User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 12

We agreed?
Forgive the humor, KillerChihuahua, but why does the chorus to the song "Breakfast at Tiffany's" start playing through my head. "Well, at least that's one thing we got". Well, that and the end of Rocky IV.. "if I can change... and you can change... everybody can change!". Seriously, I agree with you, let's let things play out with a mininum of drama and see what ArbCom says when they come back from their discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * lol, I was thinking the same thing - how much weirder could today get? We haven't had much interaction, and have generally disagreed on a very basic level, but we're in lockstep on the absurdity of the Mfd. And its not just the two of us - this situation has given rise to all kinds of variety in people who normally disagree agreeing strongly. Did you see the list on OrangeMarlin's talk page ("Wronged"? and User:Hans Adler - if I understand him correctly, would very much like to see sanctions on OM, is horrified by the situation regarding ArbCom/FT2. The drama and strange bedfellows is beyond all description. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree it could've been handled better. I do think the core message aimed at OM is good (then again, I would, wouldn't I?) but, I think my 8th grade english teacher put it best "+5 for effort, -500 for result"). Hopefully no matter what happens, OM et all (any and all, not exempting anyone on it) can climbdown from the current status and keep things on a civil basis. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Disregarding whether OM needs that message, or a stronger one, or none at all; the methods are worrying, and it appears there is Chaos in ArbComLand. IMO OM has handled it quite well so far; he has not precisely left, although he did voice his (concern? disgust? disbelief? um... fill in the blank) with the SuperSecretMeetingAndDecision. And in that, he has a great deal of company. But he hasn't escalated things nor has he gone WP:POINT-ey. All of which bodes well for the future. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you so very much for the words of kindness and comfort on my talk page, which help sustain me in this terrible period. It is people like you, and deeds such as yours, which help me remember that we at Wikipedia re more than a group of anonymous editors. We are also a family of sorts. Thank you for being part of my family. Jeffpw (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

KC, I wanted to check this with you; I went ahead and did it since Jeff is so devastated:   The images were all jammed up near the top, but there was a big space in the middle, so I moved yours down for a better layout. Please let me know if that's not OK, and I'll move it back. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's fine, thanks for letting me know. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment & request
GNixon, I don't know what you were thinking, but seriously, reconsider and withdraw your attack on Dave on the ID Rfc talk page. I'm truly surprised and horrified to see you indulge in that kind of nastiness, and I know you're usually much above such tactics. I don't know why you're acting so out of character, but please right yourself ok? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Killer, are you referring to this comment ? Gnixon's comment is a reasonable observation based on evidence presented on that page.  I believe you're engaging in a personal attack by accusing someone of a personal attack.  Please don't do it. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but KC is correct in this case. How anyone could find Dave's comment to have been uncivil boggles the mind.  How was it uncivil?  Because it said, very nicely, that people should read the policies and guidelines?  Sorry, but that dog just ain't gonna hunt. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, KC engaged in no personal attack. See the last three sentences above and apply them accordingly.  Thanks.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it a violation of WP:NPA for Cla68 to claim that it is a violation of WP:NPA for KC to claim that it is a violation of WP:NPA for Gnixon to state that Dave souza's polite post was secretly uncivil and hostile?


 * And is it a violation of WP:NPA to notice that it might be a violation of WP:NPA for Cla68 to claim that it is a violation of WP:NPA for KC to claim that it is a violation of WP:NPA for Gnixon to state that Dave souza's polite post was secretly uncivil and hostile?


 * And would it be a violation of WP:NPA to state that it is a violation of WP:NPA to notice that it might be a violation of WP:NPA for Cla68 to claim that it is a violation of WP:NPA for KC to claim that it is a violation of WP:NPA for Gnixon to state that Dave souza's polite post was secretly uncivil and hostile?


 * Wow this could get fun quickly!--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 23:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain we have the same definition of "fun", and I'm absolutely sure that Cla and I don't have the same definition of NPA. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your advice
Good advice indeed. Thanks! :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR/OrangeMarlin
That was Rbj ... per this section. However, in reviewing the Rbj case, I noticed the final straw was Rbj's harassment of OM via IPs. Therefore, it can't be blamed on OrangeMarlin's actions as I suggested earlier. Blueboy96 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, and I see you've amended your statement, thanks. I've added a section to the Evidence talk page as well, in case anyone else is concerned. Thanks again, especially for how promptly you answered and for updating your comment on the Arb page. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ID
Why all warnings about blocking discussants who raise issues on the talk page? The article is currently completely stable. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing ID. The talk page exists to discuss how to improve the article, and that isn't happening. See WP:TPG. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I'm a member of the alleged cabal I've been avoiding this page and most of the ID page too, but things are getting stupid. I'm frankly disappointed that with all the recent attention, no other admin sees fit to intervene. And they wonder why good editors get frustrated? Doc  Tropics  23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The only admin I've seen show up was Gwen, who un-archived one of those useless lengthly OR threads. I am sure she meant well, and hope she sticks around. Otherwise, you're right - not a soul has shown up to see what's going on. I've been asking for more ppl to join the project for some time now, and of course that's going nowhere right now. Feh. We'll carry on as we must, unless ArbCom has completely lost its collective mind and sacks us all. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Maybe there's no admin intervention because, at this point at least, there's no reason to intervene. The discussions I've read there today are well within reasonable bounds.  Where's the emergency?Professor marginalia (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Emergency? I know of no emergency. Where did you see anyone claim an emergency, PM? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point KC, I didn't mean to slight Gwen. I think she's taking the time to familiarize herself with the situation, and that's a very good sign. BTW - it's good to be back on your page agian, I hadn't taken time to pat the puppy in too long. *pat, pat* : ) Doc   Tropics  23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not that there is an emergency. It is that there is just a sustained background of "new users" (some of who might not be so new, and some of who might have been recruited) who appear at the talk page with grand plans for how to rewrite the article. It is only stable because the questions and suggestions of these "new users" are addressed. I have noticed, and I sure everyone else has as well, that if you leave these concerns unaddressed and their questions unanswered, the next step is massive rewriting of the article itself, removal of refernces and all manner of other trouble.

I will note that there have been 300 posts to the talk page in all of June 2008, a slight increase from previous months. And today, July 1, 2008, there have been more than 120 posts to the talk page all in less than 24 hours. And many of these are by 4 "new users" that recently appeared. At least one has already started a thread on AN/I complaining about the talk page. At least one has contributed to an RfAr against a former member of the Intelligent Design Wikiproject. At least 3 of the four have appeared at the Intelligent Design RfC which has nothing to do with the article, and is meant to address purported issues with the Intelligent Design Wikiproject. Nevertheless, they are using this as an opportunity to post long rambling posts about how unhappy they are with the intelligent design article itself.

By the way, the first person to suggest blocking if I am not mistaken was not anyone from the intelligent design article or the Intelligent Design Wikiproject, but Gwen Gale. Typically when editors who are not familiar with controversial articles hear about the disruption, they think "well why can't you just block them?". And so, Gwen Gale suggested that. However, doing this is very difficult politically for many reasons, even if it is totally appropriate. However, now that the issue was raised, it has been discussed a little on the talk page because of Gwen Gale's suggestion. Whether anyone will actually be able to do a block, or have the nerve to block anyone, or possibly be foolhardy enough to block anyone, is another matter.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * With the current high profile of matters surrounding intelligent design on Wikipedia, you can expect more such activity. Part of it may be socks, part of it is probably genuinely new users attracted by the attention and controversy, and part is straightforward provocation intended to procure more evidence of wrongdoing for upcoming bureaucratic processes. Just recognize the bait and don't take it, Filll: remove messages which violate the talk page guidelines with a polite note to the offender, and report repeat offenders at AN/I or elsewhere (I'm happy to look into it). MastCell Talk 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have unilaterally topic-banned myself from intelligent design and other controversial articles for the most part, because I found that they were creating a situation where I was threatened and attacked over and over. And since the community has not quite figured this out yet, it is best for me to avoid those kinds articles for the time being. After all, in about 2 months we have had a massive attack on a BLP, orchestrated from an off-wiki attack site, several efforts to get a disruptive editor reinstated and all kinds of accusations made against those who counselled against it, charges of cabalism and vote-stacking, 2 RfArs, 2RfCs and a couple of AN/I threads. Since Intelligent Design is such a target now, with one editor after another unthinkingly just repeating the meme that there are terrible conduct problems associated with ID, it is "open season" on ID. Anyone can say or do anything against someone involved with ID and it is justified since anyone associated with ID is a "bad person". For example, calling a group of editors "oafs" and "louts" and part of the "boo-boo brigade" is deemed not uncivil, and in fact those raising the question are chastised for doing so:. Amazing.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 19:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Article edits
KC, given your edit summary here, could you confirm you're aware that (a) your edit restores text, not a footnote, and (b) is more of a re-adding than a restoring, given that the sentence didn't exist until two edits before yours? I'm uncomfortable with adding yet another sentence to that rather redundant lead paragraph, but we don't have to discuss that here unless you're interested. I just want to be sure you were aware you were re-adding a new sentence, given how confusing the "text/reference" tags in the text can be. Gnixon (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief, you're right - my edit summary was pathetic. Not what I meant to say. Sorry, I am really, really tired. The rephrasing is supported by the ref, and the previous phrasing had no direct ref. Your tweak a couple of edits before was similar - getting closer to the sources. Sorry if this still isn't clear - I don't know if I'll be on tomorrow but I will try to be and perhaps we can hash it out on the article talk page, if you still feel the tweak done was not an improvement. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being responsive, but I think you might still misunderstand the history. Diffs are tough to follow because of the inline tags.  Let me call your attention to the 2nd paragraph of the lead through four consecutive edits.  Here is the version before Odd Nature's edit, where the 2nd paragraph has 4 sentences.  Here is after Odd Nature inserted a 5th sentence related to an ongoing debate.  Here is after I reverted ON's edit, reasoning that adding the sentence cluttered the lead and was inappropriate given the ongoing discussion (back to 4 sentences).  Here is after you undid my reversion of ON's edit, re-adding the 5th sentence to the paragraph.  I don't think there's any "rephrasing" involved---this is the insertion (removal) of an entirely new sentence.  Happy to continue the discussion tomorrow if you prefer.  Nothing terribly urgent here.  Gnixon (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see - he added the AAAS sentence. The diff made it look like he'd rephrased and added a ref to the Teacher's association sentence, if you see what I mean. Ok, that is different, and makes complete nonsense of my revert, for which I apologize. Now that I've looked at it though, I'm not so sure that it wouldn't be better to have the AAAS sentence, either in addition to or as a replacement for one of those sentences. I don't have time to wade into this now though, so I leave it to the usual article talk page discussion to figure out - feel free to link to this post if anyone reads anything into my revert. I will attempt to get back online later today and see if I can be of any help there.

