User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive02

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

This archive page covers approximately through Jan 6, 2005.

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

---

Thank you

Thanks KC. Are you accepting the above nomination, because you will be a great addition to the admin team. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I certainly hope I would be. I don't want to be hasty, it is a responsibility regardless of the "Admins are ordinary editors with an extra button" hype. Your note of encouragement is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, it's not like you're busy or anything.  :) Jim62sch 14:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I promise we will get Guiding Light done, and I will finish writing Bob Roop, and I will finish writing Harry George Armstrong, and I will work harder with wikiproject Florida, and, and, and - but yes I accepted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Lighthouses

Hi, I've reverted your move of Wood Island Light. From the evidence it appears that both the USCG and the US Park Service refer to the lighthouses of the US by their full proper names including light as a capitalized part of their official proper noun name. (ex:Wood Island Light, Portland Head Light, etc) Gateman1997 01:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

replied on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

mediation comment

KC, I suppose you're correct, although I did not intend it as anything remotely similar to trolling; it was more a case of sarcasm in noting that Wade had requested mediation, did not like the answer, and went forward with his original plan. But, if it gives the impression of trolling, then it can and should be withdrawn. Also, I guess I'll remove the section (it could be archived, but that would just waste server space). Jim62sch 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize you don't troll; I hope I made it clear that the comment bore the appearance or a similarity to borderline trolling. Minor point: Wade didn't request the mediation, Ignignot did.

I recommend you leave the comment as it is, struck out. Deleting comments from a talk page is generally not advisable, and striking out shows you have reconsidered your post. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice, that's why I ran it by you first.  :) Jim62sch 14:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Washington sister cities

I put sources I found on the Washington talk page, to avoid an edit war with DL. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 13:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw and replied on your talk page. Thanks for letting me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My apolgies for putting my comment on your user page. I need to slow down a little (and I need to leave for the gym in a few minutes). -- Dalbury^(Talk) 14:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries, go work out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. ps sorry, but my button is even faster now! ;) --Alf ^melmac 11:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hymn of creation

On this AFD discussion, you voted that Hymn of creation (AfD discussion) should be transwikied to Wikisource. However, a later comment by User:Uncle G brought to my notice that the entire Rig Veda already exists at Wikisource, including The Rig Veda, Hymn 10.129 and The Rig Veda, Hymn 10.130, since September 2005. Transwikification is, thus, not an option. Please change your vote to reflect this. Thank you.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information - I should have checked Wikisource, I thought the previous editor had. I have modified my vote appropriately. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Zen

Bad puppy.  :) Actually, in this instance, I can't blame you -- I'm sure it's a dark and scary worl inside that mind. Jim62sch 01:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RfA = Ultimate Evil

Responded on my talk page. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Stalinists

I'd like you to take another look at this list. It has been shortened considerably (at least at this moment) and I have tried to make the criteria clearer. Sometimes good lists go bad but that doesn't mean we have to delete them. "Cruft" normally refers to articles that provide useless information, and I don't see how a political movement that defined international politics for several decades fits. Gazpacho 05:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate your position, I regret that I cannot agree with it. I appreciate also your efforts, and that the list is now cleaner and shorter, yet what possible purpose could this list serve? I concur that a political movement which spanned several decades and was highly influential is not listcruft - that's why we have the article Stalinism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Head of the Cabal

Looks like that bit is gone (for good I hope). Maybe, maybe... I could had have more patience, but seriously - my patience just seems to evaporate when it comes to her. (is prone to mental rambling)Lovecoconuts 06:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am really a slow coconut. Why in the world am I the brains in her list? I am slow. I didn't even get what KC meant for a considerable time.Lovecoconuts 08:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear me, this conversation is on three different talk pages now. Thanks for responding, I've responded on your talk page as well as FM's. Patience is a virtue, doesn't mean one should put up with personal attacks, trolling, and the like. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm learning (slowly). Yah, you're right, the "brains" bit makes a lot more sense if she was being sarcastic about how slow I was in learning the ropes in Wikipedia. Well, at least I never posted between the paragraphs of another poster and make it look like I was arguing with myself.Lovecoconuts 10:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Old and new

Thanks, I'm glad you liked it!  :-) Sometimes these zealots try to run the debate in circles -- I thought I'd try to pin down his/her exact argument by stating the questions plainly... although I doubt we'll get a simple answer. --Quasipalm 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Emergency at the Crisis centre!

