User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 22

Men's rights pobation issues
Hi KC, hope you're doing well. I'm just letting you about a thread I've opened with Tom Paris re: some issues around the Men's rights probation. See User_talk:TParis. The first issue deals with off-wiki stuff, and some further aspersion casting by Memills, this time at ANI. Secondly I've noticed a pattern of SPAs and IPs basically name calling Carptrash - just thought it'd be useful for you to see this--Cailil  talk 23:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I do not consider being called a "she" as "name calling" regardless of the intentions of the callers. Carptrash (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's good, because I think I've automatically used the same gender pronoun as the person I was replying to and used 'she' at least once. :-/ I apologize. That said, I myself don't consider being referred to as 'he' an insult, but if they pointedly persist after being informed of my gender, then it is a logical presumption they intended to be at the very least annoying, and very probably insulting. Thanks for letting me know. Killer Chihuahua 10:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I undestand but I think, as KC implies, it speaks to a school yard bully mindset that these accounts do things like this deliberately. I'm coming 'round to subscribing to the Broken windows theory--Cailil  talk 11:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Forum shopping
CSDarrow has been trying to use the article talk page and RSN to declare a source unreliable - this hasn't work. Drmies already posted to WP:AN about this. CSDarrow has now (after the AN thread) opened a Notability noticeboard thread. This has no become forum shopping. I know you're busy but could you have a look?--Cailil  talk 21:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * :-( Killer Chihuahua 21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know this is a week late but I'm extremely busy (as I'm sure you are). Notwithsatnding that this comment at NPOVN is worth noting. It's not just the number of threads OR the number of posts by CSDarrow that bludgeon discussion/consensus to death it's also the lack of civility and collegiality--Cailil  talk 09:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You know that really is a bit too stale. Did you leave a note on his page about it? Killer Chihuahua 20:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I realize the staleness KC - I wasn't looking for action on that. I'm trying to illustrate the pattern and the extent of the problem beyond just one thread/issue. I haven't left CSD a post because frankly there is no point in anyone who has disagreed with CSD saying anything to him if what we get is that attitude and TLDR responses. He isn't listening to *editors* who disagree with him. Perhaps RFC/U might be a good idea - what do you think?--Cailil  talk 20:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * RFC/U can be helpful; do try very hard to ensure it is clear you are offering helpful feedback and suggestions, and try to avoid the hanging party atmosphere as much as you can. I'd wait and see if there is another instance or two prior to starting an Rfc, and leave notes on his talk page, first. He may be more receptive than you guess; it is almost always worth the try prior to heading to Rfc. Besides, it is even a pre-req; you must show you have attempted to resolve the issue as part of the filing, unless they changed the rules while I wasn't looking. Killer Chihuahua 02:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: RfC/U
Sorry to hear you're not feeling well. I hope the biopsy turned out well. Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: Please participate if you are able, and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Thank you, how sweet! Killer Chihuahua 21:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on WP:BLANKING: Did you mean 5g?
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, darnit. I typo'd. I'll fix it, thanks. Killer Chihuahua 01:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by that the Tea Party Movement case be suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Health update / Notice
Biopsy is back; I have cancer. I will be having surgery in the near future, followed by other treatments. I expect to have a fairly easy time of it, as cancer patients go, and make a full recovery; but this will take time. My availability here will therefore continue to be sporadic, I am sorry to say; please take direct requests for assistance to other admins, or to the appropriate noticeboard. I wish to take this opportunity to thank again all the people who have been kind enough to leave me well-wishes here, since this whole mess began in February. It has meant a great deal to me that so many have taken the time to post here, and given such encouraging and thoughtful (and sometimes funny!) messages. Killer Chihuahua 12:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry to read this. I just got back from a long weekend with my daughter who is also having health issues.  I reminded her that she is no good to anyone if she is not good to herself, and I'll say the same to you.  So take care of yourself, get well and then come back and carry on. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also very, very sorry to hear this, and hope the treatments go as smoothly and painlessly as humanly possible. If it is any comfort, I know several people who have had what I think is the same kind of cancer - and they've all done very well after a few initial ups and downs.  Take care of yourself in the meantime. --Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fight with zeal, kick its ass!-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 16:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear the biopsy result, at least the prospect of a full recovery sounds good. Best wishes for restoration of your health, hope to see you back once you're fighting fit again. Of course interim updates from you will be very welcome (and edits if this MUD game works as a useful form of therapy :-) We'll try to keep the Wiki rolling along till you return. . . . dave souza, talk 17:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hoping for a fast and positive recovery for you.--MONGO 20:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you all so much! TDA, genuine big smile at that, it sounds like a cheer from a sporting event! dave, prognosis is good, and I expect to be in the happy group which keeps the statistics happy. Slp1, I have a hard time doing that but I'm trying to take care of myself. I'm at least following my doctors' orders and taking all the meds on schedule. Mongo, thank you for your kind wishes, it is what I hope for myself. Killer Chihuahua 01:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * KC, my thoughts are with you and I hope you'll have a quick recovery. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Sonic! Killer Chihuahua 22:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear about this KC, but is great news that the prognosis is good. Look after yourself, and best wishes for a swift recovery--Cailil  talk 15:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Cailil. Killer Chihuahua 20:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