I appreciate your patience and especially your AGF in this! This article and the entire circus surrounding it has become such a quagmire of ABF lately. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quagmire, indeed. Thanks for clarifying; I thought that was what happened.  I'd appreciate if you would take a good look at whether that sentence needs to be there.  Note that it is entirely redundant with the next sentence, which already attributed "pseudoscience" to the AAAS.  I also thought it was inappropriate for Odd Nature to make that edit to the article in the midst of a debate on the talk page over use of the word "theory."  My concern is that if I argue for removal of that new sentence because it is redundant, I will be seen as attempting to "whitewash" the article, which tends to get people worked up.  Gnixon (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BudTrap - advice
hi there,

I would like to put up a quick bio about our company BudTrap:

"BudTrap International Pty Ltd, is a global manufacturer of accessories for Mobile Mass Media and Phone Devices which specializes in Headphone & Cable Management" and put a info box on the side much the same as the Belkin product page.

I'd also like to start to populate some information about headphone tangles, link to the knot theory (mathematic etc)- to educate the community.. i'm only new to this - so i would greatly appreciate some quick tips! as i don't wan't disrupt this awesome resource.

thanks

Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by BudTrapperDC (talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Replying on user's talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 block
My review and opinion on the 55 hour block of Ludwigs2 is completely independent of Lars or any other opinion given. I reviewed all the evidence and found not only the length of the block wanting, but the block itself highly questionable. The most I could see was soapboxing and some good faith attempts to change policy and article content. Oh the other shoe, I see several ArbCom and RFCs addressing the behavior of those who are attacking Ludwigs2. I do not appreciate your attempt to diminish my input by making me out to be a "follower" or meatpuppet of others with no opinion of my own. I have respected your input in many conversations, but your comment about me is unwarranted and I take offense to your comment. Dreadstar †  21:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ack, massive apologies - if it was at all possible tor ead that in my statement, I clearly phrased myself very poorly indeed. I will enter a retraction and apology in ANI immediately. Again, apologies. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, gosh, now I feel terrible. Thanks so much for the apology, I really appreciate it.  You have always had my total respect and apparently I took your comment much harder than I should have.  My apologies too, and I totally accept yours.  Friends?  :)
 * Absolutely. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Twins?
Did your twin register an account today. :)  MBisanz  talk 20:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No relation, but highly interesting. Cunninghamster wouldn't be as interesting, but Kcunning? huh! KillerChihuahua?!? 13:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

*laughs*
Thank you for the laughter, KC, I really needed that today :) SirFozzie (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, this is how Wikipedia improves, yes? One editor suggests an edit, another concurs and makes it... and slowly we move towards perfection. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * . *grins* SirFozzie (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed Poor
Hi, can you give a diff for this: "...gave a Delete position on one of his POV forks on Vfd" Thanks. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 03:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That was in 2005. If you want to dig that far back, have at - but a good bit of the situation can be seen at User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive01 - although much more happened on several other editors' talk pages, including Ed's. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * fyi, the Afd in question was Articles for deletion/Unguided evolution which is very interesting reading. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! The RfA seems to have failed, but I'll read your stuff anyhow... I just now read the template atop your talk page (I usually ignore templates). I sincerely hope you are doing well and will continue to do so! Later, Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you so much for trying so hard to find middle ground on the PZ Myers article in no way were you heavy handed or insulting nor did you let your personal opinions taint your editing. --Hihkite (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Beer
Niiiiiice chihuahua. Please don't bite. (Opens beer, pours into a bowl, sets beside pretzel-shaped dog biscuits, turns on a baseball game). ;) Durova Charge! 06:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * :-) !!! KillerChihuahua?!?

Re: Bedford
Thanks. I think it helps the notion that I don't have a particular grudge with anyone in particular (which, due to that RFAr a few weeks back, some people did think). Sceptre (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that happens. I think Moulton still thinks it is personal that I blocked him, and I don't think there is anything I will ever be able to say to get him to think otherwise. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Feeling better?
I see you pulled the health notice. I'm glad to see you a bit more active. Sometimes I think editing Wikipedia is bad for one's health, or is it just sickening. --  Donald Albury  13:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am doing better,t hanks much. And yes... sometimes I think WP is hazardous to one's health or sanity. You seem to be weathering the madness well, or else you're doing an excellent job of faking it. *grin* KillerChihuahua?!? 14:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a break earlier this year; went from 750 edits in February to 7 in March and one in April. I'm editing again, but I do think my 1,000 to 1,500 edit months are a thing of the past. I'm generally avoiding blp pages now, even though I know how badly they need attention. I see what is happening to editors who try to maintain quality standards in blp. --  Donald Albury  19:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am on semi-break even now. I did see your participation drop off, but didn't want to pry; I think you're being reasonable in scaling back. OTOH, I seem to be wading into some BLPs, which I've tried to avoid, so who knows... Circle of Nuttiness or something. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking Paganism with heathen.
Pagans, predominately in Europe, do recognize themselves as a religion. To say that their religion does not exist would be unsettling. However, that does not preclude the fact that the ceremony existed. You took material out of the article because you think Pagan is not a religion. That really does not matter because it is your own opinion. The ceremony still happened. And it was done as a Pagan ceremony. Did you remove the material because you don't think Pagan is a religion, or did you remove it because no ceremony could be seen as Pagan? Either way, you were wrong. Craig Montgomery (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was meant to be insulting either. Dave is a Pagan. Whoever added the information may have known that. Craig Montgomery (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

One, this should be on the talk page of the article. Two, I see you have found a source, so the subject is closed as far as I am concerned. Your opinion that I am "wrong" has no bearing whatsoever on a BLP assertion which was completely unsourced. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I should have kept it on the talk page. Your latest message, calling editors 'people' makes you a bit unapproachable. It is probably just miscommunication on both parties.Craig Montgomery (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In spite of my 'handle', I am a person, not a dog. I presume other editors are also. Are you thinking of robots, or aliens, when you object to calling editors 'people'? ;-) KillerChihuahua?!? 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just another example of Wikipedia's systemic bias toward humankind. You're betraying an apparently subconscious prejudice against bots and other hardworking but non-organic members of the Wikipedia community. I will thank you to use the terms "editing units" or "editron" from now on. Or perhaps Wikipedia-Interactive Sentient Entity And Service Supplier would be the formal term. Feel free to acronymize. MastCell Talk 20:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dave_Navarro&diff=prev&oldid=228123242 It is an 'If-then demand' Mast, call people 'people' all you wish, but they will categorically agree that it is condescending. Take yourself out of Wiki for a second...can you? Go into a level playing field - and refer to equals as 'people'. Try it with your friends, and try it at your local pub, they won't let you get as far as grasping the thesaurus you held dear in making your last post. There is no reason to refer to other editors as 'people'. Listen up MastCell, I'll trim your contributions should you not adhere to my demands. Sound right? or would you rather click the link again. Craig Montgomery (talk) 10:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've clicked it a few times, because I'm not sure what about it upset you. I see a request for better sourcing on an biography of a living person. Such biographies have been identified as a particular area of concern on Wikipedia, for both legal and ethical reasons, and it reasonably follows that editors request strong sourcing and proactively remove content which does not meet the relevant Wikipedia policy criteria. I apologize for the sarcastic element in my previous post. To answer your question, I sometimes address a group of friends, colleagues, etc as "people", and I'm sometimes addressed that way by friends or colleagues. I don't get upset about it. But that's me. I find a thick skin is indispensible around here (and pretty much everywhere, for that matter). MastCell Talk 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I LOVE the acronym. An excellent example of reverse-engineering, MC, thanks much. Is that your own work? (I'll be chuckling for hours about that one.) KillerChihuahua?!? 23:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, but I hereby license it under GFDL. :) MastCell Talk 03:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another Damn Minion is Numb. Okay, not a fair acronym, but still, yes, I stayed away. I'm trying to look at Wikipedia where all people are cool, no matter what. Perhaps I need to thicken my skin or perhaps some should be more welcoming. It does not matter. You guys are right - it should not stop me from editing, which it did. I mean, 2 months here, and yeah, I didn't feel so welcome. I will toughen it up and learn to take some sarcasm. It is ironic that my first inclination is to be sarcastic, but people hate it here. You guys are right -I have to toughen up.Craig Montgomery (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It may help for you to keep a slightly more open mind and AGF a little more. It seems clear from your posts - especially your appeal to MastCell - that you don't (or didn't, anyway) consider that "people" could be meant any way other than in a condescending fashion. I don't consider "people" to be condescending, I consider it a gender-neutral way to refer to humans. I never even heard of it being considered condescending - so I've learned something. But I cannot say it will change how I post, given the seriously odd notion that being considered a "person" might somehow be "condescending". That just makes no sense at all to me, even though it seems that you consider it an established fact. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Help, please.
Rastafari movement is in horrible condition. I was working on it, but my efforts have been hindered by a very contentious editor. 

I dug through his contribs list and saw that in the past, he had an issue with you. He basically seemed to be suggesting that most Wikipedians are anti-Rasta and racist. On the talkpage, he seemed to be suggesting that I am part of this conspiracy too!

Because of your past problems with him, I thought maybe you'd be willing to help or could have some suggestions on what to do. I know from experience that edit-warring doesn't work. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Til is a bit contentious, as well as combative and seems to war against editors rather than discuss the article. That said, I'm not the best person to help, because he took a serious personal dislike to me when we first interacted. I suggest you talk to Pastordavid, who was able to get Til to discuss things in a calmer fashion. Listing the current contention at WP:3o might be a good idea as well - I suggest the primary issue rather than the whole article, so you will get more focused feedback/input. And of course, if that fails, there is always mediation. Let me know how it goes. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
KillerChihuahua, I have read and responded to your post on my Talk Page. Please review and respond. I really would appreciate it. Thanks! -- DannyMuse (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Any chance of getting a response? Thanks. DannyMuse (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little unclear on hwat you are asking me to respond to. Do you have a specific question? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you hadn't responded in a week I archived the thread. It is now located here. Your post is first, my reply is immediately beneath it. Thanks! -- DannyMuse (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've been mostly offline and have not had time - I'll take a look. Thanks for your patience. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be nice! :) -- DannyMuse (talk) 01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
I am not sure where to contact you so I am writing you here. You can erase this if you want. I have been having conflicts on the Spanking article. I believe that a new Wikipedian is rather arrogant in erasing 3/4 of the Spanking article. Is it up to the other Wikipedian and I to battle this out and resolve it ourselves or to get someone to jump in? (Another Wikipedian and I reached our own resolution on Bessie Smith and that did work). There are some problems with many articles as far as support, but this Wikipedian is throwing out the baby with the bathwater on this one. I agree that some changes should be made, but a more constructive, less destructive strategy that includes slow change for this and many articles should be sought. A great number of Wikipedians have worked very hard to build the Spanking article. The arguments for and against spanking and other important elements of the spanking debate are at stake. -- Daviddaniel37 (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not currently have the time to take a look at this - my online time is extremely limited - I sincerely hope you've been able to find someone else to help you with this (?). KillerChihuahua?!? 00:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The chamber pot is half-full... er, half-empty? Which is better?
This doesn't mean you'd consider actually leaving the asylum, does it? :) MastCell Talk 20:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My goodness, I certainly hope not. Well, ok if you're being let out for a recuperative spell. With modern plumbing instead of chamber pots, so you can emerge flushed with success. .. dave souza, talk 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I understand completely. I keep trying to come back after my more frequent and longer breaks, but then the wind shifts ... -- Donald Albury 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to hear a wee bark! And This puppy also gets my sympathy. .. dave souza, talk 18:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that puppy, or rather his treatment, is part of the aforementioned effluvium.

