User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive05

Archive05

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

This archive page covers approximately through Nov 14, 2006.

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

Thanks
And don't worry, we all lose track of things now and again. Regards. Oran e ( talk  &bull;  cont. ) 17:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, thank you for drawing my attention to it. :) KillerChihuahua?!? 17:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks for jumping into the bear pit ;) Very much appreciated at a time when you've lots else on your plate. ..dave souza, talk 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Woof, Woof! ...dave souza, talk 20:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * grrrrr. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Special thankyou snap from our front door yesterday morning: see commons:Category:Princess Cruises ships for three other snaps, showing the tub in port. ..dave souza, talk 18:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well...
Technically he was reposting, since it seemed to start off with the same statement from before. And him placing it in the middle of the page is weird. Syrthiss 18:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I felt that as I have now finally actually blocked SpicyNugget, it would be better if someone else decided what to do about the post on AN. And it does indeed appear to be a repost. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Matrixism
Please see the talk page, the user has evaded two of his blocks, inserted Matrixism (along with the linkspam), and again not assumed good faith on my part. -- Jeff3000 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * brt - thanks for the heads-up. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see he has been blocked and the page protected - sorry I was off-wiki at the time and unable to assist in a timely manner. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Np, thanks for looking into it regardless. -- Jeff3000 01:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion
You want to give me a second opinion on the recent history at Three Little Pigs? And maybe clue someone in as to the definition of "vandalism" while you are at it? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm almost sure I don't. *sigh*. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not that bad :-) It's the Three Little Pigs. How bad could it be? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Arf! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what happens! Two of them die horrible deaths, and the last one exhibits not grief, but capitalistic and species prejudice against the wolf! That story is a morass of bigotry, violence, and the only moral is "build a bigger stronger house and you can look down your nose at those less fortunate"! Horrid stuff, I cannot believe you want to pull me down into that. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! You need a tag before your analysis there, though -- you have denied me the pleasures I may have derived from discovering the deeper meanings on my own. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mythology
Was that just a kneejerk revert on Mythology or what? You blindly reverted everything in that edit, even things that were obviously needed (we don't link to foreign language sites in External links, etc.). You say discuss sweeping changes on talk when all of the changes of any controversy were already discussed on the talk page quite extensively and were only changed back to what was decided there after much discussion. I've been editing logged out a few times here, and I see a lot of editors just blind reverting anything and everything, probably because they can't be bothered to check to see if the changes were good or not and just assume it must be if it's an anon user. Please take some time to check over what you are doing before undoing so many edits at once. 172.164.87.241 17:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have anon bias and never revert without looking.

I have this page on my watchlist and read the talk page regularly. I see no consensus for these changes. I do see a few comments concerning too much focus on Truth but there is certainly no consensus, and your edits were not specifically discussed there at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) In common usage, myth often means a falsehood -> In common usage, myth means a falsehood — a story which many believe but which is not true. "often" is more accurate. Not everyone is ignorant enough to conflate "myth" with "untrue"
 * 2) Myths are generally narratives -> "generally" deleted. Why? There are myths which are not about "about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally, and linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community, endorsed by rulers or priests." Some are about non-divine and non-heroic figures, some are damn incoherent, and some are not endorsed by rulers or priests.
 * 3) While in common usage of "myth", the word may indicate a fiction, or half-truth (and nearly all dictionaries include this definition), "myth" does not always imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions All deleted - why? This is information you are removing which helps clarify what is myth and what is not.
 * 4) For the purposes of this article, therefore, the word mythology is used to refer to -> The word mythology is used to refer to the study of This one I feel should stay the same becase it adds the caveat that we're not getting into bickering about various other useages, but that now that we've defined it as used here, etc.
 * I agree with your revert, KillerChihuahua. dab (&#5839;) 18:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied to and discussion continued on Talk:Mythology. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Help
This user names D-Ice keeps changing the names of the singles on the Tupac Shakur page. He capitalizes each word because "it looks better" even though they are not the official names. What can be done? License2Kill 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've left messages, you've left messages... let's see if we can eventually get him discussing it. If not, we may have to try dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help License2Kill 04:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
It was that you appeared to be brought into the page by Dave souza and I felt that your interest in the page wasn't of genuine concern about the subject. Apologies if any offense was caused. MelForbes 19:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My interest is, as always, concern for the encyclopedia, and as such, I may have something to offer which those who have "concern about the subject" may not, as I have no axe to grind or position to argue.
 * I appreciate the apology. Please try to remember in the future to address the issues about the article, not attack other editors and malign their supposed motives. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Question
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism&curid=140524&diff=64451051&oldid=64448887

You removed my edit. I am not sure how to phrase it an so I gave an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64437570

Can you help find a phrasing you would accept? This website claims to make bold edits so I just made it. Hardvice 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bold edits are more strongly indicated in articles, especially articles on non-controversial topics. Policies usually require consensus prior to making an edit. I personally would support simply adding "and talk pages" after the word "articles" in the sentence, as I indicated in my summary. This would be changing Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. to Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of articles or talk pages (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. There has been heated debate about that, and I suggest you bring this up on talk to gain consensus if possible. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure how to phrase my question on that talk. Basically, it's blanking a talk and then archiving to wipe out the entire talk page.  It's a sort of combination between blanking and sneaky vandalism.  Maybe something other than sneaky?  Hardvice 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried a more simplified version. Please tell me if you approve it. Hardvice 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I copied this to the talk page (or will in a few seconds) Hardvice 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Question
Do you know of any rap related pages that you think need to be "Wikified"? License2Kill 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you tried SuggestBot? Just make a request on User:SuggestBot/Requests. A list of articles which match the type articles you edit, which need attention, will be posted on your talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks License2Kill 01:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

They haven't told me what I could edit yet License2Kill 05:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You added User talk:License2Kill and you have to add User:License2Kill. I think the bot didn't know what to do with it. Try again. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardwick
In fact, my archiving at the encyclopedia dramatica talk page was accidental in a way, I was trying to get the older stuff put away, but copied and pasted all of it instead. IMHO, it was not doing anything to make the article better and was instead just a series of jabs at each other. Yes, I think that the majority of editors that are fighting to POV push that ED nonsense and to promote that website are trolls.--MONGO 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nods, that's what it looked like on first glance to me. Its not like discussion ends when a page is archived, I have no idea why he's getting so upset about it. Thanks for the background - KillerChihuahua?!? 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the Puppy!

 * Hopefully I'll make you proud, so far my contributions seemed to have been all bark but no bite. :) ~Kylu ( u | t )  20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling tips
Thanks for the spelling tips, most useful. I'll try to get it right in the future (though I think KillerC is also a pretty cool name :-) Gwernol 22:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it a bit. I know its a pain to spell. Glad you like it anyway. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you just ask them to rename you to User:KillerChawowwow? (I personally have had to go looking in my watchlist or on talk pages every time I have wanted to spell out the whole thing, I admit it!) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which would partially explain everyone cheerfully referring to me as Murderous Puppy and the like. It isn't a fond nickname, its a spelling issue. My favorite was Killer Robotic Dog Run Amok. Still, any little thing I can do to spread knowledge, such as how to spell Chihuahua, is a Good Deed. Hey! Why don't I just change my name to Killer robotic murderous puppy run amok doing good deeds? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a peek, and you seem to be spreading spelling knowledge only at the cost of deteriorating pronounciation. A devil's bargain. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A devil's bargain? Maybe you'll remember both spelling and pronunciation now. Knowledge all around. Sorry, carry on. -- Ec5618 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Killer robotic murderous puppy run amok doing good deeds while making a devil's bargin with pronunciation is a little long. Just a little. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Note/3RR
Just FYI, the drama surrounding the Encyclopedia Dramatica article, regardless of fairness or lack thereof, wasn't enough to warrant a reversion war involving yourself. I reported it, you should know better. Tx9 01:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * then you cannot count. Whose sock are you? I like to know who is falsely accusing me. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Nate slayer0
Please have a look at this user's contributions. All he's been doing is vandalise. Could you block him? -- Ec5618 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a note; we'll see what happens. If he continues to make these changes I will block. KillerChihuahua?!? 08:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your note was certainly friendly. I should remember to be more friendly. Still, the effect seems minimal, as the editor has just reverted Creationism again. -- Ec5618 08:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have taken away the distraction of editing so he will have the time to read and familiarize himself with the policies I had linked. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Evolution and vandalism
I think the evolution page should be semi protected again, as you can see word is starting to get out that its unprotected and its taking several attacks a day.Rorrenig 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Several attacks a day is not enough for semi. Please read Semi-protection policy and Protected pages considered harmful. If the level climbs I will semi, but not at this level. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some wikipedia readers don't understand what goes on behind the scenes and may be slighty confused when they happen to load an article just as it has been vandalised. A hard-line needs to be taken on blatant vandalism and other nonsense like what "Nate slayer0" was adding. I'm yet to see a user make an account and do things like this then change their ways. Rorrenig 09:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It happens. Rarely, but it does. At any rate, the account is blocked (if you are speaking of Nate slayer0), and a note has been left for User:144.139.183.37, and links to relevant policies have been posted. this should always be the first step. Protecting the page prevents good editors as well as bad from making contributions. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again, get a load of this: Rorrenig 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not related to evolution but concerning Yousef al-Khattab, thanks for the revert, i removed it because i thought it was some sort of error in the formatting code, i watched the video again and he does indeed say it. Sorry!Rorrenig 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Tupac
If you have ever seen the episode where he says CJ from San Andreas, you would know that its accurate, and not made up --Koolgiy 18:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be original research. We must have a source which meets Wikipedia's reliablity guidelines. Do you know of such a source? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya its called, the link to the video on the Tupac article. Its in the same line where I placed my thing. --Koolgiy 01:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Click the link for the YouTube clip. Its a reliable source. --Koolgiy 05:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, its a link to a video. Please keep discussion about the article on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. A link to the Chappelle's show spoof of Tupacs recurring music. --Koolgiy 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Tupac Shakur page had a lot of vandalism today, maybe you should hand out some perma bans License2Kill 03:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Meyer
I agree that it is relevant, but it is stated formerly in the "Peer review controversy" section. there is no need for duplication, other than to editorially discredit the paper. When listing papers in a "Sceintific Paper" section, it is sufficient to list the papers. Any questions about the quality or validity about the paper are addressed in a previous section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggnate (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 July 2006
 * I will take another look. Please sign your posts using four tildes ( ~ ). KillerChihuahua?!? 18:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it is relevant. The reader may not realize this is the paper mentioned in the controversy section above. I would support a re-wording, perhaps, but the way it was without the information, it read as though it had been published. It is misleading to the reader. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would support a reference to the [edit]controversy, i.e. leave the blurb that says "see:Sternberg peer review controversy"