In 1993 I had a kidney removed because of cancer -- a kind of cancer that has a fairly low 5-year survival rate. Here I am, 20 years later and still cancer-free. I predict that your case will go just as well, and I am looking forward to receiving a "you were right!" message from you sometime in 2033. (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will mark that on my calendar so I don't forget, Guy! Killer Chihuahua 20:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The anonymous Internet wishes you well, dear puppy. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't believe that I didn't see this until now. I hope all goes well with the procedures, and I wish you a swift recovery. Best, NW ( Talk ) 17:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Surgery will be Jul 3, with other treatments to follow. I have every expectation of making a complete recovery and being back here full time to annoy you in a reasonably short period of time. Killer Chihuahua 21:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Job!
Thank you so very much! Puppies love barnstars. :-) Killer Chihuahua 21:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

 * Oh wow, thanks! Killer Chihuahua 12:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case resumed
This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has decided to resume the Tea Party movement case, which currently is in its voting stages.

Regards, — ΛΧΣ  21  16:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope your surgery went exceptionally well.
I'll be pulling for you. Best wishes, Vigilant. WOVigilant (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is very kind of you. Killer Chihuahua 15:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Pudeo's block
As a courtesy, I am pointing you to a discussion at User talk:Bwilkins referencing your block of. (Also, in case you didn't notice through the notification system, I reversed your block of him.) --  tariq abjotu  19:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding me unblocking Pudeo. The thread is Bwilkins' response to my unblock of Pudeo. Thank you. --  tariq abjotu  22:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not online and missed that party. FWIW, I have no issue with the unblock, I approve the new template and will try to remember it exists and use it in the future. Changing another editors post is serious; I have no regrets about my original block as I read the situation. I also see how Pudeo could have done so accidentally - which still leaves his strident ABF of Cailil hanging in the air, but eh. Killer Chihuahua 13:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A quick question...
...regarding the proposed ArbCom Tea Party final decision, if I may. What are your thoughts regarding the decision overall? It is perfectly OK with me to not respond and delete the section, if you prefer, as this has been a long grind and you may not wish to prolong it a single post further. I do thank you for taking it to ArbCom! Best wishes, Jus  da  fax   03:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nado158 and his topic ban.
Apologies for the disturbance. I'm not too familiar with how topic bans work, so having observed you were the person who instituted this, I thought I'd pop you a message.

I've just been looking over Nado's contribs and it does look to me like he's started editing on some Serbian related articles again, over the last month or so. Are those edits a violation of his ban? Is so, any chance of reminding him he's meant to be on his best behavior? Thanks. Dolescum (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey there
We've never had an opportunity to talk, and I hope you don't think I'm being rude. I'm aware of your health issues and want you to know that I hope you enjoy a complete and rapid recovery. The Wikidrama sometimes overwhelms some of us to the point that we forget other editors have a real life, and real problems they have to handle.