Thanks for the words of sympathy/support, guys. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey!
Heyhey! A familiar face. ID articles, right?--Tznkai (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ID, Abortion, and wade in between opposing sides on other contentious articles, that kind of thing. You know we lost Severa (formerly known as Kyd), right? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I'm way behind. Thats what I get for having a personal crisis. I saw FM and Slim are at it in an arbcom case, and I could've sworn that sort of thing was going on when I left--Tznkai (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah, it gets even better than that. Read User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate as soon as you can spare the time. Oh and FM, myself, and so far as I can tell everyone in the ID wikiproject except Uncle Ed are now being reviled as "IDCabal" members - this was a smear job dreamed up at WR by Moulton et al - darn you are going to have to catch up! You have missed so much DRAMA! (btw I am hoping the personal crisis is all better now?) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * [ec] What? Uncle Ed not an "IDCabal" member? I'm so disappointed, and KC, you're going to have to stop edit warring with yourself. Don't template the regulars! . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only a very little dog, I get lost sometimes! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, aside from my S.O being annoyed I spend so much time on Wikipedia. Anyway, as a piece of friendly advice, and I do hope you remember me as a friend, avoid the patronizing "I was trying to get our edit-warriors to learn!" You get more flies with honey, or whatever that stupid metaphor is.--Tznkai (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack, you're right. (But I was, darnit! Besides, 3rr and 4rr is ew, I can source that! :-P ) KillerChihuahua?!? 21:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is the minefield that is the ID related article space? Want me to swing by?--Tznkai (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Honestly, its been fairly calm lately. Everyone too busy with election articles I suppose. But I've been mostly offline for a week or two, so you'd better check with someone more up to date - we usually have at least one troublesome article. Truth has been a little active - the RC pope's admirers want him in; and more recently, they want Thomas Aquinas more prominently featured, but its not too heated at the moment. You'll be more useful checking the battery of political candidates' articles right now. Thank you so much for offering, though! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Sarah Palin article gives me a headache, as does the ArbCom case.--Tznkai (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you're normal. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding flies, vinegar and honey, I think you need to have a look at this. Guettarda (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Category links
Thanks for the tip :) I just saw how it's done while checking back on my post at ANI. Actually I've done that all the time when referring to interwiki links but never got the idea to try it elsewhere... De728631 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Relay
I've got it.--Tznkai (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta, dear, have fun. And welcome back, in spades!!! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While its reasonable to say that Kelly is aware of 3RR, its still customary to warn, especailly after they've been reported on 3RR--Tznkai (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that, Tzn, thanks - I was called away from the pc for a bit, when I returned, s/he'd already posted on AN3. I presume at that point notification is redundant, and as even very polite querys from me are summarily removed without explanation from her/his page, I didn't bother with the pointless nicety. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wikitravel
Thanks for fixing the bug in the template. I've created the documentation subpage (Template:Wikitravel/doc): can you add the link for this? (Instructions are at Template_documentation.) Thanks again, --RFBailey (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on template talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicts
6 edit conflicts on AN, and 4 with you. Bad dog! JoshuaZ (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right back at you, darnit. Well The World Will Not End, etc. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it does force me to reread what I write. Tones the rhetoric down for a bit. On the other hand, it can be more frustrating than an edit war. There's this thing with an edit war at least your version gets in the history. If you repeatedly edit conflict no one ever notices that you had a pertinent point early on. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI
You may be interested in WP:AN. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That discussion doesn't appear to be going the way that perhaps you were hoping it would. I don't have anything to add to it that hasn't already been said.  Thank you, though, for letting me know about it. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome - thank you, in turn, for your kind acknowledgement of the courtesy. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Freaky stuff on the IDCab bidness
I see people, well, the same people complaining about the ID cabal. But I have never seen any of these people editing any ID page. The only place I see all these people is that WR site. And that scares me. The few threads I read over there have had posts like "so-and-so who is blah-blah in real life"(!) and not one person there had a problem with the outing of rl identities! I've been on some rough-and-tough forums before, even anti-forums, but that behaviour has always been considered the lowest of the low. But apparently WP tolerates it. It's chilling, especially for a site that supposedly doesn't want to discourage editing. Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Root
Are you out of your vicodin induced haze?--Tznkai (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrm... define "out". I'm only a little fuzzy, why? Did I make no sense somewhere and I need to go fix it? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That was just my way of expressing concern about your root canal, and how you're feeling. How are you feeling?--Tznkai (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you!!! It went... actually, it was not fun. I metabolize lidocaine rapidly and never quite go numb, so I get nitrous for anything involving drilling, and had it for this. The dentist ran out half way through, which was not his fault, precisely - the delivery person had delivered 3 O2 instead of 2 O2 and 1 Nitrous, as he was supposed to do. So the second half of the procedure was... interesting. But its over and I have vicodin as you say, so All Is Well. I saw you had a Happy R/L thing recently, I hope that went well? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty good. Day off of Wikidrama wasn't bad either.--Tznkai (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear it, on both counts. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Olive branch" may not have been the best term
I don't think we've had any conflicts either, but I know you and I are often perceived as being on different sides of the "ID Cabal" conflicts. Basically, I've seen you get a bit frustrated with being accused of that inappropriately, and I wanted to encourage you and say that I do appreciate the work you do for the encyclopedia (I've never really bothered with barnstars, but consider this roughly the equivalent from me). I'm not fond of factionalism, so I want to at least try and extend the hand of friendship before walls have a chance to form, and lately I fear walls have been growing.

So, if you ever want another pair of eyes to look at a situation and try to cool things down a little, let me know. At the very least, if I disagree with you, we can disagree amicably, right? I haven't been as active lately, mostly due to real-life issues, but I try to log in at least once a day to check on things. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, good. I was afraid we'd disagreed somewhere and I had stepped on your toes or hurt your feelings - I am glad to hear such is not the case. Thank you so much for your kind words!
 * I am always happy to hear other viewpoints, so long as we do indeed disagree amicably, as I am sure would be the case if you and I were to disagree. I am unaware of any perception that we're on "opposing sides" but then I tend to miss that kind of thing unless its forcibly brought to my attention (as for a recent example, Kelly did). So all is well, I hope, and I appreciate your offer and of course if there is anything I can ever do for you please let me know. I should offer the disclaimer, however, that I cannot even guarantee being on once a day these days, although I try. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Admin noticeboard
I didn't recognise the handle of JWSurf, and I expected a newbie when I checked the page. An admin??? Whoa. I still shouldn't be shocked at such behavior from an admin, but call me naive. -still voting in RFAs - 99% oppose votes, Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not terribly active, though - 8324 edits as of this post, and he was promoted admin in Dec 2005. I think he's more active now on Wikiversity. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, promoted back when WP:NBD had no addendum. Speaking of We66er...yah poor felly. He does nothing wrong (where are the diffs?) and gets slimed. I gave him a barnstar for his hard work, he didn't even respond, so I doubt he's cabal material. :P The attack against him was completely uncalled-for. Believe it or not, I care about these attacks. They've already worked to winnow down the group of editors willing to attack these pseudoscientific topics. But the focus on "don't chase away academics" revolves around posters like Moulton. It seems that more effort is made to retain editors of the Doctor Who series than actual scientists. Apparently scientists willing to work to dispel public misinformation are a dime a dozen, but people wanting to write about popular tele series are precious! Blah... Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dime a dozen? My input is worth at least 2 cents.  A shilling a dozen?  (In Trinidad a "shilling" or "bob" is 25c, because back in the day, an English penny was worth 2 Trinidad cents.  A shilling was 12 pence, or 24 cents, and that name was later transferred to the 25c piece.  And, btw, a penny is Trinidad = 2 cents.  Damn, I can't even make a dumb joke without adding a half-page explanation.)  Guettarda (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Headachey.
Well, you opened a giant can of worms with your AN post, and while I stand behind my opinion that AN is best for situations with a real specific remedy, I can see more clearly the source of your frustration. The fact that people are responding to this cabal nonsense with "but you are!" is asinine, and even if you told me right now, you were part of some evil plot to overtake wikipedia as some part of an evil conspiracy, I still wouldn't have any tolerance for it.

That having been said, I have some notes, and some friendly advice.

1. I don't put up with that nonsense long in disputes I deal with. I ignore it at first, I warn when it gets worse, and then out come the admin tools. I am not unsympathetic to your position, and never was, despite what I said on AN. I'm only comfortable playing hardball when I've been watching it start to finish, and I hope you understand that.

2. Lar has something of a point. Some wikipedians I respect from way back when have some strong opinions. Being accused of being part of a cabal is stressful, irritating, and uncalled for, but it also provokes defensive behavior, which looks cabal like. Now, I know that you're not a cabal. What I suspect is that you've worked long and hard enough at a contentious article, and that you respect each other. Nothing sinister, just natural alignment and agreement. With wikipedia being the bitey snippy culture that it is at times, this gets misinterpreted, and they attack, and you get defensive. Don't say you don't everyone gets defensive. If you didn't, you'd also not get upset about it.

3. I suggest getting yourself a non sinister sock. You know, an alternative account. Throw a message up to arbcom, and start being more or less yourself in various article territory. See what happens. It'll illuminate how much of the nonsense is baggage, and how much of it isn't.