--Diggnate 18:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lets discuss on the article talk page, yes? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Moving to the article discussion page
 * --Diggnate 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Already did. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitic ppl cat
What's the deal with User:Liftarn who keeps sticking this cat everywhere? The thing is POV and unhelpful. One man's anti-semite is another's anti-zionist ad nauseam. What shall we do about it? - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have attempted discussion on his page, as I see you have also. The talk page discussion is a hotbed of conflicting views and assertions. Until consensus is reached, the wise thing to do is not add the cat if anyone objects, and of course sourcing is necessary. I don't think that will be heeded, however. Perhaps an Rfc on the Category criteria to gain more input? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bubonic plague is a fine hobby
Hey, Puppybeak (=Puppy Be A Killa), it would be a big help if you researched and wrote a section on the way the Fire affected the plague. (If it did affect the plague--it sounds like a bit of a canard to me, but if there's [genuflects briefly] Sources, then who am I to?) My trouble is that I'm reading three fat books about fire engines (yes, they had them! They fell into the Thames! It's worse than Andrée! It is to weep!) and building materials (in which regard I have but one word for you: tar-paper shacks). I guess that's why I haven't been so keen to wrap my head round plague material at the same time (this is your cue for telling me you never noticed). What do you say? Bishonen | talk 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Darling I never noticed! However, I did notice that although linguistically you reign if not supreme, at least chiffon, your mathmatics may be a wee tad questionable. Tar-paper shacks is one word? hrm.
 * I shall investigate the Plague Burning Out forthwith (which means I certainly plan to see if I can find something more substantial than Armies of Pestilence at some point in the not-too-distant future, aka Before The End.) KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryorye
You reverted the warning by Guettarda on my talk page. However, that warning was a very malicious attempt to scare me from editing on Wikpedia seeing the Chaguanas conflict (see Talk:Chaguanas. It is clear from that article's history, he has reverted as frequently as I did, but he, being an administrator and someone very familiar with the rules, conviently set me up for that warning. I consider these very unfair provications, and a hideous tactic to get his own way. I would like to formally contest that warning. May you review this for me please. Thank you. --Ryorye 21:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As you reverted several times, he very politely, and I should add, responsibly gave you the information about 3RRs with a standard 3RR template. This is not malicious, this is information which you can use to ensure you follow the rules at Wikipedia. He did not "set you up", he informed. Please calm down and try to look at this from another point of view. If there is any part of this you still do not understand, or feel was unfriendly, please explain and I will try to clear things up for you. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I was very upset at the moment as he continually reverted my information. No, you are very clear, I am sorry if at the moment I mis-interpreted your statement, but, no, you are clear. However, I will still like you to review my last message. Thank You.

My Response: ''Ok, have a look at the Talk:Chaguanas page yourself, and even look at the history on Chaguanas. Can you see as well how many times he has reverted my article. Whether or not he went by the letter of the law and carefully choose not to revert 3 times in 1 day. He is acting as a dictator on the Chaguanas page. I question the level of maturity or stubborness at times. I requested an AMA to intervene, and he did, saying to let my information stand. He wasn't the first person to tell Guettarda to let the information stand. Yet, that editer continues to revert that information, for his own agenda. I feel as if I am being treated very unfairly. I hope that you are able to see my point. Thank You.'' --Ryorye 23:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My response will take a bit to organize and type. I need a little time to think on how to respond. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me you wished to insert content, namely some people, into an article. I have outlined 4 of the many incidents/steps in your attempt to do so. And on, and on. You have either not read our policies or you are choosing to ignore them. You are reactive, assuming bad faith, and hostile. You attacked me, then removed the evidence you'd ever had a misunderstanding from your talk page. Now you have violated the very policy Guettarda told you about and have been blocked, and you still seem to be arguing and edit warring rather than discussing and trying to acheive some level of consensus. In short, I advise you to slow down, assume good faith, read up on policies, and stop attacking other editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Your attempt to insert content was met with disagreement of notability and appropriateness by one of the long-standing editors of the article.
 * 2) *What you could have done: Followed guidelines and discussed on talk page.
 * 3) *What you did: Edit warred and maligned the other editor on the talk page.
 * 4) *Applicable policies: WP:EW, WP:CON, WP:NPA
 * 5) Guettarda left a 3RR warning on your talk page.
 * 6) *What you could have done: Thanked Guettarda for letting you know about that policy and that you were in danger of violating it.
 * 7) *What you did: Removed the warning, accused Guettarda of "setting you up" and being malicious.
 * 8) *Applicable policies: WP:AGF, WP:NPA
 * 9) Misunderstood a post of mine, trying to explain that what Guettarda did was not malicious but helpful information.
 * 10) *What you could have done: Verified you understood me correctly ("Did you mean a or b or something else?")
 * 11) *What you did: Accused me of sneakiness and collusion.
 * 12) *Applicable policies: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL
 * 13) You continued to edit war without success (trust me, that's redundant)
 * 14) *What you could have done: Discuss on talk page of article, which you should have done already, or file an Rfc.
 * 15) *What you did: Filed with AMA. Why they accepted it, I have no idea. They don't seem to be counseling you, they seem to be acting as content dispute mediators, which is not their stated role.
 * 16) *Applicable policies: WP:DR


 * FYI: You were blocked by El_C, not Guettarda. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  "I have been blocked by the user who reported me (User:Guettarda)..."  -Ryorye 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC).


 * It clearly states that I said "BY THE USER WHO REPORTED ME" and not by WHO BLOCKED ME.

Lets have a read at this line now:
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR.
 * Who did they say REPORTED ME?..... That's right, thought so.

Try not to choose sides next time based on affilliates on your Radical Environmentalism articles. Its not good, nor is it healthy.

Thanks, Ryorye 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Try reading it again: You stated "I have been blocked by the user who reported me" which is inaccurate. You were reported by Guettarda, El_C blocked you. I am not choosing sides; you are jumping the gun again and attacking me due to a misunderstanding. What does Radical environmentalism have to do with who blocked you? That statement makes no sense to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You, Ryorye 00:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken
 * I meant Guettarda reported me so I was blocked because of him (his reports), even though he had the same damaging effect on the article but just stayed within the law, yet doing equal harm.
 * Radical Environmentalism was introduced to show that both of you'll have collaborated before and hence have some sort of relationship, be it proffesional or friendship, and your third party intervention could have been influenced by it.
 * No problem; I advise you to calm down and slow down though. Guettarda and I are both administrators on Wikipedia, we've worked together on numerous articles. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. He's a nice guy and a good edior and could help you a great deal if you'd listen when he tries to explain rules rather than biting his head off and acting wronged. One puppy's opinion; you may wish to try for a Fresh Start with him. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You have been very kind and have offered good advice, Thank You. I will continue my debate in a healty fashion. I write from a NPOV and have followed the style, format, and criteria of other similar articles. Thanks, Ryorye 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Wow, I like that barnstar! I guess it does pretty much sum me up at times, with an exclamation point. Thank you very much.--MONGO 08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addhoc (talk • contribs) 11:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