What do you think of all this — the moderated discussion, what's happening (or not happening) there, the ArbCom proceeding and the pending motion to just page-ban everybody — the good, the bad, and the ugly? I noticed your comment on the "Talk:Proposed decision" page. I couldn't agree more regarding Collect. He needs to be removed from the list. I don't know enough about TFD's situation to comment. And why did you leave out Xenophrenic in your original petition? regards .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have not been able to follow the various pages at all, sorry. And I don't recall why Xeno was left out of the original filing. Was he listed on the ANI page as one of the peeps for whom sanctions was called? If so, then it was simple oversight/error on my part. Apologies for the brevity of this answer, not having a good day today health-wise. Killer Chihuahua 15:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear this ain't such a good day for health, but nonetheless good to see you editing. Once again, give priority to getting better, the wiki can look after itself. Probably. All the best, . dave souza, talk 18:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your userpage
Also, may I use it as inspiration for my own? I'm probably going to add an icon-based navbar and change the layout somewhat, but I just wanted to check with you making sure it's okay. Thanks, you're wonderful, the  one  sean  21:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aw, I also like your user page, although I do miss the photo of Little Man that I named after you, which is still the first image for your name. --David Shankbone  03:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much, and yes feel free to borrow shamelssly, it is all GFDL. Killer Chihuahua 19:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WTF
I can make not a whit of common sense on the part of AGK and his proposal for a six month topic ban on me when I did not belong in the damn case in the first damn place. What is going on? Can anyone explain exactly why AGK made those findings about me? Aaaarrrggghhhhh! (The last word was an extended quote from KC, I think <g>) (Feel free to remove excess damns - but I think I made my point <g>)  Collect (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no excessive damns. I have no freaking clue, sorry. Killer Chihuahua 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey puppy
This is a "hey what's up, puppy, I hope you're doing well" message. I hope you're doing well. Best, Drmies (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I am doing better. Surgery was successful, they tell me, and I made it through the radioactive iodine (a week from hell if ever there was one.) I'm now patiently taking meds and waiting for them to build up in my system to the point that I feel "normal". I'll be trying to ease back in a bit here now, but taking it slow. How are you doing? Last thing I remember you tossed your responsibility out the window resigned your tools due to burnout, I am so glad to see you thought better of leaving WP in the lurch have decided you are rested enough and gotten back into the trenches! Killer Chihuahua 12:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in. It's good to hear your doing well KC and nice to see you back--<font color="#808080" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#808080">talk 19:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back and that your bark or bite or whatever hasn't gotten any weaker. John Carter (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, much appreciated! It's good to be back, however limited my efforts may be for a bit. Killer Chihuahua 00:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did toss my bit out the window, but the neighbor tossed it back. I'm not using my bit so much anymore (well, I just indeffed someone)--the fun of being an admin still hasn't returned. But this is your page, and we celebrate you and life. So welcome back, and all the best. I hope "normal" meets you halfway. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, Drmies! No, the magic never quite returns. It is like your first time at a big theme park or fair - before you're old enough and cynical enough to see through the plaster. Before you know the cotton candy is just sugar and food coloring, and all the games are rigged. You still go, of course. You still enjoy the show. But it's not the same. Killer Chihuahua 15:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So glad to hear that you're back in good health, KC. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * [looks up from trenches] Hey, great to see you running about and woofing merrily! [so to speak] Very glad to hear your health is on the mend. . dave souza, talk 20:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
19:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Read and replied! Killer Chihuahua 12:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice in regards to your actions
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_group_of_users_framing_me_as_a_potential_fringe_and_making_allegations Prokaryotes (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI subpage
Wanted to get your opinion or whether to archive the Manning subpage, or unarchive the ANI link? NE Ent 00:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is still activity on the subpage, I'd unarchive the link. If there has been no activity for more than 24 hours, I'd leave the link archived. Killer Chihuahua 02:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Archived. Not to pick the nit but just so you're aware the ANI archive time is now 36 hours (it did used to be 24). NE Ent 03:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh, my age is showing. Thanks, I'll try to remember that. Of course, once I get 36 firmly in my head, it will be changed again. :-/ Killer Chihuahua 14:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln
"Don't believe everything You read on the internet." Abe Lincoln — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.40.134 (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed
An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ave atque vale
Per ArbCom barring any reprieve from TPTB. Collect (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds
I knew you didn't change the content, and Greengrounds is now indefinitely blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just was not happy with him using my name in vain, as it were. All's well that ends well. Killer Chihuahua 20:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Kratch
Hi KC, sorry to bug you but this issue probably is best handled by you. User:Kratch was one of the bunch of users who appeared suddenly on WP after the men's rights fora and reddit took issue with changes to the Men's rights movement article being made in October 2011. You warned him about his style of commentary on 23 October 2011. Subsequently he basically stopped editing - he made a few edits on Nov 7th 2011 and 1 on December 7th, and then nothing. Until suddenly out of the blue Kratch reappears with this on a VERY obscure page. Feminists Engage Wikipedia *was* an initiative in March 2013. Of course when the reddit crowds heard this their novel response was "We should do a counter edit the next day". Nevertheless, nothing much actually transpired by way of edit warring in that instance. However a NEW initiative is being launched with campus ambassadors and universities. Real students will be adding information to wikipedia pages as part of their college courses. Of course wikipedia's friends at Reddit and elsewhere picked-up on this too. This needs eyes on it. Kratch's flambaiting is the "thin end of the wedge"--<font color="#808080" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#808080">talk 20:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, please do not bring such issues to me alone while the banner is still at the top of my page. I'm not here full time; I may miss such items. I'll take a look in a bit, but in the future please notify another admin (one currently editing regularly) or ANI and if you wish, leave a brief note informing me of it here. I cannot guarantee I'll be around to handle such issues. Killer Chihuahua 13:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

anent "bosh and twaddle" (Teddy Roosevelt is now banned from Wikipedia)
Have you sent your off-wiki commentary to JW perchance? Gracias. Collect (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sent what to who? I'm sorry, I'm confused. Killer Chihuahua 13:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comments on an unnameable  site would appear to be relevant to the issue of the ArbCom appeal for the strange TPm decision.  Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't. I don't plan to, either. My personal armchair quarterbacking is almost certainly of no interest to them. I cannot remember the last time I emailed ArbCom. I generally leave them alone. They get enough spam, I am sure. As far as the other site goes, at least one Arb reads it; if they care about my thoughts there they're already informed. Killer Chihuahua 14:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — Legobot (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!
21:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