Glad you like it - though I'm loathe to think that I'm feeding the trolls. -Kyd 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

GE is chasing his tail on a lot of subjects, isn't he? -Kyd 00:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I dislike switching so I'm replying here, else we'll have the half-conversation on both our pages.

I thought cheesy canine puns and jokes were for me, and me alone? I'm hurt.... devastated even. (Loved tale -> tail pun). KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Everything must be shared. Even the puppy puns! (But, if it wasn't for you, I wouldn't have left it on your talk...ahem...bark page, would I? :) -Kyd 00:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

grrrr. Good point, tho. :D KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

Thanks for the help in reverting the edits made by 136.215.251.179. I was quite worried that he was going to use the fact that I was pro-choice (as stated on my user page against me. I do my best to handle vandalism, but I find it just as hard reverting back from views that I don't agree with as much as views that I do. It's always good to have some backup.

I've been wondering whether I should place his IP on Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress because I have a feeling he'll be back, but I'm not really sure if it classifies as vandalism or just blatant POV. In any case, I'm not reverting any more because I'm sick of it and I try my best to hold to 3RR.

What do you think? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 16:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

136.215.251.179, aka as Goodandevil (I am 99.9% certain of that) has been making POV edits and generally being disruptive on both Abortion and Kwanzaa for some time now. I suggest you talk to Tznkai and get his input - you may wish to speak with Kyd also. I think you'd find support whatever you do, this user ignores NPOV, ignores WP:CON, has trouble with CITE, undue weight, OR, is borderline rude, and generally is not a positive contributor. We've all tried to work with this editor and failed, because this editor is not interested in working with others, but rather with pushing a POV. I will support you whatever you decide. You're not the first to think this requires some attention, but we've all stopped just short of actually doing anything (except for the one time that a different editor reported Goodandevil for 3RR on Kwanzaa.) Its gone on long enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the procedures behind reporting someone for vandalism or RFC. I'm a relatively new user here (May 2005) and haven't strayed much outside of Abortion. I've been wary of reporting this, too, because I'm pro-choice (if the other regular editors hadn't discerned this already), and I don't want what is, ultimately, an alarm call against a disruptive user to become what seems to be an attack upon one whose ideology with which I don't agree. I rely upon other users to help keep any incidence of POV creep in check. GE, however, seems more intent upon working against us than in working with us. The last straw, for me, was the Free Republic incident -- although, it's just speculation, the pieces fit. See the thread "Free Republic user calls for war on Wikipedia" on the Talk:Abortion for more. Also, see my recent post on the thread "Edits by 136.215.251.179" there for information about this user's multiple IPs. -Kyd 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR is clear and simple. GE has not crossed that line recently, having learned the rules about that, at least. This is not blatant vandalism, so WP:AN probably won't help. The next option is an Rfc, should we decide GE is too disruptive to countenence any longer. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, guys. I've made a note of all the IPs that this guy/gal appears to use as well as the user name Goodandevil. I'll make a note of what I find and bring it to RfC to get some more feedback on it. I'll keep you guys up to speed. I'm going to find out what the hell Kwanzaa is now! :-p Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 19:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ick. This is going to be more complicated than I thought. For a user to be placed on RfC, it has to be two users who can lay testament to his or her misbehavior and then both have to have tried to contact him or her on their user page to ask them to behave themselves. Even then, the complaint has to be against the same user alias, which causes a problem because he or she doesn't seem to be using Goodandevil much now - probably in the knowledge that the user alias is likely to be blocked some time soon. Maybe we can log it under 136.215.251.179 and point out that Goodandevil and the other IPs are likely sockpuppets?

Another couple of things. I would agree that these IPs are one and the same person. There's a clear pattern - far-right POV edits, and hiding the nature of the summaries by falsifying edit summaries as well as accusing others of POV. The interesting thing is that while 136.215.251.179 is based in Texas, the other three are German - I recognise them by the 84 at the beginning. There was a third not listed that I noticed - 84.146.238.75. I have a suspicion that this guy knows he is going to be blocked at some point and is making sure that he has an IP that cannot be blocked - the three German IPs are probably open proxies.

Any idea where we take this from here? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I a) suggested you talk to Tznkai, and b) go to WP:RCU to confirm 136.215.251.179 is Goodandevil. Those are the next steps.

136.215.251.179 is an Army IP. It resolves as ce.hohenfels.army.mil (from http://remote.12dt.com/rns/) which I would presume is Hohenfels Combat Maneuver Training Center in Germany, not Texas. Hohenfels Or it resolves as the 5th Signal Command, also in Germany.[1] Why did you think it was Texas?