–wow! congratlions! --Spookfish 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was pleasantly surprised. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
My girlfriend and I are moving from an apartment to a house of our own (at last). It'll be some time before we manage to get internet connectivity restored. Until then, take care. :) Kasreyn 01:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
How do you upload pictures to Wikipedia? License2Kill 08:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Languages
Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 19:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Dalbury
If you have the time, I would appreciate any observations you may care to provide at Editor review/Dalbury. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  14:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you (semi) back
Between your break, and Bishonen's, and me getting Giano mad at me (it's getting better), it's been a desolate wasteland around here. Welcome back! &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you much for the welcome! Goodness gracious, who put what in everyone's Cheerios while I was away? Can I assist in any way?
 * In other news, my pond has foot-long strands of filamentous algae, the Thunbergia grandiflora is growing into the Bambusa lako and the Bauhinia blakeana, and the heat index is 100 F today, so the semi-back puppy is semi-melted. How are things in your neck of the woods? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Cheerios are going to be fine, they've just been splashed around a little by some recent ArbCom activity. In my RL neck-of-the-woods, it's cooled down a bit after our own Oregon heat wave, and my policy of neglecting the yardwork until it reaches the level of a complete crisis continues :-) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of coming back....I've returned! &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  17:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome back!!! All rested and ready and loaded for bear? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

atheism page
Thank you for reverting back to POV sentences and weasle word descriptions, you obviously have no ownership issues and have obviously read certain policies. :) [][][] Somerset219 20:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yap yap
Hello there semipuppy. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Hello there semiscaryJapanesehorrormovieperson. I have not forgotten the plague; I have not been able to get to the library (r/l is keeping me so busy I have not have time.) If you need my assistance or attention elsewhere pls post here; I am emphatically not keeping up with my usual watchlist. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 13:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance of the law
Depends on the offense. In this case, one presumes an admin is aware of the policy against unblocking oneself - its not an "oops" its a deliberate violation of the Rules. For a more extreme example, when one commits a crime one is usally not given a free pass the first time - one is aware it is illegal, one does it anyway - one reaps the consequences. To carry the analogy, an admin breaking this serious a rule is like a police officer breaking the law, which makes the case more serious, not less, because there is no recourse to the "ignorance of the law" defense, which if I recall correctly carries little or no weight anyway. One puppy's opionion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have stated in numerous places that I was unaware of the rule or of the possibility that sysops could be blocked, period. Do you have any basis for disbelieving me? In any event, ignorance of the law is a valid mitigating circumstance where the conduct is not obviously criminal. In other words, you cannot claim ignorance of the illegality of murder, but you can claim ignorance of some less obvious criminal statute - something environmental, for example - and the judge may of course take it into account at sentencing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on user talk page, repeated here:
 * I have tried to find a more polite way to say this, and failed, so please excuse my bluntness: Where have you been? How did you get to be an admin without realizing the rules apply to you also? How did you miss all the wheel wars? All the issues when admins blocked each other and so on? Your assertion that you did not realize you could be blocked concerns me far more than your unblocking yourself, because I am left to wonder what other policies may you be completely ignorant of? How can you enforce policy and mentor editors when you are yourself ignorant of those poliicies? I was wavering, but due to this astonisihing statement I must support the recall request. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk. Good job kicking a guy when he's down - holy shit! - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) In what possible way could this be considered kicking when down? I fail to see how being civil enough to supply my reasons is somehow inappropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a quote from Category:Administrators_open_to_recall (emphasis added): "Just ask, nicely..." - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am very disappointed in you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For what, expecting an admin to know the policies? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No! I have already resigned the mop. You could have saved your opinion until RfA2 or canned it altogether. It's not pleasant to have to go through a recall, and there is absolutely no reason to make grandiloquent statements to me about my extreme ignorance when those statements will have no bearing on anything whatsofuckingever other than to further diminish my self esteem? Is that not obvious?? Finally, please remember, the recall discussion is taking place on my user talk page BECAUSE I CONSENTED TO IT, and I had wrapped it up before your post. I remain extremely disappointed in you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Rfa2 will go better if you realize that expectations are that an admin know and understand the WP:RULES. This is a valid "bearing" which has nothing to do with whether you've surrendered the mop, or your self esteem, which I would hope and expect would not be affected by statements about what an admin should be expected, as a matter of course, to be familiar with. How this has resulted in your increasingly agitated and profanity-laden statements that I have somehow attacked you and lowered your self esteem is beyond me. Perhaps you also lack the maturity which would allow you to accept constructive advice and criticism without taking it personally. You may wish to step back, calm down, and re-read what I wrote and try to consider it more impersonally. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I also lack the maturity. Thank you for your unproductive input. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I stayed completely cool throughout the recall, but you have really got my juices flowing there, especially with your initial edit summary. *exhales* - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ADC edit
Hi there. I was just wondering what you meant by this edit? What is WP:CONTENT? Laurence Boyce 12:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be a typo, apologies. The second n should be an x: WP:CONTEXT. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

straw poll on Herero Uprising (or whatever it's currently called)
Hi KillerChihuahua, I was wondering whether you might have time to comment on the talk page of Herero Uprising, where I tried to intervene in a edit war with a straw poll. Not sure whether that was a good idea (my first time ever trying to do this), but I think the poll could use some additional outside comment. I have no idea whether you have the time or interest in the subject, but if you do, perhaps you could comment (or even solicit other commenters). The page has been moved twice daily for a few days now, so someone experienced should step in, in my opinion. Thanks! --Birdmessenger 19:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggest you list on article Rfc, as there seems to be an impasse. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Will do.--Birdmessenger 19:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck, looks like a heated dispute. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Birdmessenger 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, my dear Puppy!
Thank you, my dear Puppy! :) and no need to apologize for not being around for a while, I'm just glad you had a good wikibreak ;) Thank you so much for the humorous pointers - I'll make absolutely sure to keep them in mind when using the buttons :P Seriously, that you've taken the time to visit me and congratulate me means a huge lot to me. As I am now in the ranks of the rookie admins, I'll make sure to visit you and bug you whenever I feel I'm about to mess up... which I'm afraid will be quite often! ;) Have a great weekend, dear KC, hope to talk to you pretty soon, hugs!  Phaedriel   ♥  The Wiki Soundtrack! ♪  - 08:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Representing religious views
Hi there, regarding your thought of more representative coverage of religious views: I think the reason Christianity is over-represented is because English language Wikipedia contributors and readers do not reflect the world population, but a (primarily Christian) subset of it. I don't know what the numbers are for the religious makeup of the English speaking world, but I'll bet that they reflect the religious distribution you describe. Just a thought :-) Jon 07:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They do. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Upload Some Images
Can you upload some images for me? I know how, but I don't know how to make it so they don't get deleted License2Kill 01:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When you upload them, make sure you fill in where you got them and the licensing. The licensing is a drop-down box on the upload page. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I find out about the licensing status? License2Kill 19:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends on where you get the image. Why don't we walk through one image? Tell me about the image you want to upload. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00000297F.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg License2Kill 03:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An album cover is fair use, but that scan is an Amazon image and it might be owned by them. Ask at WikiProject Album covers and see if you can get someone with more album cover expertise to give an opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well sourced views

 * very long irrelevant post removed

Let's be fair here, and not resort to meaningless polemics.--204.108.237.194 20:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please take this to the talk page of the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I get the sense that

[''I have removed the frivolous vandal template inserted here, and will warn the user without using templates. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC).'']

Just a bit of warning. If you revert the Paul Weyrich bio one more time, I will report you for vandalism. Pravknight 04:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is amusing. I've reverted once, and you put a blatantvandal template on my talk page? Go ahead, report me. This could be interesting. I should warn you however, I am an administrator, and if I see you misusing the template by placing bv templates, or any other type of vandalism warning, on other editor's talk pages due to content disputes, I will strongly consider taking action. I suggest you read WP:VAND so you can learn what is and is not vandalism. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for posting the blatant vandalism tag because I am still learning the ropes around here, but I have seen users cited for vandalism for precisely what you have done. The point is your reversion isn't NPOV from my perspective. I see it as taking Mr. Weyrich's words out of context
 * very long irrelevant post removed
 * Once again, I apologize for losing my temper.

--Pravknight 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Our friend is at it again...
John Wayne vandal/troll/whatever he is has begun his personal attacks again.... Just an FYI. 75.2.50.195 01:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I blocked him again. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Vivaldi
Can we move to close the Requests for comment/Vivaldi? This user has continual removed material. Arbusto 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Arf!
Why, hello there, innumerate puppy! Bishonen | talk 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC).
 * We all have our shortcomings. :)
 * thanks for the hello - I'm not back yet, just popping in and trying to clean up a little. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Begging for an assist
Could you or any other admins looking in here take a look at Unreal Engine technology pretty please? I was asked to help out there with a content dispute involving some nearly-completely non-communicative people who keep reinserting content that seems to violate WP:V and likely also the GFDL. I've tried some talking, little effect, but I've also been reverting, so I don't want to take any admin actions. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Unreal indeed. I took one look at the talk page and took the quick way out - I protected for the time being. If you disagree and wish to unprotect, I'll not object. Hopefully this will get some discussion going as opposed to the revert war - and you might want to suggest wp:auto in addition to v and rs as recommended reading. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I've no desire to unprotect. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunc, etc.
I quote wikipedia founder Larry Sanger. " Second problem: the dominance of difficult people, trolls, and their enablers. I stopped participating in Wikipedia when funding for my position ran out. That does not mean that I am merely mercenary; I might have continued to participate, were it not for a certain poisonous social or political atmosphere in the project.

There are many ways to explain this problem, and I will start with just one. Far too much credence and respect accorded to people who in other Internet contexts would be labelled "trolls." There is a certain mindset associated with unmoderated Usenet groups and mailing lists that infects the collectively-managed Wikipedia project: if you react strongly to trolling, that reflects poorly on you, not (necessarily) on the troll. If you attempt to take trolls to task or demand that something be done about constant disruption by trollish behavior, the other listmembers will cry "censorship," attack you, and even come to the defense of the troll. This drama has played out thousands of times over the years on unmoderated Internet groups, and since about the fall of 2001 on the unmoderated Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has, to its credit, done something about the most serious trolling and other kinds of abuse: there is an Arbitration Committee that provides a process whereby the most disruptive users of Wikipedia can be ejected from the project.