may your health issues dissipate.
may you return to and be sustained in health, Killer. best wishes. 12.226.82.60 (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Missed
Just a note that the Puppy is missed. 00:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
You have been mentioned in a current arbitration case request, and are invited to comment at the above link. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 10:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I post for the first time in three months, and I hear from ArbCom. Yes, this is the Wikipedia I remember. :-P Killer Chihuahua 16:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hope you're OK
Yeah, what the header says! We haven't seen you here in a long time. Hope you're doing well! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Heimstern. I'm ok. Just... still recovering, and have had a Series of Unfortunate Events. Thanks so much for your kind concern. Killer Chihuahua 22:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, puppy! :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Whew! Happy to see you popping up.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, guys. :-) I'm not actually *back*, although I hope to be after the new year. Killer Chihuahua  15:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, great to see you around, hope Hogmanay does you lots of good and gets you back into form! . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Mail
You have mail.

Sorry to disturb your tranquility. I want to make it clear I did not name you as a party to the request; I only named myself. I do appreciate your response there, and wish you a speedy recovery.

Best regards, Neotarf (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Query
How does one deal with editors who are so entrenched in the wording they desire that they will not even contemplate moderating language? <g> Talk:List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience and User_talk:Enric_Naval contain discourse wherein I opine that "Arkeology" is not a particularly neutral name for searches for "Noah's Ark", that the finding of an ark would be pseudoscience, but that actual real scientists have engaged in such clearly problematic searches, and that it is improper to label them as "pseudoscientists" as a result (viz. the  beloved "Doc" Edgerton who "searched" for Nessie and Atlantis inter alia). My position is that since real scientists participate in such impossible tasks that their work is not ipso facto "pseudoscience" though claims of actually finding the ark are likely pseudoscience. Schliemann, as an example, is rejected as having not been a "real scientist" when he bullheadedly found Troy <g>. I proposed language several times noting that distinction, and am faced with strange debate tactics not foreseen, IMO, by WP:CONSENSUS. An awful lot of great science has occurred from scientists looking for the impossible. Might you note this as another rant from me? <g> Collect (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW
Santayana may be right. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Those who cannot learn from....? Indubitably. Killer Chihuahua  01:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel better soon!
Coming up on my first anniversary as an admin, I still appreciate your warm welcome. Take care, and I hope to see you around more this year! All the best,  Mini  apolis  22:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Wow, has it been a year already? I'm so pleased you're active, even though I have not been - it's good to know the place is in safe hands. Killer Chihuahua 01:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great to hear from the Puppy again! Take care and all the best,  Mini  apolis  03:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> benign, forgiving creature with a bite

Thank you for continuous quality contributions not only to articles, but mediation, editor retention, help to ignore incivility, allow human editors to believe they are in charge, and to, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 June 2007, 17 May 2009, 25 November 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 408th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:I Love Rock 'n' Roll
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:I Love Rock 'n' Roll. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope you soon heal. :)
Dear Killer Chihuahua,

Noticing "Memills" was red, I curiously clicked it and thus found your original username, "Killer Chihuahua". When I noticed your talk page header, I felt sad. I hope you soon heal. :)

PS I coincidentally flew in a squadron called the Killer Chihuahuas in the game Aces High. Duxwing (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * hugs*

Proposed deletion of UniteWomen.org


The article UniteWomen.org has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not appear to be a noteworthy organization. Multiple reliable sources about the organization do not appear to exist.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of UniteWomen.org for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UniteWomen.org is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/UniteWomen.org until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom of course
An arb decided that there is sufficient evidence to sanction me for American Politics (broadly construed) it seems. I find the "evidence" submitted to be a tad inadequate for the purpose, but that arb was the one who submitted the "evidence" in the Tea Party case, so I cannot say I am really surprised. shows the dramatis personae  and evidence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I log on for the first time in months, and get this. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Killer Chihuahua 18:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You should ignore bs and laugh. So this baby seal walks into a club... — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi KC, good to see you looking in. The longer I edit, the more turns up that is beyond my knowledge or comprehension. Sorry to see the above, Collect, hope it all works out well. If my reading is correct this s one arb opinion at an early stage, so reason can yet prevail. Best wishes to all, . dave souza, talk 20:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of Youtubers
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of Youtubers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They're already trying to suck you back into the meatgrinder.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Any sign of life, and the system demands a sacrifice! :-D Killer Chihuahua  14:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Olivier Leclercq
Okay it has a interesting history, so I had a prod on it about a week ago that was declined since it technically had a ref. Then a bunch of vandals came in. It had the same refs last night that it does now but was speedied for the same reason (Not by me but by someone else). It also looks like a huge history of sock puppetry going on. So I was unsure of what to say when it came back. (I was not going to do a csd originally, but in the end I did, the original one I did not put up the CSD though) Wgolf (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a POS no doubt, but it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy under A7. A claim of notability has been made, and even sourced. Feel free to find another rationale or add to Afd. Killer Chihuahua 17:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * -Yeah thats true-I don't know how it got deleted last night for the same CSD tag though. I'm really not sure what to tag it as to be honest. Wgolf (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that should have been claim of significance, not notability. I don't know why the previous admin deleted, but it doesn't fit the criteria. Thanks again - Killer Chihuahua 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