I probably had more things to say, but I've forgotten them. --Tznkai (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OMG LISTEN HERE
That Cast of Camp Rock article was not bad so why delete it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOfficialSammyK (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * see Why was my page deleted?. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

discussion moved
Pls see Talk:Student Advisory Council of Georgia for a small discussion about my tag. Thanks for brigning that up to my attention. --ŦħęGɛя㎥ 12:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, I appreciate you looking into this and taking the time to clearly explain. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pipe Dream
I had a dream and in that dream, I found out that an easy way to cut down on edit warring over new topics is to make it policy that a "reliable source" must be over 10 days old. This would "allow for corrections to be made to said source to ensure that the source is reliable", but really keep people from fighting over all sorts of new political information because they are obsessive and up 24/7 fearing that some "bad word" may come out against their favorites. Of course, this would never happen. Wikipedia has too many people wanting it to be Wikinews. I was inspired to this dream while attempting to wade through that Kelly IDcabal whatever nonsense. Most of the information out is just political build up on every side, so I think nothing is really reliable (but few politics related works ever are, right?). If I was Jimbo, I would have deleted every page (and locked) of the politicians involved in the upcoming election and not restore them until well afterwards.

However, I am also a book snob and tend to think that the only people worth encyclopedia space are known to a significant number of people after 100 years. :) All of those pages on politicians? Bleh. If people want to talk politics or other views, they should get a column in their local newspaper. Its really not that hard. Good luck trying to deal with the political nonsense. There are parts of the encyclopedia that I refuse to enter for obvious reasons. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are saying really resonates with me. I've seen suggestions before that some sort of restriction be put on how soon an event can be added to WP. I think of that every time I see editors rushing to see who can be first to add something they just heard/read on the news, or when fans argue over the details of some performer's album which may or may not be released sometime in the next two or three years. Pipe dreams, indeed. -- Donald Albury 11:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we're all followers of the same fantasy, then. I'd like to be able to just template with "Wikinews -> thataway" for all this cruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a public message on your Wikiversity page. I originally thought to make it private, but I want the community to know what I think of the situation. I would rather everyone know, and everyone try to work together (as it will need everyone). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I've read it, but not replied - and may not. It seems to me to be more of a "read and think about" type post than a "read and respond" but since I'm still thinking about it I have not decided if I have a valid response yet. This stream of conciousness post was brought to you by JavaShortage, Ltd. (soon to be replaced by EnoughMorningCoffee, Inc.) KillerChihuahua?!? 12:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD
I have placed the article The Five Greatest Warriors up for deletion but seem to have a problem as it is not adding the project page in the template on the article page. Is it possible you could have a look at it for me and if possible fix it thanks. Brilliant trees (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have fixed it yourself, kudos! Is there anything you still need from me? thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 10:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It still seems that the This Articles Entry in the template is red linked any ideas? thanks. Brilliant trees (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did the idiot thing ('cause I had no ideas at all) and re-did the afd1 and it worked but also rather unhelpfully informed me it had already been submitted. I give. Its blue now, though. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * seen that great stuf thanks for your help. Brilliant trees (talk) 11:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Temperature
Hi KC, Long time no see. I saw this diff:. If she's wrong, she's wrong. Calling her names won't help her understand that. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Ben. I didn't call her names. She called me a name. Perhaps you should re-read? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You called her paranoid, twice. Three times if you count 'persecution complex'.  Admittedly, the line about beating a dead horse into bonemeal is pretty funny, but you shouldn't be proud about that.  Regards, Ben Aveling 13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a name. I warned her (and another party) rather gently about 3RR on an article on which she had reached 6RR, and her immediate response was to claim it was because she was being persecuted by the mythical "IDCab". Paranoia is where you think "they" are "out to get you" and that's precisely what she was doing. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So she goaded you and you exploded? You're better than that.  Look, it doesn't matter who started it.  The question is, how do we stop it?  Was this over how to describe Sarah Palin's attitude to teaching ID/Creationism in schools?  Ben Aveling 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's the point. It had nothing to do with ID. and I didn't "explode". I will be happy to explain this to you, but you will need some patience. Start by reading my initial post, and the linked edits. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, here is a comment from an uninvolved admin: "I was shocked to see an IDcab accusation on a completely unrelated article about a fucking politician." See [comment]. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The "ID Cabal" or "IDCab" meme was started by blocked user Moulton on Wikipedia Review. It has been taken up with gusto by Lara Love, Cla68, and others. Now Kelly has embraced it. There has been an Rfc (started by members of the Intelligent Design Wikiproject) to get people to cease this bad-faith smearing, but it didn't get very far. The three most supported views were basically "labels are bad" "waste of time" and "WP Not a Battelground". all of which might indicate that labeling people and using any excuse to attack others with that label is bad, but the Rfc was a waste of time. I presume by now you've read my initial paragrah and the linked edits, and see taht my post had nothing to do with intelligent design; that I addressed two editors who had been warring, and Kelly chose to personalize the dispute - see this) specifically where Mastcell states "admin (User:KillerChihuahua) already warned Kelly that he'd been edit-warring, and Kelly's response was defiant personalization of the dispute, concluding with the constructive phrase: "If you would like to block me, bring it."" and further where Tznkai states Kelly "needs a wrist slapping" for his/her response, and Carcharoth adds "The ID cabal comments are grossly inappropriate". Kelly was using "IDCab" accusations either through paranoia, or to game the system by personalizing the dispute in order to deflect attention from his/her edit warring. This sort of thing has been going on for months, and I am tired of it. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A Brief History *


 * The best way to deal with stuff like that is to ignore it - whoever stays calm and is seen as trying to defuse the conflict will win support. Anyone who is seen as escalating it will lose - which can mean that everyone loses.  Nobody wants that.  I'm gong to bed now.  Good luck, Ben Aveling 14:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, if you ignore such charges, some editors take it as proof that the charges are true. Bit of a cleft fork. -- Donald Albury 14:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely, and why I finally had enough of it and decided to take it to AN. The pool of people who believe this is growing, not shrinking, and will continue to do so as long as people like Kelly can malign myself and others at will and without repercussions. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And that worked out so well. Perhaps we should prepare some diffs.  Firstly, let's look at what is being argued about.  Your complaint is that (s)he, and others, are calling you and various other editors a Cabal - I don't think anyone would argue (s)he's doing that.  So perhaps the question becomes - how to prove (s)he's wrong?  The people who agree with the claim; they can all be wrong, but they can't all be paranoid.  What is happening to make them think that way?  Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See Words of wisdom. -- Donald Albury 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ben, I don't think the issue is Kelly calling people a cabal. Yeah, it's rude.  But Kelly being rude isn't news.  The issue is that of using slurs to stereotype other editors - and then use that slur/stereotype as a reason to dismiss them.  What the whole IDCab meme says is "I can label you, and than I can use that label to discredit you".  And people buy it.  It's awfully McCarthyite.  Guettarda (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think those two things are connected. There are a bunch of people who look after each other.  That isn't good or bad in and of itself, but then Kelly tries to apply a label, a negative one.  People read the label, and they decide if the label fits.  And if they think it does, in comes all the negative baggage...  And that seem to have happened here.  I'd have to read the whole thread to understand why, but I do get glimpses, like the diff at the top of this section, and the pile-on oppose at Commons.  That may have been well motivated, but it didn't look good.  And lo and behold, a tower of suspicion and allegations can be built on a single grain of truth.  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Labels do indeed matter, Ben, and labelling editors as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views is a personal attack which must be dealt with as such. The best lies and propaganda are built on a grain of truth, magnified and distorted out of all recognition. Don't do it. Read WP:TIAC and WP:OWB (item 17) instead. . dave souza, talk 10:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Several things are being smashed confusingly together here.
 * 1) 'a cabal' is not the issue, several cabals are. -- it is stated within Wikipedia by its God character Jimbo that cabals should not exist. they do seem to. this is therefore a problem.
 * 2) overt cabals are not the main problem, groups of people and their socks are. -- the issue of anonymity and the facilitation of socks to enable the apparency of numbers in consensus-based process has been sufficiently addressed that the other person owning the God character left the MUD to form Citizendium. obviously this is a problem.
 * 3) conspiracy and paranoia are personal slams, but observations on the manifestation of POV-pushing by factions of conventional society utilizing badly-weighted Editor/Writer powertools within a Wikipedia that looks more and more like a hack-and-slash MUD to entertain effacing Editors (esp. in certain contested categories) are in fact helpful analyses. -- the observation that certain contested zones (such as religious, Intelligent Design, esoterica) face what appear to be factionalized effacement and hostile engagement by an identifiable set of user accounts is not a personal slam. it is a real problem being described in sometimes contentious ways for effect.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Cherier
Thanks for your help. I wouldn't have identified this image without you: Image:Bust of Bruno Cherier by Carpeaux22.jpg Unlike other works by Carpeaux, Cherier seems a bit more 'anonymous' as an artist. Hopefully, someone will make good use of it...someday. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am delighted to have been able to assist. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Village Pump Culture Wars Article
Thank you for your feedback on where the essay should have been placed (my talk page). At least you provided that much, though i don't think such a placement would be very social. I have been otherwise informed that Wikipedia may not actually house a spot for such conversation, and that Meatballwiki may be more conducive to such high-level planning/troubleshooting.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It may indeed. I regret that I am not terribly familiar with wikis outside of the MediaWiki family, and so could not advise you. Good luck in yoru search for a more appropriate, and congenial, home for your essay. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

 * Thanks. I like your rules, and I much appreciate your offer to contact you if I need help with something, might take you up on that. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are people leaving?
Hello,