But there are myriad abuses and problems that never make it to mediation, let alone arbitration. A few of the project's participants can be, not to put a nice word on it, pretty nasty. And this is tolerated. So, for any person who can and wants to work politely with well-meaning, rational, reasonably well-informed people--which is to say, to be sure, most people working on Wikipedia--the constant fighting can be so off-putting as to drive them away from the project. This explains why I am gone; it also explains why many others, including some extremely knowledgeable and helpful people, have left the project." Pproctor 00:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, OK. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jim here - why precisely did you feel it appropriate to paste this very long quote on my talk page? Please be concise with your answer - thanks much. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers!
Thanks for the words of wisdom, mate! hoopydink Conas tá tú? 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * you are more than welcome, and let me know if I can ever be of help - KillerChihuahua?!? 00:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur
I was wondering why you reverted my edit. Origin does not normally indicate a birthplace but rather the location most synonymous with a person. I was only trying to make the infobox more easily legible, as to have the City, State on the same rather rather than having it wrapped onto the next line. Also, the Birth Name in the infobox should be changed because later on in the article it explains that his birth name was indeed Tupac Amaru Shakur and only a year after his birth was it changed to Lesane Parish Crooks out of fear that he might be associated to his mother using the same last name. I have no animosity towards you, I was just curious in your reasoning behind the revert. --Zimbabweed 17:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think instead of "Birth name" it should say "Name" License2Kill 21:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Its determined by the template at Infobox musical artist. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobel controversies
Why do you keep reverting without discussing on the talk page. In this last one, I looks as if I was changing what I had originally posted when you were also changing the same entry at the same time,  apparently without reading what I had posted. See my notes on the talk page as to why this new posting meets all the requirements for WK:NPOV, etc. Not that the other one did not, BTW.

Also, what do you know about the history of conductive organic polymers? Or the history of science in general? Yes, I know that in the context of Wikipedia,  this does not matter. Just asking.

Also, why pick on my posts, which,  as far as I can tell, completely meet all the guidelines? If you haven't noticed, hardly any of the claims on Noble controversies have any documentation at all. Multiple clear violations of WK:NOR. If you look at the 'history" of the page, about the only documentation for the other claims was also provided by me incidentally. Being clearly singled out like this makes me worry about ulterior motives.   If you are trying to make a point,  you have already made it.

While there is not a "Cabal" on Wikipedia, there are clearly cliques. Maybe even multiple sockpuppets, an easy thing to do. I seem to have fallen afoul of something. Sorry if I have offend you and your gang by inadvertantly intruding on your turf, for which I heartily repent. Now please lay off and let me get back to the real work of editing this puppy. Otherwise, we are all going to keep going round and round. A waste of everyones time. Pproctor 16:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Your additions have been thoroughly disputed on the article talk page. Until and unless you have some support, you are engaging in tenditious editing by continuing to add them. Currently, you have NO support. The onus is on you to post convincing rationale on the talk page for inclusion, not on me to repeat what has been said already.
 * 2) Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet? Of whom? Please request a checkuser at WP:RFCU or stop making such nonsensical accusations.
 * 3) My "gang" is Wikipedia. My "turf" is Wikipedia. By adding spurious content against consensus, you are indeed intruding on my turf.
 * 4) If by "lay off" you mean go away so you can keep edit warring against consensus, the answer is no. Cease your disruptive behavior. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not according to the various histories. They say my edits have been only "throughly disputed" by the same usual suspects who post over on e.g. Creationism and related sites with you,  apparently because I attempted to inject a little NK:NPOV at Raymond Damadian.   And this has happened over and over.  As for "sockpuppets",  a different IP number means nothing in the face of multiple proxy servers.  So who knows,  except if you meet the subject personally.


 * As Concensus makes clear, such a concerted action by an organized group of editors is "not a concensus".   It is also a forbidden practice to gang up or enlist others to promote a particular POV. It is not WK:tendentious editing to edit in the fact of such practices. So lay off Pproctor 16:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are a troll. You are making unfounded accusations and warning me to "lay off". I am giving you notice - any further posts of yours to this talk page will be removed. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Tupac's Ashes
Hi KillerChihuahua - thank you for adding to the conversation about Tupac's ashes on the Tupac Talk Page. I think maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to argue. I do want to include a statement about the desire of Tupac's family to spread his ashes in Soweto next year. What I am suggesting is that we remove references to Nelson Mandela and the South African Government being at the event in 2007, as this information is simply not verifiable. Here is what I suggest the statement should read: "Family and friends plan to spread the remaining ashes in Soweto, South Africa, on June 16, 2007 which is Shakur's 36th birthday" which is verifiable by multiple sources. If you look at the Tupac Talk page, I have surveyed the South African media (I live in South Africa) and have found no mention of Mandela being at the event next year (or that he was even planning on being there this year) in any of the articles (8 of them). If you look at the Pretoria News article that you cited, it makes no mention of Mandela. What I think is happening here is one user has gotten an idea in his/her head of what should be in the article, and is searching for individual sources to verify his/her own ideas, which as we know, is a very poor way to conduct research. On the internet, one can find justification for just about anything. Rather we should survey many sources, and summarize the findings from these multiple sources, which is a much more reliable way to conduct research. I would appreciate your continued input, as this user has reverted my justifiable edits 3 times now, and has left less than civil comments on my talk page. I think the issue needs some input from a 3rd (and 4th etc) party. Thank you. - Jason Lionchow 08:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll respond on the article talk page - thanks much for the clarification. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Cheers, Jason Lionchow.

Baiting Nonsense
I really do object you the message you have left upon my talk page. You have no business interfering in a conversation between me and Guy Chapman. He left me a very provocative and extremely rude (however you interpret it) note and I responded accordingly. Chelsea Tory 14:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You're on a wiki. All conversations are public and the public may indeed comment. Saying I had "no business interfering" is demonstrating a complete lack of comprehension of where your conversation is taking place. E-Mail conversations are private. Talk page conversations on Wikipedia are public. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of interest
see Comments regarding Sadi Carnot:


 * Ah, so you (User:Sadi Carnot) misused Admin tools, eh? (Yes, the protect tag is only for admins). This shall prove to be interesting, I think.  (Name added for clarity)


 * From WP:PPOL
 * Administrators have the ability to protect pages so that they cannot be edited, or images so that they cannot be overwritten, except by other administrators. Administrators can also protect pages from moves only. Administrators have the additional ability to protect pages from being edited by unregistered or very new users.


 * These abilities are only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful.


 * Admins must not protect pages they are actively engaged in editing, except in the case of simple vandalism.


 * Clearly an RfC is in order here, if not an RfA. I've contacted several Admins to get their opinion on how best to deal with your behaviour.  BTW: KillerChihuahua, the person you reverted, is an admin.  As I said, this shall prtove interesting, I think.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Being an admin or not being an admin makes no difference so far as editing goes; however, Sadi's actions are a different matter. I hesitate to encourage an Rfc. I have warned him about misuse of the tag on the article talk page, and explained that even if he could protect it would be highly inappropriate to protect a page you had been editing and completely irresponsible to protect a preferred version. Hopefully, he'll get the clue. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that, and I very much value your counsel in this matter. Thank you.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I assumed that since I the tag saved on the edit that I had the rights to use it. Whatever the case, being that this page been reverted close to a dozen times, by multiple seasoned editors, someone should have put a lock on the page long ago so that we could discuss issue properly on the talk page. There are so many issues that are awry here, e.g. self-promotion, intelligent-design issues, divine intervention comments and edits, using multiple reference links to the same website over using standard article or textbook references, using months and 100s of kilobytes of talk page space to debate someone’s pet theory, using talk page space to argue that laws of science are false, etc., that this whole situation is making a mockery the Wikipedia science section.  --Sadi Carnot 11:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Lambert
I don't get the the parallel to WMC. WMC never tried to get an article on himself or get himselft mentioned in an article. The article William Connolley was created by his nemesis User:Ed Poor.

I cede that the situation isn't much helped by User:Sadi Carnot, obviously he and Lambert have collided before.