For anyone who is still watching
An update. The radiation I was given had the fun side effect of galloping cataracts, so I was unable to see well enough to be on the computer. I could manage on a phone by holding it to my face, but while that works ok for me for emails and facebook, I find it impossible to edit Wikipedia so. I am happy to report that my second eye surgery this past Monday was successful. I cannot say how quickly I will try to become active here again, or how active I will be, but that is now at least a possibility. Killer Chihuahua 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope all goes well and those "galloping cataracts" are tamed & whupped. We want you back! Vsmith (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you, and I hope you continue to feel better. :) MastCell Talk 21:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Best wishes for recovery! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Take your time. Get better first! Glad to hear things went positively!--Mark Miller (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Best wishes in getting well soon. I had cataract surgery a few years ago. I think you will enjoy how your vision improves over the next days and weeks. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope your health continues improving.-- The Best Wishes Advocate ♥  ♥00:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All the best Super Puppy! — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Very best wishes to you. Yopienso (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, everyone! The first eye is doing fabulously well, the second not so great but according to the surgeon, it will take three months before we know how well it has done. I may end up having lasic later for fine tuning, or possibly (ack) surgery again. But look at me, typing online and seeing what I write! :-)  Killer Chihuahua  14:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How great that you are mostly healing well. I ca imagine one will feel very handicapped without an adequate reading vision. Hope to see you around here, a little bit at least. Best wishes, Iselilja (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Iselilja! I feel terrible complaining, knowing there are others with far, far worse problems, but it has been humbling and I appreciate being able to simply see where I'm going so much more. Killer Chihuahua  16:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed; there are others worst of you then you - myself. However I never complain or my trials and tribulations or even mention them. Even so, I am delighted to hear of your satisfactory progression. No, you just need to model yourself on me. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Lady de Burgh, you are truly a shining inspiration to us all, most especially your brevity and forbearance to ever breathe even the slightest hint of any suffering, in spite of the dreadful trials and tribulations which have been your lot. Here, have a small glass of sherry and sit for a bit. Killer Chihuahua 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Great to see your name pop up on my watchlist, KC. Welcome back, and continued good luck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Floque! It is good to be back. Killer Chihuahua 16:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Saw you show up on my watchlist
The only down-side to people remembering you (rest assured, you are remembered well by a lot of people) is that is much less pleasant than actually working with you directly. Great to see that you're still around. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How very kind of you to say so! I miss working with you and all the other good people here, too. I'm trying to get back when I can, but RLIAB (real life is... problematic at times). Killer Chihuahua  23:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

x

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"
In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> benign, forgiving creature with a bite

Thank you for continuous quality contributions not only to articles, but mediation, editor retention, help to ignore incivility, allow human editors to believe they are in charge, and to, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 June 2007 - "Friend, don't be sad as you read this", 17 May 2009, 25 November 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 408th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize,