I saw Donald Albury's note on taking a Wikibreak and your response. People are leaving?..why? I looked at his contribs and nothing seems to jump out at me as being the reasons. He is a good editor so that is frustrating but even more frustrating if several are leaving. Is there a key dispute somewhere? Just confused...Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 12:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I cannot speak specifically to Dalbury's rationale, of course. However, for some poisonous allegations and attacks, simply stalk me backwards for a few days. or take a look at Special:Contributions/JWSurf, an alt account of User:JWSchmidt. Or check out the WP:ABF of User:Catherineyronwode, who drove a highly respected and productive editor, User:Hrafn to retire just a couple of days ago - and she is apparently happy about it, violating WP:BATTLE with a vengence. In fact, that's what all this poison has in common - vengefully pursuing and attacking editors with whom one disagrees, rather than trying to be civil, respectful and work things out for the best of the encyclopedia. The actions involved are more like evil children than responsible mature adults who have improving Wikipedia in mind. The problem has been getting worse, as the culture here changes - making this kind of vendetta and/or warring more common.
 * I received an email about one of these situations recently, and I will paste part of my reply here (edited a bit):
 * A lot of the current crop of admins seem to be MySpace admins. IMO, we've been AGFing the "fluff" types too much. We tend to see the fluff and discount the very real fact that they are building a power base. These people are after the power or the prestige or whatever - and look how many have as their primary goal becoming an admin! Wikipedia is not drawing the same type of volunteers as the early days. I have background in distance education, and spent time doing proofreading for the Gutenberg Project - the mid-range group of volunteers is more likely to have spent time on Yahoo answers, where you get a score and feedback, rather than personal satisfaction - and the newest crop are here straight from MySpace, in order to get a clique and admin status on what is now the #1 site where people get their information. And their approach is working, because the rest of us are examining Rfa's the same way we always have and approving those "not likely to abuse the tools". I hate to say it, and I hate even more to think of the work involved, but I may end up becoming much more active on Rfa and opposing those who seem to be here for the power. And look at the comments on Giggy's Rfa! LaraLove states proudly that she is steadfast to her friends - ye gods, I opposed Swatjester the first time he ran and I considered him a good friend then, and felt so bad I emailed him. He understood - he'd done a completely unacceptable thing, learned, and recovered. But that kind of integrity is alien to these kids. They consider integrity to be "my friends, right or wrong" and that's not integrity as I understand and value it. D.M.N. goes as far (under support #67) as stating "The actions of one of the nominations, is quite frankly, shocking. TBH, if I was DHMO, I would expect a full apologise for the betrayl from that individual." and I read this as the betrayal, according to D.M.N., was not nominating someone they thought would crash and burn as an "object lesson", but opposing their own nom (as was the case when D.M.N. wrote this.) These people value their "friends" over what is right for the encyclopedia, or even what is right ethically. That is worrisome.
 * Complicating matters and making it worse is the common human tendency to assign others the thought process and patterns we ourselves use - so those editors who think "us vs them" and hold grudges for disagreements simply cannot believe that there are those of us who do not. Some people with whom I've disagreed about one thing have at times assumed, wrongly, that I have a "friends and enemies" mentality. AGF is supposed to cover that, but they have to actually try to apply it for it to work at all. It seems either they are not mature enough, or have not had experiences with those mature enough, to even give that idea credence. That I could strongly disagree one day and not view them as an "enemy" the next seems to not only not have occured to them, but not to even be believable to them. I don't know how they manage their r/l professions with that kind of thinking, it is highly unprofessional and immature.
 * One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow ... pardon me for stalking your talk page here ... but that's impressive. Someone understands what is going on here.  You've put into words some of the half-jelled thoughts I've had myself for a while now.  Our culture is changing here, and it's not an improvement; and it does seem to me that the Myspace refugees are starting to take over, because they want the status of being admins, not because they have done a lot of good work building the encyclopedia and take on adminship as a duty after a long term of service.  You know, I came to your talk page to congratulate you on your gorgeous piece of sculpture detective-work that originated on my talk page, but saw this thread.  What are the long-term consequences of this culture shift?  Do we become an even less friendly environment for experts?  Do people who principally want to write articles in a traditional paper-encyclopedia area of interest have any hope of surviving for long?
 * Change is the one thing universal and eternal; but sometimes I wonder if we have peaked and are now on the way down. I wonder if Oswald Spengler would recognize the pattern here. Antandrus  (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I love and appreciate stalkers, you are more than welcome here (especially as you compliment me so nicely, too! grins) I think we are at a fork; we must become more vigilint and even strident at enforcing AGF and professional and ethical behavior in general, as opposed to the wiki-lawyering for effect; examine Rfa's in a different manner than heretofor, not with a "won't abuse the tools" standard, and certainly not with the "friend of mine" standard which seems to have ascendance now; and repeat ad nauseum those concepts which most of us "old-timers" take for granted, until it either sinks in or the rejection is made clear (by individuals or the culture at large); or else we are indeed seeing a collapse from which it will at the very least be difficult to recover. MySpace clique type adminning must not be allowed to gain precedence over ethical protect-the-wikipedia janitoring, else this project will ultimately fail. Agian, one puppy's opinion, your mileage may vary, you may have other rights which vary from state to state, etc. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) One who hasn't left but has certainly every reason to do so: user:SlimVirgin, read her Poetgate for the sordid story of how she was harassed and persecuted, and how her efforts to obtain some measure of limits or censure on those harassing her was turned around on her - she was accused of making things up, being a drama-queen, etc. Now that she's been vindicated, in spades and then some, she's received (last time I looked) precisely ONE apology from one of those who insulted her and pooh-pooh'd her concerns. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Jeezus. I just read through "Poetgate" for the first time, not having followed the whole thing closely.  I feel a little sick; have to go do something other than Wikipedia for a while.  Good God, do people have no shame?  I admire her courage and tenacity in sticking around. -- "I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed."  Jonathan Swift, Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting  Antandrus  (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I had been seeing mention of people leaving over the last couple of weeks on various talk pages but had assumed nothing about it. Continuing to see it becomes concerning. I believe the problem of poisonous environment & baseless allegations is a byproduct of changes in the real life world that have seeped into the Wiki world...they just seem to get amplified more here. The last couple of generations have learned to game "the customer is always right" in commercial dealings which leads to some outrightly developing and assuming the angry customer attitude to try to immediately put the merchant on the defensive and obligated to appease...all of this in lieu of the straightforward & honest approach. Because it is often rewarded, it becomes adopted behavior and many unfortunately believe that indeed, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.


 * If there is an older order of admins and a newer order, then the last thing the older order should do is leave as that would expediate the imbalance. I think the photo of the mop ought to also include antacids. Would it be wrong to assume that once one crosses over to becoming an admin that they pass a threshold of no return...the days of simple and enjoyable editing and creation gone. This because they are obligated to keep up with numerous and often unsavoury "admin" issues? Most users can simply chose to remove high-stress pages from their watchlist &mdash; admins are drawn to them. Looks like it eats your time up so that you can't do the fun stuff (create). Hopefully, User:Hrafn comes back possibly under a different account and returns to "enjoyable" editing. Hopefully, DAlbury just simply returns. I hope editors leaving doesn't become a trend. Thank you for answering and the good work. Cheers, <font face="High Tower Text" size="3px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 15:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's possible to continue as a content contributor after you've become an admin, but it takes a very specific determination and dedication. "Adminny" stuff is sticky; it's flypaper to Wikipedians; and once you get involved on the noticeboards, people keep coming back to you for help, you get ever more involved, -- and thus commences the "red giant" phase of the Wikipedia star sequence, which usually precedes burnout (I scribbled a bit about it here,  number 59).  Editors have always come and gone, but I'm worried about it more than I used to be, because the newcomers for the most part are not experts interested in writing the encyclopedia, and I see the average article quality leveling off, like the curve of a mathematical function reaching a limiting value.  I spend a lot of time playing defense these days, wiping crud off of articles on my watchlist, crud which would stay there if I didn't.  But you're right about the older and newer order, and how the imbalance would be worse if the older order leaves.  -- Tempted to photograph some pills with a bit more punch than antacid ... best left to the imagination.  :) Antandrus  (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ive only been here a short while, but one of my first surprises as I wondered the halls and back rooms and user/talk pages was how many quality editors were or had left. IT WAS SHOCKING. I remember reading some of their tretises as they "left the building". Truly sad! But, It strenghthened me to stay, no matter what. And, then I had MY incounters with some over-zealous, over-the-top, hitleresque administrators. But I'm still here. I'll read about SlimVirgin, interestingly because the name rings a bell. And I think I know why. I also, early on, thought of a solution to the editor leaving quandry. It is still on the drawing board (under protective wraps, if you know what I mean and I think you do!) I would like to be more upfront and open. But...Wikipedia seems to be throwing some of its best "sailors" overboard. And I can't swim all that well. So, I'd rather stay in my search for kindred spirits that want to protect, for the Ages, this wonderful place called Wikipedia.--Buster7 (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All very good points, and well said. I'm only an admin because someone leant on my Scottish sense of duty when asking me to take it on, and adminly things seem rather like goofing off from the real work of researching and writing. Will try to avoid overdoing the goofing off for a while! By the way, these links suggest some of the pressures on this project. . . dave souza, talk 09:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your Comment
I just read your comment here.

With all due respect to you I think you are making a pretty harsh judgment without knowing the history or the type of abuse that transpired. I did present concise summaries. They were dismissed. And slanderous and misrepresentative allegations were bandied around as “fact” in reply, with many insults thrown in the mix. The false allegations of the accuser’s were believed by others, no definitive proof required, simply because they came from him (it would seam).

So seeing that my concise summaries were not good enough, I took the time to highlight the appropriate diffs etc in a structured fashion. Being that a lot was said and done, it meant that much required presenting. Examination of the passage you mocked would show that it is presented point by point, with each sentence presenting new info. (Only the notes below contain some summmary repitition.) Regardless, the first para summarized the purpose quite clearly.

But it seams here that you are dammed either way. I was dammed for trying to improve an article (i.e. "sure it up" with citations and make it NPOV), then dammed for defending myself, dammed because the concise summaries were not convincing enough, and now mocked for being thorough. Ultimately the problem boiled down to those “policing” not reading a thing, but rather glancing at a snippet of info, forming a string of baseless conclusions and running with those while ignoring all evidence to the contrary (whether it be plain to see from the beginning or presented to them along the way).

Even now, after elucidating the events step-by-step some still ignorantly claim I did things I never did as some justification for the abuse I received.

As per Jimbo's axioms, there is to be no cabal, no abuse, no misrepresentations, and newcomers (like me) are to be welcomed. From where I am sitting, there does not appear to be much respect for Jimbo’s wishes.

Romaioi (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My, that was certainly quite a while ago, and WP:TLDR would have swung into operation. Romaioi doesn't seem to have been blocked, and while hurt feelings are regrettable, my understanding is that we don't do retributive justice here. Romaioi would do better to focus on providing concise and persuasive explanations at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Romaioi rather than raising old battles here. In my opinion. . dave souza, talk 21:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was addressing User:KillerChihuahua's comments on the length of my summary and providing the background as to what led to it. This has nothing to the with the MfD, nor does the context of what I said above have anything to do with me trying to settle any scores (it was purely background info). So I don't find your comments helpful. My comment about being dammed (or criticized) no matter what one tries to do is very apt here. Romaioi (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibberish user pages
Hi - am I right in thinking I can put a speedy delete tag on a gibberish user page, eg those linked here? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC) KillerChihuahua?!? 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) That was L33t, not gibberish.
 * No, generally speaking you cannot put speedy tags on user pages unless they are attack pages.
 * 1) The user in question has been blocked, so this particular drama is moot.