Pjacobi 11:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Concur; either they've collided or Sadi simply strongly disagrees with Lambert's theories/work. That Sadi is misusing tags and attacking other editors does not help his case.
 * I merely point out that providing ones bona fides on a talk page hardly qualifies as self-promotion; if he's editing his own article then that is a separate issue. The parallel is not absolute; it is that attacking notable editors as self-promoters is harmful to Wikipedia, unless there is a clear case of self-promotion, in which case that should be addressed at the appropriate article: in this case, the Frank Lambert article. I can see where there would be a concern about undue weight; that can surely be addressed on the Entropy talk page without accusing Lambert or dismissing his publication list, yes? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I now re-checked: Both Frank Lambert and Entropy (energy dispersal) have been started by User:Sadi Carnot. The latter, assuming good faith, to keep the main article article Entropy free from the Lambert-theory. Not a good idea.
 * What triggered my self promotion reflex wasn't so much Talk:Entropy but his campaigning against the AfD.
 * Perhaps judging prematurely, I'm not seeing a case of Conolly, but of Hewitt emerging.
 * Anyway, I'll be cautious regarding NPA.
 * Pjacobi 12:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadi apparently started the Frank Lambert article as a mild attack article, and your AGF conclusion regarding Entropy (energy dispersal) still leaves that as created as a POV fork. Even his initial Frank Lambert article states "His work has been discussed in some chemistry books." which shows that in spite of his campaign to present Lambert as wholly self-published on the web, Sadi is aware that is inaccurate. The entire thing smacks of a campaign to discredit Lambert, who clearly is notable and published and cited well beyond a self-published website and a professorship. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgot to comment on the Hewitt parallel: if Lambert begins to edit war, adding content without strong support on the Entropy article or the Entropy (energy dispersal) article, then we can suggest to him that he limit himself to talk pages on those articles. He has made no edits to either Frank Lambert or to Entropy (energy dispersal), which would be the case if he were a Hewitt parallel. I show that in the last 500 edits to Entropy, Lambert has made 10 edits to the Entropy article. Sadi has made 76. This is not a Hewitt situation. Sadi may be in violation of WP:OWN on the Entropy article. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: KC, this is not a content issue. The tag issue is not vandalism; it was the first time I used it and did not know I was in the wrong.  User:Frank Lambert has been trying to bias the entropy article, via argument Talk:Entropy page, with his personal views, for almost a half a year now, e.g. see the following archives:
 * Archive: Talk:Entropy/Archive2 [(Apr)'06-(Jul)'06], 165 kilobytes
 * Archive: Talk:Entropy/Archive3 [(Jul)'06-(Sep)'06], 116 kilobytes
 * Archive: Talk:Entropy/Archive4 [(Sep)'06-(Oct)'06], 95 kilobytes
 * He basically wants the whole entropy article written according to his perspective and theories; yet there is a clear consensus, e.g. Jheald, Yevgeny Kats, PAR, Nonsuch, Pjacobi, Byrgenwulf, User:Linas that his theories are not mainstream, and should not be included in the article. --Sadi Carnot 12:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. He has made ten edits to your 76. Listing other editors who may agree with you, and ignoring editors who do not, such as Dave souza, one of our best science editors, does not make you somehow right. This is not a case of mob rule. Consensus never trumps NPOV. You created a POV fork and an attack article, you have now attacked Jim62sch (a prolific editor with at least two Featured articles to his credit) and Dave souza, a very well respected science editor, and posted "facts" you knew were false on the Entropy (energy dispersal) Afd, and posted a content dispute on the AN noticeboard. That you have also misused a tag and been made aware of that does not even remotely affect whether your other actions and positions are appropriate or within Wikipedia guidelines. Red herrings are useless here. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Spammer!
TLA Admin

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TLA_Admin&action=edit

Keeps spamming his links on the Tupac Shakur page and the 2Pac TBA License2Kill 17:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC).


 * I see no contributions by this user since Oct 10th, when he was warned by HawkerTyphoon. Let me know if it starts up again - thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an old message but just added my name to it now License2Kill 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

reply on FYI
I replied on my talk page: User_talk:Reinoutr. Regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Welcome back
Thank you. I had some vacation, Disneyland, Hollywood, China Town in L.A. and finally a day at Melrose Beach. Take care, Cheers! Tony the Marine 00:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

JA
Not clear yet; I'm keeping an eye on it. Jayjg (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

de Coucy
I reverted it because you moved En. III claiming that you were matching it with all the others. In fact, only one other had his name in that form (now fixed), and all the links on the Lord of Coucy page were to "X N, Lord of Coucy" forms. So I assumed it was just a lazy and thoughtless edit (btw, I moved VII and moved back III, not the other way around). Sorry if you got offended. My explanation is that, besides the fact that "de Coucy" is not English (should be "of Coucy" in English), the general guidelines promote the "X N, Title of Y" format. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not addressing what I stated - I clearly said I had no problem with the edit you made, only with your edit summary. Now you tell me you "assumed it was just a lazy and thoughtless edit"?!? AGF much do you? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

theory of truth
yeah... disregard my entry, at the time i was, as ALI G might say "WELL 'IGH ON SOME KILLA GANGA".Anon-o-man 21:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... ok, I think. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs to Be Banned
User Robert2TLA is obviously a user coming back with a second username trying to use Wikipedia to add links to his site. He keeps spamming Pac's Life with his links and removing others in order to get people to his site. This is his second username and he has been warned before many times License2Kill 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have left a standard spam warning. Let me know if Robert2TLA or 72.49.195.222 adds the link again. And don't bite so hard; he may be a fan who just needs to learn a little more about what is allowable on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

He has been warned before by another Wikipedia admin and this is his second account. He know's what he is doing, he's trying to use Wikipedia to advertise. Thanks for the quick response. License2Kill 22:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * NP, I can always block if he continues. I hope he decides to abide by the rules instead. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW Thanks
Thanks for your offer of support and we will take gladly any help that's offered. Currently I'm trying to set in place means of getting this task done as quickly as possible, with then plans to turn it from a project to a policy unit. These warnings, etc have been a millstone around the neck of Wikipedia for quite some time, and I would like it to be out of the way in the next two to three months. So please book mark the WP:UW page including my Ideas and it's talk page, add them to your watch lists and keep an eye on it. But more importantly as an admin and someone who's been around here for a while, it's not the specifically the hard graft we need but your insight and thoughts are especially appreciated. Cheers Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 15:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for resolving that issue for me. :) :: Colin Keigher 20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No one resloved it for me-- What Injustice!
Large spam message, complete with hate message and legal threats, removed. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yikes
Were you really bitten by a Brown Recluse, puppy? It sounds dramatic ("necrosis" is a charged word if I've ever heard one), but I guess it wasn't much fun. Sympathies. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I was, just above the left elbow. No necrosis and I think I'm past the danger point. Nasty icky looking place on my arm though, and they tell me they're slow to heal, so I'll be hurting and itching for a while. Remind me to tell you about the weird things I've had and the odd things which have bitten me, sometime. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nasty! Glad you're doing well. -- Donald Albury 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, a chihuahua's elbows are only like 3 inches off the ground. ;)  Good thing the wound isn't necrotic, though.  Bark, woof woof!   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind thoughts... no comment to the shortness that is me. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The dove looking off the page
It is Bish's decision which bird, but the dove faces off the page. Nice job making that by the way. The code is easy to change as you know, just substitute left for right and it will no longer be looking off the page. DVD+ R/W 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it looking right, and don't see that as looking off the page any more than looking left, but if you feel it would be an improvement please go ahead and change the direction the bird is flying. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha, you didn't make it. I was going to ask how you painstakingly cropped out the background from each still. I've seen the pic looking off the page argument happen a couple of times, and didn't mean to start something like that. Sorry. Maybe both birds would be nice. I just wanted to say that I noticed. Best, DVD+ R/W 01:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness no, I didn't make that one. However, I wouldn't crop anyway: I'd select and fill, and make transparant. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW help
Hi KC,

You recently said you were willing to help with the user message and template harmonistion program. We will be starting the actual changes, we hope within the next week. But prior to that, what we would like from yourself is instead of an evening of vandal fighting or patrolling recent changes, you monitor the RC page for those actually doing the reverts and leaving user page messages. We would like to make as many people aware of the fact that the templates they use are going to change. If you could seek out the RCP's and Cut n Paste the following message to their talk page that would be appreciated, or reworded as you see fit. Thanks for your time. Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 09:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

 ==Upcoming template changes== 

''Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards ~ ''