Hey
Hey! Suddenly you turn up on ANI! :-) How are you? Bishonen &#124; talk 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Under the circumstances, I am really happy to see someone else post here, because under the circumstances it seemed possibly questinable for me to open a thread here. I'm happy to be guessing the fingers are at least still working fairly well, and sincerely hope that the rest of the system is more or less up to par as well. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Great to see you back, Puppy, even if it's on ANI :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  22:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, peoples, my life has been.... interesting. I hope for it to calm and settle soon. Email me if you want the nasty deets. Killer Chihuahua 14:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Where are you?
Why haven't you been editing for a month? I like to see familiar faces on my watchlist; it really is most inconsiderate of you. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice
Very nice to see the puppy drop by. Always great to see you. :-) — Ched : ?  17:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Always nice to be here. Killer Chihuahua 18:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Very good news! Here is nicer for your presence. . . . dave souza, talk 18:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! How very nice of you to say so! (oh, now I see why it's nicer...!) Killer Chihuahua  18:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So happy to see you! Katietalk 18:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Aw, thanks! I'm reading a book about you - Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded. Interesting stuff. Killer Chihuahua 19:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Great to see you back again! John Carter (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much!!! (I already read the books about you.... ) Killer Chihuahua 19:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Long time no see! Welcome back to the asylum. It's no longer possible to tell the inmates from the guards, you should be warned. MastCell Talk 01:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I resemble that remark, . Remember who's in charge now. Moi. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so very much! Yes, I saw you'd been brave? bold? preternaturally disinclined to guard what remains of your wits after lo these many years here? However one phrases it, I confess I supported you in your rise to power. I'm glad to see the payoff is beer, I can certainly use one. And MastCell, I am delighted beyond words to see you again. Killer Chihuahua  03:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Voluntary" means what exactly?
I'm in the process of trying to work out something with Laser Brain. LB was the only admin who answered my request for more information. From my perspective, when Ed Johnson said "a voluntary offer sufficient to forestall a ban," it sounded like he was demanding that I agree to something before finding out what it was. I need some specifics. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Since it was Ed's suggestion, you might prefer to ask . I would be inclined to think it would mean you have to make a promise which in Ed's estimation would be sufficient to forestall a ban. For example, you might promise to not edit anything regarding quotes for three months, then limit yourself to one edit a day for a year. Or you might promise to confine yourself only to the talk page. You'd have to be open to discussion and working something ou that you will be able to stick to, and that Ed and the other AE admins find acceptable. Killer Chihuahua 17:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJ was the first person I asked. I did not get an answer.
 * One edit a day for a specific period of time sounds feasible. Trying to work out something I'd be able to stick to is exactly what these posts on your and others' talk pages have been about.  The problem is that I do not already know what you or Ed or anyone else thinks is acceptable.  I know what I think is acceptable and it's pretty clear that it differs from your own standards.  I can't read anyone's mind, and guessing hasn't worked out so well.  That's why I'm asking.
 * My big concern is the article space. I reasonably expect that if I'm not in the picture, SMcCandlish and the others will re-add the unsourced material and biased wording that I removed.  If the topic ban is put in place, I would like specific instructions for what actions I am and am not allowed to perform, like commenting on the talk page or alerting other editors, should this happen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally topic bans are broad - which means if you're wondering if it's covered, it almost certainly is. I once advised someone who was banned under WP:TROUBLES who was unclear on what he couldn't edit that if he saw an article about a bird which was listed under the Birds of Ireland category and he had a source that the bird was found throughout the UK that he should not change the category to Birds of the UK. That is broad interpretation. If there is any way at all that something might be considered covered, it is best to consider it covered. You will be informed whether talk pages are included. If it is not specified, ask the closing admin. Killer Chihuahua 21:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In response to what Darkfrog24 just posted up there, note the attitude that the editor is the Knight in Shining Armor defending the article from heathen hordes of nonbelievers. Actually, I've spent a small fortune this month on obtaining reliable sources (pretty much every non-trivial style guide in print that I didn't already have) specifically for improving WP's articles on the English language, most of which are a shambles (many don't even exist, as such, and just mostly-unsourced sections like Hyphens that read like someone's personal essay). Meanwhile, DF24 relies on decades-obsolete material like the 14th ed. of the Chicago Manual of Style  [+ several other diffs I need to dig up] (even the current edition of which is not a reliable source on British styles, logical quotation, or other stylistic matters it denigrates and conflates, but does not define, like a zoology book that incorrectly confuses two plant species clearly distinguished in botanical literature), has a habit of refusing to acknowledge multi-editor disputes against DF24's PoV at the article in question, and deletes reputably published sources the editor disagrees with, over multiple objections, and replaces them with self-published ranty blog posts by those who agree with DF24's PoV .  DF24's take on what would happen at articles like this is exactly the opposite of reality. The implication that I or Dick Lyon (who has been gone for most of a year until very recently) had anything to do with with unsourced material being added to the article, much less would add more of it is false and unsupported WP:ASPERSIONS (part of a string of them so long I've considered a separate ANI action to seek an interaction ban on CIVIL/NPA/AGF grounds).  