 * Thanks. The User page thing is what I was wondering about, I thought that was the case. Yes, it was L33t, so I probably shouldn't have even considered it, and wouldn't have except for his actions. I obviously wouldn't have deleted them myself. By the way, how do you put the duration of a block in the block template? I think I've read the relevant documentation but don't see where you put the time, but when I see block templates on talk pages, they usually have the duration in them. Doug Weller (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 61 templates in Category:User block templates. Some allow for the time parameter, some don't. GBlock allows for time and reason to be specified - 1 week | vandalism, 1 day | being a putz, etc. Browse the cat and find your preferred template. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We should cut it down to 41, and then have the 4nd2 involve a wet trout.--Tznkai (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WARN gives a handy list, and in most of them you can specify: the block duration, a specific reason for the block, and auto-include your signature; by adding |time=Duration|reason=For a different reason|sig=four tildes respectively. Click on the links in the "what to type" examples to get more info. Warnings examples shows some but not all of the options, and in the case of school and anon blocks contradicts the template pages which say not to subst these templates. No doubt it all works out in the fullness of time. By the way, this seems to me to be an attack page prepared for dispute resolution which is no longer going to proceed. Because of involvement I'm not going to take any action, but you might feel that it should be considered for deletion. Also note, agree fully that the trout template is a good idea. . dave souza, talk 10:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

sheesh
When did you change your name? I saw you vote on an Arb case I'm watching, and I thought there was a noob or a troll loose. Turns out it was you. The things I miss when I look away from this place for a minute! KillerChihuahua?!? 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * About two weeks ago. Too many people have trouble spelling my name so it seems, even the FAC regulars!  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 08:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * hah. Copy/Paste is your friend. *grin* KillerChihuahua?!? 15:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nguyen is hard to spell? Firefox's spellchecker even recognises it.  Sad.  Guettarda (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For a few people yes. But the other problem that people had was telling teh difference between a "L" "I" and "1".  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your declined reason
The discussion is ongoing on the talk page, and the newbie created the subpage without any consensus or prior asking. The content is duplicated, so there is no reason to have the subpage!--Caspian blue (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid speedy delete reason. Ignore the page if you wish. Or nominate it for Afd. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Improper answer for the duplicated page created by obvious sock. Why don't you defer it to other admin if you wish to ignore it.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I put speedy tag again, since I obviously don't believe that I have to take the subpage with duplicated and ongoing dispute to AFD--Caspian blue (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I need a valid speedy delete reason to delete something. G3 would work, more or less, if all the content is still extant on the original talk page, which you indicated was not the case, as you stated the user moved the page. Is that correct, or did you mis-state? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The content is still on the original talk page, and the newbie unilaterally tried to move the whole disputes because some claim is not good for Japanese side. So the contents on the subpage is duplicated.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, then it should have been tagged with db-g3 and don't say move when you mean copy, ok? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad you stuck with it until the miscommunication was cleared up, and glad I could help, btw. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Caspian blue (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete my page
If you do not know a subject or person please ask. Do not delete pages you know nothing about. Professor Walman is mentioned on a number of pages that refer to his certification as a Schillinger teacher.D2leo (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to read Notability (academics), which is the relevant guideline for Jerome Walman. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Jerome Walman
Why did you delete my page????????????? If you are uninformed ask the experts.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by D2leo (talk • contribs) 00:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read Why was my page deleted?. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
That place is a powder keg. If I was a new user, I would've done something dumb, like reverted, and that would've gone to hell fast. I'm afraid that the "stable version" that people are talking about is a result of that, not that we've found anything remotely close to the best article that it could be. Not complaining per se, but ruminating. Things have changed, and its hard dealing with the new Wiki. Or maybe I'm remembering the old days wrong.

At any rate, thanks for hearing me out and not treating me like I'm a POV pusher. I appreciate it. Separately, do you ever use the IRC channel?--Tznkai (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
Hi! I noted the major revision under "Reception" for the Sarah Palin article. There was no consensus on that revision, and there is, as you know, further discussion about the relevance of how the media feel about Palin. I am not one to revert, but reversion would make the discussion which is ongoing have a chance of success. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have missed not only my comment on the article talk page but also my notice at the top of this page "Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here." I'm not deleting your message this time, but in the future please do not bring content complaints here. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to have you view it as a complaint, but feared you had not read the additional material, which you clearly have read. Sorry. Collect (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read the entire damn talk page, and have for some time now. I ignore trolling; those who are discussing the subject and not the article; and of course always take into account our core policies, as CON never trumps NPOV and BLP. It is a pity you are rude enough to accuse me of what you cannot possibly know, that is, what I have read and not read, and been disingenuous enough to phrase your accusation as a "fear". Please attempt to AGF and treat other editors with more respect in the future. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have always assumed good faith. I trust that is satisfactory. Further on Talk: Sarah Palin. Collect (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you are lying, you just accused me of NOT wanting a balanced article. That is a personal attack, not assuming good faith. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the welcome, but what sparked it?
I appreciate the welcome and pointers to info on editing wikipedia, but I'm not sure what sparked it. Was it the edits I just made to the Tupac Shakur page and talk page? I believe those were all done in accordance with the info you linked, including signing my talk page contribution. Electronwill (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's on my watch list, and that's how I noticed your arrival. Good edits, much appreciated. The Welcome is the standard Welcome template, apologies if it seemed I was criticizing - I was honestly and sincerely welcoming you! that said, the links can be helpful if you wish to read up on the How and the Rules and so on of Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. Thank you! Electronwill (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus and minor edits
Already been there done that with telling him to be more careful with the use of minor edits., Unfortunately Hobartimus is under the mistaken impression that it doesn't apply to talk pages. Heh. Hopefully two reminders will on the same thing will be more helpful. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I hope he doesn't feel harassed. Btw, I just used the template - Uw-minor. You are quite correct, summaries are encouraged for all edits, not merely article edits. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I could have, but I prefer the personal touch with "experienced" editors, but thanks for the pointer on the template. I'll whip it out next time I see a newbie dropping the M tag. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Guiding Light!
First of all I wanted to thank you for your warm welcome.

I wanted to ask you about the cast listing. I've seen in the talk page for Guiding Light (2000-2009) that you have requested that the standard Contract/Recurring/etc. format not be copied. I was just wondering what your rationale was behind keeping the "family" structure was instead. Personally (and I say it without malice), this format seems more derivative of other sites on the Internet and also seems somewhat strange when compared to the pages for all other daytime dramas such as As The World Turns or The Young and the Restless, which have used the alphabetical Contract/Recurring format for as long as I've seen them, and even primetime shows which use a similar format, and overall seems much cleaner and efficient.

Again, thanks for your insight! Tehkrayon (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The other soaps copied an industry magazine. No other media in the world uses the bizarre and incomprehensible "going and coming" in their castlist. Look at any other cast list whatsoever, and that is not used. It is too bad the rest of the soap opera articles on WP have been lazy and sheep-like enough to copy that format, but I see no reason to sink to their level. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Women, female
Apparently "assume good faith" isn't a rule of thumb with you. Next time you disagree with an edit, try a little more tact. SchutteGod (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please link to where you feel I did not assume good faith, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

SchutteGod is disruptive and silly. The word “female” is a completely acceptable adjective. The word “woman” makes a better noun. For example: first female president, or, first woman to serve as president etc.

Please knock it off SchutteGod. Hello4321 (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello4321, please avoid insults such as calling fellow editors "disruptive and silly". Maintaining a civil environment is important for all of us. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

talk:Sarah Palin
I just added a lengthy section about how policies relate to this article, can you go over it and make sure I didn't make any mistakes? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, nice! - long is right, but it seems it isn't suffering from tl;dr - it has sparked a very nice discussion about applicable policies. I've scanned it and the responses, I'm going back to read it carefully now, but on first scan (and judging by the responses as well) it looks like you did an outstanding job. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Query about giving warnings shortly after vandalism has stopped
Would you please take a look here where I warned a user for 3 vandal edits, but my warning took place shortly after the last vandalism, and another editor removed them as the vandalism had stopped. From my perspective, it could have been just a 'lunch break', so I felt it useful to leave the warnings so they were clear that continuing would lead to a block. I'm not sure what the normal behaviour here would be. I probably would have blocked her if she came back and started vandalising again, whether or not the warnings had been removed. Maybe that would have been wrong, but we block to stop vandalising, and if someone's on a spree... Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment left. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine (blog)
Hello, do you remember this article I put up for CSD? The creating editor has stated that they can't WP:V it and has said that it can be CSD'ed. My question is, should I put it back up for CSD, or should it be PROD or AFD now that it's gone through CSD once? Thanks!  fr33k man   -s-  23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I deleted under G7, author request (per talk page). KillerChihuahua?!? 23:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome!  fr33k man   -s-  23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

 * Notice delivery by xenobot  14:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

IAR
Endorse. (And I don't really view it as IAR anyway.) Frank  |  talk  22:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * heh, thanks. Some view anything shy of adhering to every possible bureaucratic detail as OMG ignoring Due Process. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't think that won't happen here. I'm just pre-endorsing. ;-) Frank  |  talk  23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RE Psychokinesis
Thank you for this edit. Thus far, AFAICT, there is no scientific evidence that, say, the flight of a ball hit by a baseball batter's bat has been affected by the psychic disposition of a completely silent 50,000 member "home-team crowd". This despite our ability to fairly precisely measure bat speed, ball speed, speed of the pitcher's arm/forearm/wrist/hand, etc. etc. Perhaps a more empirically verifiable parameter might be produced by, say, the combined sound of fifty-thousand massively audible "boos", or whatever they typically do at the ballparks. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your very helpful advice! ;). Thanks,  Spencer T♦C 16:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