The other IPs might be someone else, possibly several someones. 84.146.238.75 and the other IPs Kyd listed are registered to RIPE Network Coordination Centre, in Amsterdam. Website, http://www.ripe.net/. Info on the RIPE site: "The RIPE NCC service area covers Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia." and you have to be in that area to obtain an IP, apparently. I do not know much how open proxy works, so it may be worth checking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

More on the RIPE accounts: 84.136.0.0 - 84.191.255.255, in other words the other IPs, are Deutsche Telekom AG, Internet service provider in Germany. In other words, your basic Internet provider with rotating IP addresses. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Real quick. If it wasn't already stated these edits are not vandalism, because pov pushing isn't vandalism, although it certainly isn't constructive. Should you feel it neccessary to pursue this to RFC (I'm witholding judgement for the time being) you need to focus on behavior, NOT content of edits. No matter what any editor thinks, its how they share that opinion and how much of that opinion they try to stuff into the article that matters the most. Give me some time to comb through the edits before I decide whether I'm willing to take this up on WP:AN--Tznkai 23:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks Tzn, I had already stated it was not vandalism - it is good to have a second opinion concur with my judgment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that GE's edits and posts qualify as vandalism either. However, the persistence to the point of edit wars and the discourteous attitude expressed in the course of discussion, particularly in dealings on his or her personal talk page, need to be addressed. -Kyd 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me on my successful RfA! It passed with a final tally of 40/9/1. If there's anything I can do to help, just ask! Sceptre ^(Talk)

Thanks for the template

I don't mind at all that you did that, It's much appreciated. Thanks a lot :D Itamae 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

category for Noah's Ark story and the like

You have seemingly been fishing (and fencing) over a category for the Noah's Ark story or some parts of it. I suggest any of: fable, myth or children's literature Carrionluggage 18:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to weigh in on the discussion on the talk page about it. Currently last section, titled "Cats". KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the puppy chase cats? — Dunc|☺ 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My family once had a cat that chased the neighbor's chihuahua (when the chihuahua wasn't chasing it). -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thanks Dal. A laugh is always welcome. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Most cats I know would probably crouch down, look at the Chihuahua puppy with bemusement, and then bat at it a couple times if it got too close Guettarda 02:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Story of my life, how the heck do you think I got this uName? Small, annoyingly persistant, think I can take on tigers but get beat up by housecats. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you feel better, you can hear a cat being strangled here. — Dunc|☺ 18:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

username; cats

How odd it is at cats again, rather than sixes and sevens. I made a cat contribution at

19:47, 24 December 2005 (hist) (diff) Irreducible complexity (?Criticism - cat and mouse and mousetrap game)

and I am concentrating on things like that, Ayn Rand and that objectionable pseudo-philosophy "Objectivism" occasionally returning to General Semantics, Parapsychology, General Relativity and the like. No time to change name - anyway if I really want to I could sock-puppet. I will leave the cats up to you - just suggesting that these bible-literalists are taking children's bedtime stories too seriously, hence one could classify the Ark and the Jonah-whale story somewhere between or with Aesop, Kipling, Grimm, Jules Verne, A. A. Milne, and Dr. Suess.... I am being generous not to include P. G. Wodehouse.

George V. Coyne, S.J., director of the Vatican Observatory recently gave a superb talk on "ID" and Creationism in Halifax, NS and other places. I have a copy if you'd like it. I could enter it in Wikipedia if I knew how to put in a Word document, or I can convert to PDF. It is not copyrighted and I have permission to circulate it anyway. But though I am a computer expert in FORTRAN and C, with a little UNIX and LINUX (see note 1), I am digitally challenged with Wiki-procedures like name changes, so if there is a way to post Prof. Coyne's work, I hope it is simple. I don't think he has it on line. Title: "Science Does Not Need God. Or Does It?"