Being Stalked by User
In September you stepped in because I have been routinely stalked by a user named Arniep. This person insists on labeling me a "Sock Puppet" and every time I have tried to talk to him or her directly and tried to go through proper channels, but they refuse to respond and instead trash me and attack me. You stepped in and reverted Arniep's continued attacks on me and now the other day it appears he or she has started up again and re-labled me. Why is this allowed? What have I ever done to this person? Mostly I just read the topics here. I haven't even contributed since you last stepped in. I read that this Arniep does this with others that he/she is a bully that thinks he/she can decide the fate of all. If you can do anything, please do. As it is, I am really disappointed that someone can get away with that kind of bully mentality. I really thought that wikipedia was supposed to be about being a community of respect. Icemountain2 16:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have warned him I will block him for harassment if he re-places the sock template. Let me know if he does. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua there absolutely is evidence that this user is a sockpuppet troll. As far am I aware you were not involved in the controversy before so you are probably not aware of what this user was suspected of doing. Please do not be so quick to lose your civility. Thanks Arniep 21:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was perfectly civil, and I mean what I say. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no you weren't. You instantly believed this user against me because of our past disagreement and claimed I was harrassing them. That is unacceptable. Arniep 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not uncivil. That's your suspician that I am biased. You are wrong, both in that I am biased, and that I was uncivil. Further, I still mean what I said. I have seen no evidence, and you have been told not to harass this user any further by replacing a tag which has been removed several times, by two different admins. If you suspect sockpuppetry make a case on AN or RFCU, do NOT replace the tag again or I will block you. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you were uncivil as you straight away threatened to block me without even asking for evidence or asking me why I was reinstating the tag. Regards Arniep 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the tag was reinstated by Thatcher and if you noticed he didn't remove it after I readded it. The evidence should have been linked to from the sockpuppet tag but I forgot to do this- it is linked on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Paramountpr. Regards Arniep 21:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) That makes four times you've been wrong on this page today. 1) I was not uncivil. 2) I am not acting from bias. 3) Telling you I will block you if you harass another user is still not being uncivil. 4) Thatcher131 removed the tag, not reinstated it, from the history I'm looking at. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule against arrogance? If not it's a pity. The fact is you immediately believed the other user's claim that I was harrassing them without even attempting to talk to me or discuss it with me. Once again you can't admit you made a mistake. Arniep 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Two points: You don't know what I believed or did not, and once again? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Arnie, in no way was KC uncivil. Nor was she arrogant.  Nor are your actions jusdtified at this point in time.  Have you requested an RFCU?  Probably not.  Absent such proof you are just another chicken clucking in the barnyard.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Jim, you know nothing about this case as far as I know and I stand by my assertions above. I know that KC believed I was harrassing this user as she threatened to block me for it without even questioning what this user was saying. I am extremely offended by these accusations as I was awarded a defender of the wiki barnstar in relation to this and I absolutely do know what I am talking about in relation to the RL Travolta case. I had not requested a check user as I had thought the activities had ended so I thought it was unnecessary. Arniep 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't have to ask anyone for what was clear to see in histories and contributions. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Icemountain2 was one of a suite of user accounts that existed almost entirely to promote Rikki Lee Travolta as (a) the unacknowledged half-brother or something to John Travolta; (b) fan favorite to be the next James Bond, twice; (c) a top-5 Broadway draw, and (d) set to star as Thor in a comic book movie adaptation. None of these assertions could be backed up be reliable sources; essentially RLT is a small-time Chicago area off-Broadway stage actor, and all the other claims came from blogs, his IMDB bio (written by his agent), a foreign news web site that allows anyone to submit unverified press releases, and the two TV guide polls which mysteriously (as TV guide itself said) named this unknown guy as the fans favorite to be the next James Bond.  The only thing RLT seems to be top-5 at is astroturfing.  (see also Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta)
 * I don't know if the RLT promoters were true sockpuppets, or friends, or fans, but they were all clearly single purpose accounts and often obnoxious about it. If Icemountain is back adding RLT as a cast member of some movie, that should be held to the usual standard of verifiability (no blogs or fan rumor sites).  On the other hand, I don't think there is any real value in forcing the account to wear a sign around its neck saying its a sockpuppet of someone, so I would suggest to Arnie that he back off a bit and stick to watching Icemountain's edits for verifiability.  (Probably every editor has run into at least a couple single purpose accounts with a history of dubious edits.  What Wikipedia seems to lack is a mechanism to track, watch, and inform other editors that is milder and less potentially offensive than slapping a sockpuppet tag on the user's own talk page.) Thatcher131 00:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Icemountain2 has not started re-adding RLT. His sole contributions since this mess have been a vandalism revert and an addition, with sources, of an attorney's statement on Sept. 23 which lasted until an anon removed it, with no explanation, on October 15. Both edits were valid; neither had anything to do with RLT. I am willing to AGF and say this account may have started as a meat-puppet, and is a Travolta fan, and may become a good contributor if not bitten. I see no evidence this editor is acting as a sock or meat puppet at this time. I could be wrong; but there is no evidence otherwise currently. Until there is, there is no reason to harass this user because of suspicians. The evidence is simply too slight. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no need to make a fuss over Icemountain2 at this time. Thatcher131 00:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, that was my thought as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My sincere thanks. I'm not looking for problems. I am a Travolta fan and make no attempt to hide it but if comments about a few family members creates problems I just don't talk about them.  I'm not here for problems. I've tried to talk to the stalker and they refuse - so be it, I left them alone.  I'm just here to be a part of the community.  Thank you for letting me do just that, be a part of the community - what Wikipedia is about. Icemountain2 03:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry for putting lyrics in the talk page. I won't do that again- SCB '92
 * No problem. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ). KillerChihuahua?!? 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

User Insulted Me
What do I do? A user on my talk page insulted me. The user is Pedro12 License2Kill 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC) I left a warning on his page on October 29. The place to report insults and attacks is WP:PAIN. This one has been dealt with, though, so no need to add it. You can always just remind them that Wikipedia has a policy of being civil and not making attacks - as long as you're polite about it, it hopefully won't escalate the situation. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help. License2Kill 22:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

you were right all along...
I didn't know about the ancient and mystic history of the schools debate.

Why doesn't someone just make school pages into a separate Wiki? Then we would all be happy. They could do whatever they wanted without any hassle, since they would have their own space to fill as they like...--Ling.Nut 23:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, like most ancient and mystic histories, it has become a True Cause to support and defend whatever side you're on. There are those who state clearly they realize not all schools are notable - yet they automatically vote "Keep per WP:SCHOOLS" on every afd anyway. It used to be colleges, then high schools, now, heaven help us, it is the elementary schools. Cruft. The good news is that Wikipedia is not paper, and the world will not end if we're buried in school stubs for completely non-notable little schools. It is analogous to having an article about every ice skating rink - Madge Syers, Dorothy Hamill, and Michelle Kwan only practiced at a few, but hey! All ice skating rinks are notable because skaters learn to skate there. Only schools are even less notable, because (at least in the US and GB) they are mandatory, so everyone went to a school, making them more ubiquitous. I would say the only exception is home schooling, which is rare anyway, but recently a homeshcooling group had an article. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've come to realize that the question of whether some very ordinary elementary school in a very ordinary suburb deserves its own article is pretty small potatoes when we have a number of editors who feel that Wikipedia cannot be a quality encyclopedia without an amply illustrated article about every slang term for a sexual act. -- Donald Albury 13:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. There are much more worthy issues and uses of our time - but I will continue opposing a policy which basically states "all schools are notable." Othewise, I'm too busy explaining why MySpace and blogs are not usually reliable sources for such things as conspiracy theories, and why we cannot allow extreme minority positions on scientific subjects primary treatment in articles, and why we cannot have "Abortion is MURDER because GOD says so!" as the intro to the Abortion article. Have fun with those slang sexual acts, Dal - I don't envy you that job. Maybe we should start a school for slang sexual acts, then it would have an article, then we could merge all those terms into the school article, yes? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If we merge all of the school and sex slang articles into one big article, do you think it would be big enough to form a black hole? -- Donald Albury 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think the mass index will be high enough to suck in all the "My pet" and "My garage band" and "My classmate is a (offensive sexual term)" articles? Lovely dream... KillerChihuahua?!? 14:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, I don't think the policy is that all schools are notable. It's that notability doesn't apply to schools.  A subtle difference that I cherish.  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Your Signature
The link in my signature goes to a page that has a link to my userpage and talk page. I will change it though G e o. 01:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that - but I much appreciate your consideration for others in not making them go through your Esperanza page before reaching you. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Davescot
appears to be Dave evading his block. The location and ISP are identical to the other IP. JoshuaZ 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MfD comment
thanks for making your comment with delete on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admin school. I had not realized I had been so unclear. I have clarified my position, as I certainly did not mean to assert one cannot learn. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can find my response there as well. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Replied on user talk page as discussion has been fragmented. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Puppy with a mop!
Thanks for cleaning up the personal attacks on my talk page Evidently someone in Manchester thinks poorly of us. :) Justin Eiler 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no problem whatsoever - and the Manchesterian is in serious error in his or her poor opinion of you - One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for accidentally reverting your page. I was also on the trail of Mr./Ms. Manchester and in angrily deleting the vandalism must not have noticed I was in a diff, rather than the appropriate  current version.  Thanks for thwacking the vandal with your mop! --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

re: nom
OK! OK! I'm having trouble keeping up with things as it is, but then who would notice if I fall a day or two behind on my watchlist? -- Donald Albury 15:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your message
Did you have a question to ask me? I'd hate to think you were wikistalking me. Arniep 00:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A rather bold assertion without any data to back it up. Seems to me the request was to archive given the length of the page -- perhaps I'm missing something.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes you're missing the fact that after a previous dispute KC followed me to a page she had never edited and took the side of the person who was disputing my edit. Arniep 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Arniep, see Wikistalking. I have not ever wikistalked anyone, which consists of following an editor from one article to another and editing in opposition to the target's edits. As I have edited 3074 unique articles, and do RC patrol from time to time, and have at most edited 2 or 3 of the same articles you have edited, your charge of wikistalking for a perfectly civil request on your talk page to archive your talk page is inaccurate at best and a personal attack at worst. Perhaps you would care to re-examine your accusation and retract? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why were you looking at my page at all when our dispute ended a number of days ago? Arniep 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Arniep, respond to what KC has written, not to some nonsense floating around in your head. Have you, given the definition of wikistalking, any evidence to back up your claim.  If not, stop dancing and retract your accusation.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Harassment"
Hehe.. I figured as much. :) Cheers, Fang Aili talk 14:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Words of wisdom
Thank you for the words of wisdom. They made me laugh and they're useful. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you got a chuckle from that. I meant what I said tho! If you need any help, let me know and I will help if I can. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the offer, and I will! — Saxifrage ✎ 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Award
In appreciation of your efforts to keep userpages free from the annoyance of spinning, twinkling, and flapping animations, I award you this cute little fellow. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC).
 * ROFL, its a LIVE bird! Which flaps and hops (but thankfully does not spin or twinkle!) thanks, Bishy. I'll... well, I'll probably shoot it one of these days. *grin* KillerChihuahua?!? 02:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RFCU warranted?
From the William Connolley article mess, I believe that user:Sarah Williams is a sock of User:MarkThomas.