?
Do you have any idea what the issue really is? I encourage you to find something useful to do with your time and restrain yourself from actually typeing your thoughts on anymore pages or subjects. I've read a few of your tid bits of knowledge and I'm rather embarrased for you. Either you are an incomplete thinker or just too fast of a typer. Take a moment & maybe a deep breath before straining that abstract mind of yours any longer.--MDnews2u (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was speedy deleted under G11, which is advertising. You can find the list of Speedy deletion criteria on WP:CSD. FYI, you misspelled "embarrassed". KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

see [] and you will see that the page should have been given 5 days. I'm glad your spell checker is working-thanks for the "snippy" comment. see also [] it's one of your personal favorites. --MDnews2u (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. I don't have to look at anyone's talk page. It was deleted under G11, a speedy criteria, which does not require a wait time. Prods require 5 days. You are confused.
 * I am indeed "snippy" as you put it; I am attempting to explain things to you, who have spammed at least three people's talk pages with demanding and misinformed posts. You have responded by telling me my thinking is faulty and you are embarrassed for me, which is extremely insulting. You have now taken issue with a simple spelling correction from me. I suggest you get off the high horse and attempt to learn, rather than lecture. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remain calm. Although you don't HAVE to look at someone's talk page it would have certainly helped you to understand that the page was under intelligent review and discussion prior to its unwarranted deletion. It should have had a normal deletion process based on the mitigating circumstances of the newly presented articles of notability. An attempt to make a case for a "proper" regular deletion of any page is not, or should not be considered spam-when writing on another user's talk page in an attempt to question an innapropriate deletion becomes spam this site has lost all credibility and peer review (and NO, the inclusion of a healthcare clinic that provides a vital/novel service does NOT reduce this site's credibility). I will once again request that the ICW page be reinstated and the 5 days of a regular deletion process be observed so that interested parties may contribute/discuss its place, if any, on this site. As it is now the public are unable to weigh in.--MDnews2u (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am calm. It does no good to look at any preceding discussion, whether intelligent or not, when an article has been speedied. You are now asking that a deleted article be restored. Please see WP:DRV. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect- The initial speedy was contested and removed by Largoplazo leaving either a regular deletion process or a call for more sources concerning notability. redvar or whoever placed the speedy and subsequent deletion of the page ignoring the previous actions and therefore was in violation of the numerous guidelines outlined in the links you have posted. please review this history b/c i'm unable for even the talk/discussion history was deleted. --MDnews2u (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Redvers deleted under a speedy criteria; this means merely that he disagreed with Largoplazo. No tag is needed when an admin speedies an article. You seem to think that a prior speedy discussion has precedence or bearing on a subsequent action; this is not necessarily so. Redvers violated no policy when he deleted the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My attempt to question your actions (actually redvers) has been executed with respect for and indifference to your sole opinion. this is the process of a discussion. Where else does one seek help or opinions than discussion pages of other users (admin.). Your pattern of Crying "spam, spam" when you disagree with another user has not gone unnoticed even by other admin.'s. I will once again ask you to attempt to remain calm and try, if at all possible to look at this situation objectively without ganging up on any user including myself in the future. I am requesting that you step back and turn this issue over to another admin. based on your emotional responses and homophobic slurrs. Thank you for your consideration and I would like a copy of the original page made available so that the appropriate changes can be made including the article's name if necessary. Thank you. --MDnews2u (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of emotional responses, and certainly not of "homophobic slurs" - this is quite an accusation to make. Please provide evidence of such, or retract this portion of the statement.  Other admins, such as my self, have commented to your page that the deletion is acceptable.  Please discuss this constructively, or not at all.  Fritzpoll (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence: What on earth do you expect to accomplish by trolling here? Do you even realize that you are trolling? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC) I hope that you are not referring to the gay slang term when you say "trolling" for this would be inappropriate and warrant some serious discussion and possible actions concerning your homophobic rhetoric.--MDnews2u (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a gay slang term which used the word. See Troll (Internet) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Oh hell, I looked it up, and it just means trying to pick up someone. A)if you're trolling (in the gay slang sense), you suck at it, because spamming someone's talk page with complaints is hardly the best way to flirt, and B)if I thought you were trolling (in the gay slang sense), that might make me confused about how to pick up people, but it wouldn't make me homophobic. Jury's in; you are trolling, in the internet sense, and I'm done with your nonsense. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redvers"

"puppy has spoken; puppy is done". is a very "constructive" discussion. Please stop belittling this issue and ignoring the actual requests of a copy of the original page as well as a 5 day regular review and deletion process. This is not an unreasonable request. --MDnews2u (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that he says specifically that he was not using it in a homophobic sense, it is unfair to characterise it as such. If you continue to ignore users who have told you why the article was deleted under an appropriate process (five day deletion is not a "right" - compare WP:PROD and WP:CSD), you will be blocked for disruption (crossposting) Fritzpoll (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please send or post on my talk page a copy of the original page so that I may make the changes necessary (including the page's name) for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I do not have access to the original and spent a good deal of time trying to make it acceptable. Once again this is not an unreasonable request and this is certainly not disruptive. --MDnews2u (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but your violations of WP:CANVASS and WP:NPA are not only disruptive, they are blockable offenses. I suggest you strike through your allegation, above. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm Julian and this is my friend Sandy. While the intention was obviously to refer to the WP:TROLL meaning, it's hard to see that MDnews2u was doing anything intentionally other than trying to advertise his wee non-notable clinic. Tendentious disruptive editing is a more accurate description. I strongly urge MDnews2u to strike through the allegation, and to accept that Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. . . dave souza, talk 22:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for the copy of the page. I have read both WP:CANVASS and WP:NPA and am sorry that I once again disagree with you. Your reference of these pages in response to my questioning does not in and of itself define my actions but instead has provided me with the knowledge that not only justifies the process i have executed of Not canvassing or personally attacking but was the exact way to dispute an action. I notified no user who had not already injected themselves in to the converstaion and made no personal attack with the exception of the statement of "blocking a user who deletes a page without going thru the proper channels" which is not a personal attack but is a process/statement made by a user not about another user's innate tendancies or person but a mere statement of an acknowledged process of review observed by nearly every admin.. I suggest you strike thru your allegations of alleged violations by myself and we may then talk about your use of the word "trolling" and how one may interpret this. Once again thank you for the copy of the page.--MDnews2u (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but it was calling me homophobic which was (and is) the personal attack. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Orgone
Hi, I know this comment of yours is kind of old, but I was reviewing the talkpage and just recently saw it. I was really surprised to see something like this, especially from an administrator. Would you be willing to refactor it? Or, is it alright with you if I just delete it, or take the attack out? Thanks, --Elonka 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I mind. There is no attack in that post. Perhaps you misread it. I stated my confidence that Martin could be more civil, and suggested he work with his fellow editors. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So if I were to say, "You are being obnoxious," you would not see that as uncivil, or a personal attack? --Elonka 06:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on the context. However, that's hardly the point now, is it? If you were to say to me, having edited a number of the same articles for some time, so I knew you rather better than I do: "KC, you're being obnoxious, I know you can do better -here-, blah blah" and I never complain or act offended, but merely try to take your advice and do better, and then a month later someone else, completely uninvolved, bounces in and asks to edit or remove your post due to their civility concerns, I cannot help but think that perhaps they might need something more productive, and less nitpicky and intrusive, to do with their time. Just a thought. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that clarifies things, thanks. --Elonka 06:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little unclear myself on something. You are here because of concern for a comment made a month ago, yes? But your focus is on cleanup - you ask for a refactor, or a removal, but you never even discuss the comment. You never asked me, "Did you think that through? Did you realize you sounded so harsh? Have you considered that might have hurt Martin?" Why are you so concerned about cleaning up the evidence, and not at all on the actual comment, both commenter and target? It is puzzling to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, good questions. Okay, let me tell you where I'm coming from.  My focus is not so much on cleanup, as on reducing the disruption at the articles in the Pseudoscience topic area.  I noticed that some of it had overflowed to the Orgone article, so I was scanning the recent edits to the article, and the recent comments to the talkpage, to see what was up.  Some of the names were familiar to me.  Others (such as yours) were not.  On a first glance from my "uninvolved" eyes, your comment seemed a personal attack.  It also seemed ironic, considering that the comment was starting with incivility, and then going on to tell someone to be civil.  My first reaction was to post my usual, "Please comment on content, not the contributors".  My next was to possibly just delete the comment entirely, and/or warn the poster (you).  Then I dug deeper, and saw you were an admin, so I opted to place a polite note on your talkpage about it. I've also dug even deeper, looking at every edit that Martinphi made to the talkpage, and every edit to the article.  I'm not seeing behavior so bad that I would regard it as "obnoxious".  Or if it did reach that threshold, I would have cautioned both Martinphi and also Orangemarlin, who was also being a bit disruptive (such as that edit summary).  In neither case would I have referred to editors with the word "obnoxious", since I regard it as uncivil when directed towards an editor (though it's grey area if it was being used to refer to an edit).  If I would have been in your shoes at the time, and I were being formal, I would have advised people about using neutral edit summaries and treating other editors with good faith.  If I were striving for a more casual tone, I might have said, "Guys, please tone it down," without referring to either in particular.  Or if I really felt that one editor was out of line, I would have posted a note to his talkpage, with any diffs of concern.  But I wouldn't have just chewed him out on the talkpage.


 * As for your examples of other questions I might have asked you, I guess I assumed that since you're an admin, you would have been able to read that into my question without me making it explicit (as I see that you correctly did). You're saying that you have a casual enough relationship that you can call Martinphi "obnoxious", and there is no reason I should disbelieve you.  And as long as he has the equal right to say the same thing to you, that's pretty much between the two of you, though I think it would be better to keep such language on your personal talkpages, and not on a public article talkpage.  This is because other editors who aren't familiar with the rapport between the two of you, might look at your comment just as I did, and think, "Wow, KC was rude".  Then if they know that you're an admin, this might follow to, "Ah, I guess admins are allowed to be rude to other editors."  Which you and I both know is not true.  In fact, we as admins are supposed to put special effort into acting with decorum and courtesy, because we present the "official face" of Wikipedia, and other editors look to us as rolemodels.
 * Anyway, since you asked, I decided to let you know my thought process. Which doesn't mean that you need to do anything at this point, I just wanted to give you a thorough reply.  Best, --Elonka 14:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange conversation. Reducing disruption by digging through month-old comments...odd. Saying if it did reach that threshold one would have cautioned people...a month later? Quite frankly, that isn't, in my opinion, a way to "reduce disruption"...where I come from, the term "chook t'ing" would be a more accurate descriptor. Guettarda (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The best-case scenario is that someone has way too much time on her hands. We won't discuss worst-case.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 19:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

MedExpress Urgent Care
I thought u'd find this interesting MedExpress Urgent Care after that IC Wichita page issue --Dsternpv (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is interesting, but its at Afd. Let it run its course. Thanks for letting me know about it, tho, that was thoughtful. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah
on race and intelligence, I didn't even look at the article and I knew there was a problem-- that is, someone's starting the discussion in a backwards or upside-down manner.

