement

Adoption

Rawrjester

Moulton Request for Arbitration

Arf! Arf!

Cookie

Welcome back.

Merry Christmas

Rejoyce

Happy Holidays

sockpuppet

LOL...

CfD for Category:Intellectually impaired

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ghs bigred.png

Wikipedia:Privacy

Findings of fact vs Accusations

Reverted

"Little stalker"

changes to pregnancy page

Your input is required.

Simon Bolivar

Thanks for the warning

Thanks KC

My Rfa

Meditation

2Pac

SELA - Semiconductor Engineering LAboratories

abortion

Request input