DF24 actually editwarred to delete the sourcing dispute tags  placed at that article , , without doing anything to resolve the disputes I identified (which are still extant). The primary reason that article in particular is in such a poor state is because the tendentiousness applied by DF24 to the entire topic area in September 2015 (diffed in detail here) was so intense and disruptive it effectively chased me and most other editors away from touching the matter for months. And most of that was on talk pages, so yes, they need to be covered by the TB. I've been sitting on my hands on the entire set of articles, waiting for this one editor's OWN / GREATWRONGS / BATTLEGROUND behavior to be reined in. I've very tentatively begun this source-based improvement work, in a different article on a different style matter yesterday , to test the waters. Any TB applied to DF24 needs to include the mainspace, since that's the only place the PoV pushing and OR actually matter to the outside world, and even to most editors on the project as a whole. MOS wonks can argue until blue in the face on guideline and essay talk pages and it's just hot air.  Embarrassingly poor articles that the British press mock us for in public  is . Broad construal of the TB is necessary; as my diff-pile demonstrates, this quotation marks campaign is something DF24 has pursued for almost 7 years in every available forum, from MOS and its talk page, to various MOS-related supplementary pages, noticeboards, RfCs, user talk, and mainspace and its talk. I think the TB should cover the whole WP:ARBATC area, since the disruptive behavior is likely to simply shift from this stylistic pet-peeve to a different one, but I guess we'll see.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. How fast do you type? I've read the first sentence so far and yes, I've noted that already (internally mentally) and alluded to the BG issues on WP:AE. I'm fairly confident in the wisdom of the AE admins. Please do be patient with us, thanks! Killer Chihuahua 22:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Killer C, forgive me but I have to ask, you did look at the things he's citing right? Did you scroll up and see what what we were talking about in the thread?  SmC has posted so many links that I can see why it might be tempting to skip that step, but a lot of what he's saying is either completely untrue or pulled so far out of context that it might as well be.
 * SmC says that I remove solid sources and replace them with unreliable blogs just because I don't like the text they support. That's not true.  I have never done that.  The case he's citing?  Here's the actual dif. with my edit summary: Notice where it says "removing contested Yagoda source." I took out Yagoda because I thought SmC was contesting it, based on his edit summary:   When he (very rudely) made it clear that that wasn't what he'd meant, I immediately said that I didn't mind if he just put the Yagoda source back. Then he accused me of "making things up" just because I'd misunderstood him.  At no point did this involve changing one word of the paragraph's text.  I replaced one source that supported the sentence with a different source that also supported the exact same sentence.
 * That's the pattern. Everything he's telling you falls apart if you look closely.  The first link is from 2009 when I was a relatively new editor.  Both my understanding of this issue and my MO have developed a lot since then.
 * He says I rely heavily on outdated sources. Also not true.  I keep posting the link to Chicago 14 alongside other sources because there is a link to it.  That passage of 14 is available online, and 15 and 16 are not.  I've got a copy of 15, but only in print.  I also have literally dozens of other sources, mainstream, high-quality, recent, with names like Oxford, Modern Language Association, Purdue OWL, university websites, professional journals, and SmC has seen me cite them.
 * On a lighter note, I clicked your "BG" and ended up in Wikiproject Bulgaria. Figured that wasn't the target, but it was a nice moment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll just refute one point and move on: The CYA maneuvers about the Yagoda article deletion and angry blog insertion are best addressed by quoting another editor who objected at the time: "Yes it technically serves the purpose of defining logical punctuation it's just not the sort of source that one would generally use in a neutral article. If you can't see this then I'm really not sure what else there is to say .... I do find the use of that particular source [the blog, not the Yagoda article] in this particular instance contrary to the spirit of creating a neutral encyclopedic article."  I'm unaware of the WP policy that makes it okay to replace a reputably published source with a self-published polemic as long as the content wasn't changed. I'm aware of WP:GAMING, however.  DF24's habit of citing diffs of themself saying defensive things that match what they say now, as if saying it twice makes it true, also has the side effect of occluding the context, and making it seem like objections to their behavior are some personality dispute, not a WP:CORE matter. This is just one example in over half a decade of similar antics. And they've simply moved to other articles now, pushing the same US vs. UK nationalism basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I replaced the source because I thought another editor had contested it, which Wikipedia policy does allow. 2) The source I added fit the WP:SPS expert criteria. 3) It was not used to say anything negative about British/logical style.
 * I think SMC is referring to Full stop. I actually wouldn't mind at all if you checked this one out.  I think it's a good example of the good work that I do in the article space.  The thread is short.
 * As for multiple editors, yes. There's clearly a big difference between my understanding of the rules and other people's and I've got to work on that.  But look at what Izno and Tony and GP are saying (mostly "Darkfrog talks about WP:LQ too much") and then look at what SmC is saying.  There's a big difference.  Right now, you guys are deciding whether to ban me from just the MoS or the MoS and the article space.  SmC is making incorrect claims about what I've been doing in the article space.
 * I know it's a lot of work but I think that anything SmC cites, you need to look at the whole thread or at least a couple of posts. Or at least pick just one whole thread in which we've both been involved, even if you don't look at any others.  It looks like SmC and myself both believe that the other is taking things out of context. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding topic ban of Darkfrog24
I am contacting you because of your involvement in the topic ban that was placed against me. I would like to make the best of the next six months and am requesting your input on how best to do so.