and if I had to pick a neighorhood on a spectrum with what people call inclusionism on one end, I'd prob tend to hang out on that end but wow. so, yeah. all I did was go to the page black people and a template took me to the page in question. pretty sad. St. Puid, Head of Assisi 16:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can manage to trim it and clean it up at all, it would be appreciated, but I warn you - that article has been one of the most hostile and bitter battlegrounds on wikipedia, and you enter at your own risk - please follow all the policies carefully, and be prepared for an uphill battle for every edit. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion
What is your opinion of this edit ? Hobartimus (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware that particular content is currently subject to both a heated debate on the talk page and a minor edit war on the article, which is a pity. That said, that particular edit is not a violation of any policy and is correctly sourced. No edit summary was used, and I confess to being a bit opinionated concerning edit summaries - I prefer they always be used, although like many others, I don't have the "remind" feature turned on and sometimes forget, which may be what happened here. Does that answer your question, or did you have something more specific in mind? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Hobartimus (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Psychokinesis edit
Greetings! Your recent edit is currently under dispute at Talk:Psychokinesis. You may wish to enter the discussion. -Verdatum (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting relevant discussion on the Palin discussion page
Read the entry very very carefully. No one said that Palin was in a porn flick. Rather, the entry said that a pornographic film parodying Palin was being made. A great many references are available -- a FOX News report, a You Tube interview of the actress, and much more (just Google). Please stop vandalizing an attempt to suggest that very relevant content be added to the main Sarah Palin entry. Heck--it's just on the discussion page for cripes sake and not in the entry itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhipperSnapper (talk • contribs) 14:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then its trivial crap, and still doesn't belong in a BLP about a candidate for major office. Cease edit warring to add this to the article or talk page; it is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell ya what. I'll work on an improved entry that's fully referenced.  I don't see how the candidate's becoming (an unwilling) sex symbol is trivial or irrelevant even if it does offend her political supporters. WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Its not about Palin. Its about Hustler. It has no place on her article. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How is a political parody of Sarah Palin not about Sarah Palin? That's nonsense.  It's not about her simply because it has the effect of perhaps embarrassing her and turning her into a sex symbol?  That something like this is being done to a vice presidential candidate who tends to oppose free speech (firing the librarian, intent to ban books) and who is running under a banner of prudish Christian morality makes it very relevant.  Why would a candidate's being publicly humiliated not be relevant?  I don't see any reason why a brief mention of it shouldn't be made in the main article and how it's mentioned needs to be discussed first.  WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it to the article talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 21:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:NoMoreHop.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NoMoreHop.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 10:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Homicide Puppy on break?
Contribs suggest little Homicidal Puppy on break maybe? Puppy well, hopefully? Has been honourably mentioned on Bishzilla page (by the great Bishzilla, no less) in increasingly weirdo thread. Wish to contribute, little yap-yap? Remember weirdness, not to disappoint fan club and other doggy friends! <font face="comic sans ms">  bishzilla    ROA R R! !     20:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC).

NOR
I just made three proposals at WP:NOR - feel free to comment, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of your user name
Image:Killer Chihuahua.jpg|350px|left (link removed from disturbing image)


 * Oh dear, no. I'm a sweet kind little puppy, not Cujo like at all! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Articles
Hello, I noticed that you contributed to the Austin & Pickersgill article, I am proposing that this is merged to the A&P Group article as part of the company's history and was wondering what you thought. Seeing as though it is now known as A&P rather than its full name I was thinking that the latter article should be kept, and the older one merged into it. Thanks, Xtrememachineuk (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My contribution was extremely minor. While I much appreciate your courtesy in notifying me, I waive any input into this decision and/or process, and will trust in your judgment. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061
Hi, are you sure you meant to block User:PMDrive1061? He seems mainly to be reporting and reverting vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I did not mean to do that. I have never made such an error before, I meant to block the person he reported. Many thanks for your gentle courtesy in asking, it must be clear I have made a dreadful error and you have been quite polite about it. I can only hope poor PMDrive1061 will be similarly understanding. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not the first admin to make that sort of slip (the first time I was blocked was pretty much identical) - when dealing with a busy board like AIV I am sure that it is inevitable that human-error will creep in somewhere, best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, you're very kind. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:78.148.205.87
Do silence the little monkey, would you? Half Shadow  00:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)do
 * I'm full of codeine. Do you know how hard it is to give more than a semblence of a damn when someone insults you when you're wrecked? The only reason I can type coherently is because it doesn't involve moving a lot. Half  Shadow  00:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with Bishonen and say perhaps you might want to consider taking a nap. Or watching TV. Or heck, watch the walls melt. Your typing is impressive for someone who is wasted, but the content is not particularly helpful to the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG!
Why oh why was I unblocked? Doggone it, I have to go back to vandalizing the site once more! Prepare for the wrath of Grawp, MascotGuy and Willy on Wheels wrapped up in one! Mwaahaahaaaa!

Just kidding. You actually made my day, it was so funny. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


 * (crossposted) You are too nice! I am glad you found my incompetence humorous rather than mortifying or aggravating. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. In fact, I saw myself on the list of blocked users before I'd logged in and I figured it was a boo-boo. Unnerving, but a boo-boo. ;) Anyway, this is one for the baby book.  Thanks again for the laugh.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Truth?
"Well, I see a problem. 10lb is still non-adminned? Well, color me with cliche #1, then. How did this happen?" Because I do stupid things like this, this and this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, stop dat, den. :P KillerChihuahua?!? 01:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been trying. It's these otters who keep getting me in trouble. :-P Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Talk page "policy"
Hi, I have made a comment at AN, relating to ArbCom practice if not policy. My comment is motivated by what happened during the Thatcher/lar/SV case - I cannot deny that - but I really see this as a matter that can arise in the future and we need an abstract principle for handling it. 

I do not want discussion of my comment to get bogged down in the past. I think ArbCom needs some kind of clear (transparent) principle to guide it in the future. Could you comment? Say wahtever you think - just please push the conversation in the direction the future, not the past. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oog
Completely off topic entirely social hello, how are you?--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeterminate. I am currently seeking gainful employment. (Shhh, be vewey, vewy quiet... I'm hunting jobses.) Hence my near-disappearance here. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How would you like to be paid generously... for editing Wikipedia from your own home? Contact me for the details, and I'll pass your name on with my recommendation to Pfizer, Ortho-Biotech, and Merck. :) Join the club. MastCell Talk 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Will I get a "code-name" like you? Will I have to be a "biostitute" (wth is a biostitute, anyway?) or can I stay a puppy? Do you get paid a bonus for harassment of innocent editors who are only trying to ensure The TruthTM is in articles, or is that part of your normal duties? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think being a "biostitute" means that my biomedical expertise can be rented by the hour, rather than being reserved only for people with whom I share a deep emotional connection or at least a mutual physical attraction. Though I guess I should share the most painful development - I was subsequently downgraded from a "paid" biostitute to an unpaid one. MastCell Talk 07:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thats... wow. I would totally sell myself out. Literature pays diddly. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Cabala
About the 18th century lit cabal silliness - I will finally have time, so I will be putting forth my short passage reading project, dealing with 18th century lit and the rest, on Wikiversity. It will mostly have a passage, some questions, and a discussion area. I will put a few things to choose from and take requests, so it can be an ongoing project. I'm only telling youthis now because you kinda expressed interesting, heh. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I sent you an email. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was ill and unable to assist you, I am sorry it has taken me so long to reply. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
So pleased to see your name on the Mediation list. Unless you feel very positive about it, I would prefer that you just point me in the direction of a good mediator, seeing as you edited on Palin yourself. I don't personally believe that someone can be biased and not show it, therefore AGF precludes Conflict of Interest, but many people obviously put great stock in it. If it jogs your memory, I was the one who put the chart about the number of everyone's edits on the talk page, proving Ferrylodge's accusation against you that you were doing BRRR to be in fact the opposite, that he broken WP:3RR about 3 times over, that day. Anyways, I didn't know about 3RR back then, or I would probably have just said that, since the chart was soon deleted anyway. Ferrylodge has gone off to edit Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Collect shows up once in a while, but Fcreid and LedRush, Tom, and Kelly are my real problem now. They do the same thing over and over, revert, assert. My refuting their assertions, pointing out that their assertions aren't backed with evidence, my reasons for inclusion or deletion, all of that goes unanswered, or answered with more unbacked assertions, ad nauseum subjective claims like WEIGHT, etc. Revert, assert. Even if you won't take the case or don't know someone who will, even if you've read all that was just deleted from the article already, you should look at the discussion page. Pretty sure that is an exclusive: the Alaska Supreme Court case that proves and illuminates the Palin Church and State AP story. Good talking at you. Anarchangel (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your confidence! Officially, we all rock the house. In practice, the mediator is usually (where possible) someone who has no edited the article in question ; who has no strong relationships, either pro or con, with the editors involved; and who has the available time. If you want to ask me questions I am always here; but I will not be mediating. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing the puppy Feliz Navidad ;)



 * Ah, thank you much!!! Your art is lovely as always, and the sentiment much appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Merrrrry Kitzmas. ... Kenosis (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you
I see that you removed some material from the Sarah Palin talk page. Thank you. Single purpose accounts are still very active over there and they tag team to no end. Is it me?? Anyways, cheers! --Tom 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, you are completely in the right removing that essay stuff. No place for it on WP. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your warning

 * I note your warning, but I am pretty sure it was inappropriate. First, I wasn't even "warring for inclusion of that nonsense". Just undeleting the comments discussing it in the first place. If it is truly not a fit subject or source, it should be a simple matter to dispose of that in Talk. Deleting the comments, instead, was not appropriate at all. I have encountered situations where it was appropriate to delete comments rather than rebut them, and this was not one of them. I notice that you didn't warn Tom for warring the same issue. And by the way... the London Review of Books is not a blog. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays
In the spirit of the Christmas season, would you accept an olive branch from someone who has disagreed with you in the past? Blessings to you, and best wishes to you and all your loved ones. Kelly hi! 18:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No olive branch needed, but thanks much! I hope we can disagree without ever taking it personally, yes? Best wishes to you and yours this holiday season as well! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

On Creation Science
Sorry, didn't scroll down far enough on the "history" page to see the previous damage,and I forgot about sourcing the lede isn't necessary... Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, rereading WP:LEAD, it looks like the lead should be sourced with citations as well...don't know where I got the idea it was different...Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Darnit, did they change that? and when? Yes it used to be different. The lead is a summarization of the article, and if sourced in the article, no need to have the cite in the lead. I'll look into this, but IAR, if its sourced, its sourced. Same goes for sourced in main article when there are spin off sub articles, too. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. In Lead: "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source..." and goes on to mention CON. so its been toned down from what I remember; and further there is a comment in the lead of WP:LEAD itself which states that the lead isn't exempt from needing cites, so basically the darn guideline is a little contradictory. All that said, the guy edit warring to add the fact tag was refusing to discuss and was edit warring for something which is, in fact, cited. The section on the guideline page mentions ease of locating sources not unsourced content, which is what the fact tag is for. In short, there may be grounds for discussion about whether to place the cite in the lead or not, but the "fact" tag is completely inappropriate for something which is sourced (just not sourced where the editor wants it to be.) Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)