If you look at Sarah's contribution history and edits, he has done nothing but support MarkThomas in editorial disputes, his first two edits are to add Interiot's tool and popups to his monobook ( and ) and his next edit was to evade 3rr for Mark here. And he's still doing it. Does this fall under obvious abusive sock that can be blocked on sight by an admin, or should I file a RFCU?? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 10:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside any considerations of the above-mentioned dispute, as an aside: there's nothing borderline about Phil Woods - he easily fulfils notability requirements. Guy Hatton 10:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * yes that was actually kindof my point (Woods).
 * As far as checkuser, make a request at RFCU. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is clearly a sock or meat account, though... hrm. Lemme think about this one. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Sarah is my girlfriend and not a sockpuppet, but I realise from the way these things are analysed this would be difficult to tell! Short of getting her own separate internet connection, presumably there's nothing we can do about this? MarkThomas 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have her note it on her user page, and note it on yours, that you are two different people who share internet access. That will at least make it clear that you are aware of how it looks. However, even if not a sock, she could be percieved as a meatpuppet. It would be best if you edit different articles, expecially if they are articles which have content disputes. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Puppy howling
You beat me to it...good bark you got there, puppy!--MONGO 11:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks! I try. It does not seem to have had any effect - the only part he noticed was the Jimbo quote, and he didn't bother to look at the sig. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

?Of course I noticed who it was from. Why is that important exactly? Am I missing some Admin cabal in-joke here? I am just still in a state of astonishment at the extent to which Jimbo Wales, and you, his personal assistants, are willing to break the rules of WP willy-nilly to support a buddy's vanity page. The patrol thing is nonsense - of the two cases you cite, one is clearly not a vanity page. The puppy should maybe take a leak. MarkThomas 11:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Then why did you say "tjstrf has also stated that Jimbo Wales is firmly in favour of this page"?
 * 2) I'm not Jimbo's personal assistant. That you could say that shows a gross misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, and the role of admins.
 * 3) I have broken no rules. Retract your accusation as an unwarrented personal attack, or post evidence.
 * 4) WMC is not a "buddy" of mine. I don't even know him. Your personal accusations with no evidence are mounting.
 * 5) That was my point, see above. Apparently a poorly made point, as the only two comments I've recived on that took the post the same way you did.
 * 6) "Take a leak"? Personal rudness and incivility, possible personal attack #3, albeit borderline. Is there a reason you are trolling here? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for my over-reactions and general flameage over all this, guess I got a bit too heated up. Thanks for intervening intelligently in it all. Also apologies for the chimp photo thing. :-) I will now go back to editing humanities articles where (most of the time) I get to stay a little calmer! MarkThomas 09:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted - you might want to bookmark WP:CHILL - the world really will not end tomorrow if something isn't fixed today. And good call on focusing on articles which you don't have such a strong position - I often reccomend people edit articles they don't care much about, for that very reason. Easy to stay calm if you have no strong feelings one way or the other. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

AU
My edits on the page "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" were not personal views.

The article claims AU is a "religious freedom advocacy group". However, in many cases they have fought AGAINST religious freedom. This article is biased, and is presenting a signle opinion as FACT. I'm simply trying to show the other point of view. By editing out my additions, you are censoring out one side of this issue, thereby harming the credibility of the article.

For the sake of your own personal integrity, please re-add my edits so that this article may have some modicum of credibility, instead of being an advertisement for AU. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.241.167.89 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Must be a full moon. ;-P   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, but it is Mercury Retrograde :-) --Kathryn NicDhàna 00:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Books
I just realised... Thanks. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 09:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

lyrics
Am I allowed to create a lyric article?- SCB &#39;92 12:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends. If its copyrighted, no. If it is not, then you can, on Wikisource. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So I can't write a song that already exists?- SCB &#39;92 12:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not the lyrics, no, not if it is copyrighted. That would be copyright infringement. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

???
What the hell is with all the chickens?!!!^^%#&*&%#^#!!!!?? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * its an "Award" for diligently removing annoying animated gifs. *sigh*. Bishonen has a sick, sick sense of humor. Of course, since I replaced her annoying animated flapping bird with an image of dead birds.... I feel like I almost deserve Jr. Hoppy-Flappy-Cheerful up there. See above, section User talk:KillerChihuahua KillerChihuahua?!? 12:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I should add that it was one bird, until Bunchofgrapes noticed I'd replaced his annoying flappy bird with a tasteful image of grapes. He multiplied mine in rebuke. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your honor, I object. Let the record show that my aesthetically pleasing multiplying came shortly after this edit instead. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Overruled! The court finds that annoying flappy birds are indeed grounds for substitition and recriminations: KillerChihuahua?!? 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You honor, the prosecution regrets it must now drop the current case and refile in criminal court; KillerChihuahua will be facing the very serious charge of first-degree boidicide. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had noticed that it appeared to be a tit-for-tat exchange by admins behaving badly. ;)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  14:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * badly? What badly? We cannot ever have any fun? Bah, go read your ancient latin or tagalog or whatever your current language is. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Licet bovi, non licet Iovi aut divorum minorum. Pbbbttthhhhhhhhhhht!   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In englitch, pls? (englitch NOT typo) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi there KillerChihuahua, thanks for your words of wisdom! I'll definitely keep them in mind while going after the puppies:) -- Lost (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A thousand humble apologies
Aw crap, I can't believe this. I've followed your work since before I started editing WP, and you're on my list of "Editors to learn from". Now our first interaction together and I pissed you off. Please accept my apologies, along with a brief explanation: I posted to Judderman85 because on an article Talkpage he ahd expressed uncertainty and a reluctance to be bold. I just wanted to provide him with useful info and links, and give him a bit of encouragement. I'm truely sorry that you were insulted by my post, and the way I formatted the page. While hoping that Judderman85 won't object to further screwing around with his Talkpage, I'm going to revert myself. I didn't realize that a second welcome was such poor form. Again, I apologize. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: In order to avoid removing your second edit, I simply deleted my message manually, rather than revert the page itself. I hope that clears things up. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries, and you didn't have to revert (remove) - I would put it back except we really will confuse poor Judderman85. I take it the post you were thinking of was Talk:Abortion? I thought your encouragement there was excellent.
 * I am humbled and honored I'm an "editor to learn from" - I hope I am worthy of emulation. If I ever err, however, do not hesitate to let me know! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whew, glad it's not a problem. Just so you know, I wasn't bullshitting KC. You are one of several admins that I watch and try to learn from, hoping that I'll be a good admin myself one day. In particular, I've seen any number of situations on contentious Talkpages where you maintain a cool and reasonable demeanor while firmly rebutting nonsense. And of course there's your traditional closing "...just one pup's opinion" - always good for a smile :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly try to maintain a calm and reasonable demeanor, but text being what it is, sometimes what I type reads differently to others than I intend. Glad you like the closing - it helps put a little perspective in and humor always helps lesson tension. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to the tool, that promises to be useful! BTW - how much for a "Flo Night" bumper sticker? She's another name in my "White Hats" file :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 03:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bumper Stickers?
--FloNight 00:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * YES! I'll order them immedjetlee! Happy puppy! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * lol. Fast work! Do you get out in your puppyhouse on the water much these days? (just noticed it in your template, never know what you will find on Flickr.) FloNight 00:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I LOVE my puppyhouse, but alas, haven't had time to go out much recently. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
KillerChihuahua, very thanks for your valuable suggestions and congratulations. Shyam ( T / C ) 06:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your advertisement
Would you mind changing the style of your advertisement User:KillerChihuahua/UserForFlo so that it doesn't overwrite important information on the web pages it appears on? Also, that advertisement would be better placed on a user page rather than a user talk page. Talk pages are for discussion. —Psychonaut 09:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you've just made the change. Thanks a lot for fixing that. —Psychonaut 09:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflic) Already did. It does not cover anything for me, would you please clear cache and let me know if it is still causing issues for you? Also, do not vandalize my talk page again. I would have appreciated it had you told me it was causing you problems; however, your removal and edit summary leave much to be desired by way of civility. In short, you should have told me there was a problem first. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was about to leave a message about the change I made and why, but you reverted it before I had the chance. My change was not vandalism, but was rather a good-faith edit intended to rectify a problem.  (Note also from Help:Talk page: "…keep in mind that your user talk page has the important function of allowing other editors to communicate with you. People will get upset if they cannot use it for that purpose.") —Psychonaut 10:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua, why did you change your advertisement back to the disruptive version? Please get rid of the CSS positioning. The advertisement is overwriting the Wikipedia navigation box and/or the toolbox. Please see Image:KillerChihuahua Advertisement.png. —Psychonaut 10:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't change it back. Check history. Are you getting a cached version, or is the current version over-writing? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No I changed it back. Sorry, DVD+ R/W 10:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that and reverted with edit summary explaining the problem. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Grrrr, I liked it better before. I don't think it is disruptive - that still and the overwrite comment are misleading because the page scrolls. DVD+ R/W 10:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Forcing a user to scroll a page in order to bypass an advertisement is disruptive, IMHO. —Psychonaut 10:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies; it got changed back and I assumed it was you who had made the change. Checking the history, it was indeed DVD R W who modified the page. —Psychonaut 10:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Always verify. It is good advice in r/l as well as on wp. Verification is your friend; assuming is your enemy. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, apparently not everyone is as thrilled with the bumperstickers as I am. Thanks for placing (and re-placing) one on my page. The hard part for me is in resisting the temptation to slap these on every talkpage in sight, starting with Psychonaut's. (j/k, it's a strong temptation, but I am stronger). --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Guettarda stole one, and Psychonaut didn't get a lot of sympathy on the pump. Interestingly enough, one of the comments was about humor "has yet to be banned". That kindof ended the discussion so far as I can tell. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, it only ended the discussion until you brought it to my attention. I just wanted you to see my new sig before I chnage it back :) --Doc "vote Flo Night for ArbCom" Tropics Message in a bottle 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO, but seriously, change it. That is blatant campaigning and is Frowned Upon. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries, just a quick joke. This has been a much needed break from the stresses of RCP and editing contentous articles. Thanks for your patience and good humor. I'll get back to work now :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

kc
Hey, over on the historicity of Jesus article I got a bit jumpy in one of my comments, and only realized this after I wrote it - sorry about that, I tried to rework in your concerns. Lostcaesar 15:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries. Its a difficult article to edit. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