What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule? My own take was to initiate no new threads or RfCs but participate in those started by others (which happens once or twice a year). This clearly was not something that you guys consider acceptable. What do you think I should do instead? Is it just that there was too much of it?

I notice that my offers to engage in a voluntary restriction were not accepted. What would you have seen as more suitable? Is it that I was asking you guys what you wanted me to do instead of making my own guesses?

What can I do over the next six months to give you guys confidence that I can be allowed to return to work?

I am understanding the topic ban to cover both MoS pages, articles concerning quotation marks, and their respective talk pages. Is this the case? Before I became involved, both Quotation marks in English and Full stop contained significant amounts of unsourced material and I am worried that that content will be returned. If I should happen to see such a case, am I allowed to notify someone else that the unsourced material is there?

I also feel that user SMcCandlish was not honest with you and should be treated as an outlier. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum. Some other editors expressed confusion on this point. I am not talking about how to deal with WP:LQ now.  I fully understand that I'm not allowed to discuss or deal with the matter while topic-banned.  But whether in six months or later than that, it will eventually be lifted.  That particular question refers to when the ban is over, and input on the past if you have any. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You are banned from quotes. You cannot talk about quotes. You cannot answer questions about quotes - if directly asked, you must respond, "I'm sorry, I'm under AE sanctions and cannot respond to that question". You cannot allude to quotes, however obliquely. If User:RandomUser says something about quotes, you cannot say "RandomUser makes sense" or "RandomUser might want to learn more about the subject" or anything which remotely touches on giving any opinion whatsoever. You cannot "fix" quotes. You can use quotes if you are writing something in an article and quotes must be used, but if someone else "fixes" your quotes - no matter how horribly, indisputably wrongly they do so, you must leave their edit in place and not even ask someone else to look at the edit. Is this clear enough? In six months, if no one has warned you that you've trespassed on this sanction, you can go to AE and ask for sanctions to be lifted. If you want that to actually happen, you need to contribute elsewhere in the encyclopedia, so that we know you haven't just been waiting in the wings to go back to the behavior which led to the sanctions. This is paramount. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. Killer Chihuahua 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me add one more thing - asking me about LQ or quotes, as you did above, is a violation of your ban and I would be well within my remit to take this back to AE or to implement further measures against you because you asked me. So stop that. Killer Chihuahua 23:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: DF24's "What do you see as the appropriate way to oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule?" and your "waiting in the wings to go back to the behavior which led to the sanctions", see DF24 to on the same question: "I meant what to do about WP:LQ after the topic ban.  I understand I'm not allowed to participate in discussions of this rule until the ban is over." .  I'm skeptical the TB can ever be lifted, and won't be expanded.  WP doesn't need someone to "oppose a longstanding Wikipedia MoS rule" and "do [something] about" it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He has already been so advised by Guy. I assure you, SMcCandlish, this is not my first AE case nor is it the first for any of the other admins. There is no need for you to be concerned that we require your input or guidance. Should I have a question, I will ask. Otherwise, please drop this now. Killer Chihuahua 02:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to imply otherwise, KC. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Has it really been three years? I treasure that, btw. Thank you. :-) Killer Chihuahua  15:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week&thinsp;: nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Need help
We need more neutral opinions here. I've followed instructions here and at Feedback request service and to used the user lists there. I've sent a message for neutral input to everyone active recently and available for 10 per month or more on the lists in the Language and linguistics, Media, the arts, and architecture, Society-sports-culture, Unsorted and All-RFCs lists, none of whom have interacted with me before, that I can remember. Have done my best to act in good faith to try to get more neutral opinions. Please help! Thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
'''Wishing KillerChihuahua a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so very much. Killer Chihuahua

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 11 years ago...

 * Thank you so very much!! Killer Chihuahua 23:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
'''Wishing KillerChihuahua a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman ( talk ) 02:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Your signature and the font color pound sign
Hi KillerChihuahua, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have a suggestion intended to be helpful. Your signature is coded and displays as:
 * : Killer Chihuahua

Numeric font colors are supposed to be prefixed with a pound sign, thus instead of  it's preferable to use. The pound sign may be optional with  markup, but it is mandatory when upgrading to the new standard, which uses. Compare these results:
 * : Chihuahua
 * : Chihuahua

So, as we are encouraged to move from  to , please remember that the pound before the numeric font color becomes mandatory. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You were the first user I notified, so my message to you wasn't very polished. I didn't explain the problem in full, so let me try again.

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : Killer Chihuahua

to
 * : Killer Chihuahua

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : Killer Chihuahua

to
 * : Killer Chihuahua

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious five years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated&#32;should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed&#32;if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated&#32;should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. —&thinsp;JJMC89 bot 00:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time, and that you have not been inactive from administrative tasks for a five year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. Further, following a community discussion in March of 2018, administrators suspended for inactivity who have not had any logged administrative activity for five years will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux  Talk 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)