"RUIN"?
Is there some in-group meaning of "RUIN" that I am potentially missing, in the bumper sticker or otherwise? Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I blush to confess it involves silverware articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the congrats and the words of wisdom. :-) Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  01:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Images in the Dawkins article
Just to avoid starting a discussion about on the talk page. You're right about the images not messing up the flow of the article. On a screen resolution of 1024x768 px the text flow is fine, I tend to run a far more higher resolution and then the flow isn't that streamlined. But 1024x768px being more or less the standard resolution nowadays so I think there's no debate necessary on the talk page. It would keep us from defending ourselves against allegations of being militant Dawkins disciples trying to zealously censor any critique on our Revered Leader. ;-) mensch • t 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * gasp* You mean you're not a card-carrying member of the Sacreddawkins Holycow Intelligentatheistic Theology (SHIT)? But... from the very first edit I was sure you were a god-hating Dawkins sheep like me! If not, how could you possibly oppose those irrelevant quotes from marginally notable Xian apologists? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Prof02 blocked
I have blocked User:Prof02, which should make little practical difference to him, as he prefers to squat on his own talkpage anyway. I have warned him that that page will be protected if he continues making personal attacks on it. Since I have to go out, could you keep an eye on it, please? In case the puppy's not editing of a Sunday, I ask the same of any passing admin. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 11:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I'll be off and on all day, I'll be happy to check, and would much appreciate others also checking. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The block is now FloNight's, Puppy. Please note that the "Compare selected versions" feature is the only realistic way of following prof02's edits and their chronology, as he edits in hundreds upon hundreds of tiny fiddles, without edit summaries (edit summaries being against the UN declaration of human rights, I believe), without timestamps (not sure if that's also a UN issue), and anywhere on the page at any point in time. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Nods, saw that (all.) FloNight is so sweet and positive - the puppy was a bit more harsh. I offered to extend his block if that was what he wanted, as seemed evident from his actions. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for the faith in me to nominate me. Thank you for the congratulations you just left on my page. Thank you for the help you gave me earlier. I now have the mop and I will try to be careful with it. I'll be slow to use the tools at first, and I will be seeking your advice. -- <b style="color:navy;">Donald Albury</b> 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Faith had nothing to do with it, Dal. You were a clear choice for Outstanding Candidate for Admin. I am delighted for your sake that we have so many intelligent and sensible editors on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the overwhelming support you received. As always, if I can ever be of any assistance please let me know. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please pass the patience
Hey Pup, maybe you and/or Severa could give me some patience lessons. It's obviously not my strongest point. I suspect you've read my posts to IP75, and I'll accept your rebuke if you think I've crossed a line. Just tell me how to maintain calm composure in the face of such...stuff. Like you don't have anything else to do :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 01:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CHILLOUT, and repeat to yourself... Wikipedia is just a website. The world will not end tomorrow if something is horribly, horribly wrong on it today. Then go play WoW or something for an hour, or visit the Real World, or whatever it takes to regain your equilibrium. Severa is a good role model. FloNight is a very calm editor and you may wish to "stalk" her for a little bit, and see how she responds to problem editors. Hope this helps! KillerChihuahua?!? 01:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * D'oh, I forgot to chill! I had actually "stalked" Flo and her edit history pretty extensively a couple of months ago, just because she is such good example. I think you're right though, I should go back for a quick refresher course. Thanks for the tips; you've been so nice I'll refrain from making a bumper sticker that says "KC has fleas"--Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good decision! I assure you I am flea-free. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you consider me a "role model," KC. Also, thanks for the positive note regarding my comment on Talk:Richard Dawkins. I'm glad that you consider my input useful. -Severa (!!!) 02:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Where puppy brains?
Brains... puppy brains... where brains...mmmm, brains.... brains... yappy little brains... where brains? Bishonen | talk 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I saw the movie. You kill them, they come back, you make it through the night just to get shot by mistake in the morning. *sigh* Good thing they eat brains... I dun hav eny. Im saf. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. Maybe you just haven't been using them recently? Or maybe, starved for brains, the chicken will also eat watchlists? Bishonen | talk 23:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I could only hope. Mine is far too long. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell happened to the chicken?
Eeewww. Beaten and battered. The other side of the road ain't that interesting. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Pay attention, you missed a chapter. I shot it then Bunchofgrapes and Bishonen got together and brought it back as a zombie. It apparently eats puppy brains. See section immediately above. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I missed the pullicidal rampage. This act shall be upon thy conscience the rest of thy days. Assuming, of course, that a brainless puppy has a conscience.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I swiped your toy KC, it made me laugh :) No worries it might eat my brains...got my head blown clean off by one of the Kaiser's cannon in WWI, been using a mannequin head ever since. I swap it out for a new one every few years to maintain a healthy, youthful appearance. Oh well, I guess if you hadn't deleted it, someone else would have. --Doc  Tropics Message in a bottle 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem
You know, people can vote for more than one candidate, and not all the rest of the candidates are out to ruin Wikipedia -- only some of us...er...them. Geogre 02:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I plan to vote for more than one. Do you want a bumper sticker too? :D KillerChihuahua?!? 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool! You know, I actually specialize in thinking up bumper sticker slogans. My most recent one is, "Don't Blame Me: I Voted on a Diebold Machine." Geogre 11:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Won't work here, you'll have to think of something else. I had planned to make a sub-page with the image and text and links and divs, but Mcginnly and Bishonen have already just copied it, so I think I will leave it as is. I had no idea this would be popular - FloNight's was a kind of inside joke, and 1) a couple of people have it on their page and 2) there was a bit of a flap about it. Then I made one for you, and while I was sleeping two people put it in their pages. I hope I haven't started a trend. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I look good in green, so I guess I'm the Green Party candidate. :-) (My other bumpersticker idea is "Said Yes to Drugs.")  Love the bumper sticker, although, yes, it is wrong.  I can only hope that everyone who sees this realizes that it's done in fun and is not meant to be taken seriously.  (One has to say such things these days, as the number of jokes that have been misunderstood is staggering.)  Geogre 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm hmm
Ping. Bishonen | talk 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC).

Abortion
occured about simultaneously with your last warning so shouldn't get a block yet. JoshuaZ 17:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, may I suggest if the user does get blocked since it is a new user that the block message include a request to discuss the matter on the talk page and/or look at the user's own talk page? JoshuaZ 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh bother. I blocked already, it was 5RR (I reverted again.) Unblock and re-block, do you think? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'm not unhappy I did, by the time I was done it was 7RR. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Beautiful, thanks. Hopefully she'll figure out what a "Talk page" is. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with the puppy) I modified the  blocking message. (My main concern is that I am becomign more convinced than ever that some new users simply don't realize that the you have  new messages bar they get at the top isn't an advertisement or such so I'm trying in such cases to be more helpful with the blocking messages (I'd be less inclined to do so if the change were more blatantly POV as opposed to only moderately POV). JoshuaZ 17:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I think it was blatantly POV, but I agree with the concern that newbies may not realize that bright orange bar is aimed at them, personally. Well done, and hopefully she'll find her talk page, or at least the article talk page once her block expires. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Reply
"If my post on Talk:Evolution seemed a little... well, less than brilliant and possibly even not-quite-civil. I apolgise and offer as explanation that the appalling prospect of rewriting the Lead Sentence of a Featured Article to add weasel-wording to satisfy a ... there, I'm becoming uncivil again. I'd best just apologise and go on my way. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)"
 * No offense taken. What my addition addresses is the strange philosophical difference between fact and truth that many creationist seem to harp on.  Saying that evolution is the cause of biodiversity appears to people to imply some unalterable truth (which of course it is not).  By adding evolution is the only known cause of biodiversity, it suddenly stops being a truth, and becomes a simple fact.  So what many lay people stumble upon when reading Wikipedia articles about science is that they assume all sentences to be unalterable truths (this jump is even easier to make for creationists) when in fact all scientific articles simply speak about known facts.  Do we need to hammer this concept home in every sentence (good God NO), but it gets annoying having to explain it to every creationist that takes offense at it.--Roland Deschain 01:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As a long-time editor of the ID article and related articles, I sympathise with the annoyance factor. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)