Note 1: I can't wait until LINUX takes over - then as I say "it's curtains for Windows." Carrionluggage 22:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wrote on my own user page: OK, ok - I will try to thread my way to the "Cats" link. Sorry for quailing - I grouse better than I quail anyway. How much time do I have to act? Carrionluggage 23:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Codex

If Codex does not like his English corrected, you can tell him the complaint department is in San Carlos de Bariloche [2] and preferably buy him a ticket there. It's pretty, so he could relieve his seemingly interminable tensions and defensiveness, and it might not be so easy to hit the keyboard with his fulminations. Carrionluggage 23:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dang, can I come? I don't want to waste a ticket there on him! KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Apply for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts (before "W" manages to reduce the budget to $0.0 or less). Carrionluggage 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

SysOp / Admin

Sheesh, everyone's a critic!  :) I did go back and sign my vote, but I didn't read your comment until afterwards, and I'm not changing it again, haha. And my vacation was very nice, thank you. Good to get away from the village and hit up the big city every once and a while. Good luck on the RFA. -Parallel or Together? 02:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on the RFA! I will never stop using "sysop", but I'm sure you'll do fine whatever it is people call you ;) -Parallel or Together? 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Look

[3]--MONGO 03:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have a low pain threshold for that kind of behavior, but you're probably right, nothing will happen. I'm in favor of a month ban, but that's just probably a bit too long for most people.--MONGO 03:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My last nominee had both of the sock accounts that voted support for him (User:Rogerd) counted in the final tally. The reason for my posting on the ANI was due to situations exactly like yours, not for the ones that are not going to matter one way or the other.--MONGO 04:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Admin Star. Beware the power. Wear it in good health. --Ancheta Wis 18:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratulations! Your mop and stun-gun are in the mail!

Regards, Ben Aveling 12:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (45 minutes early, but how else to be sure of first post? :-)

Me too. And I was sure I would be first (since none of the b'crats are out of bed yet, by the look of things). Congrats. Guettarda 15:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 16:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new mop! :) Sango123 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --King of All the Franks 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! This is indeed a well-deserved honour. I know that you'll be excellent as an Administrator! Jim62sch 17:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck! --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations and good luck. --Mihai -^talk 18:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! Thanks for your nice note too. Best! Herostratus 18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! arf!--MONGO 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC

Woof woof! A well earned mop and bucket. ....dave souza 23:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You're most welcome - congrats! PJM 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the brew!!

Thanks for the warm cuppa java. It is one of my pet theories that a lot of the world as we know it would come to an end if coffee were banned! Cheers, Cecropia 19:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Mine too! -- Cecropia 20:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

kwanzaa ref

the reference to kwanzaa is already in the sla article. i can't "take it there"

-Justforasecond 22:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Schlafly

Sorry, don't have any advice to give you. I eventually gave up out of frustration -- there's still accurate material absent from the article because Roger removed it. In the event that the situation gets bad enough that you're pursuing formal dispute resolution, please let me know -- I can certainly attest to his disregard for policies concerning personal attacks, NPOV etc. RadicalSubversiv E 00:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

replying on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi KC. One of the first things I think you can do as administrator would be to warn Duncharris about calling creationists "cretinists." [4] on Talk:Intelligent design. Thanks. --Ben 02:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

replying on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny

"If its the first sentence, we know the story is beginning... if the story isn't over, we know it continues". Grrrrrrr.  :) Jim62sch 03:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I try to be accurate with my edit summaries! KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

re:Theodore7

Bad editor eh? I wasn't sure why I was notified but I guess I must have encounter him/her before and have forgotten. Oh well, I'll take a look at the Rfc anyway...happy editing!--MONGO 05:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

Congratualtions on your new role. --Bhadani 07:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

You're very welcome. Congrats on getting the role! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congrats on your new mop, Pup! I trust you'll use it well, that's why I supported you after all ;). -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 18:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

My pleasure. Congratulations, thanks for your offer, and I'm sure you will make good use of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yip Yip Hooray

Congrats on your adminship! The pup's been promoted to top dog. If I'd known sooner, I would've given you my paw's up! -Kyd 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, what changes when one becomes an admin? I'm rather out of the loop. Sorry. X__X -Kyd 02:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Pointy sticks to drive back the barbarian hoards! Yay! :-) -Kyd 02:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm just being a smart-alec, as usual. Of course, that's completely understandable -- you'd want to avoid a conflict of interest if there was a dispute between two users. It just must be nice to have the ability to put a forceful stop to vandalism. I always wonder how much impact tagging user pages actually has. -Kyd 02:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. -Kyd 03:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I just tagged a whole bunch of anon IPs after monitoring "Recent Changes" and wondered how effective it was. Mostly because trying to deal with recurrent nuissances in Abortion of late seems to have proven quite ineffective. -Kyd 03:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Thanks for taking the time to explain the process. "Learning through experience" certainly has its limitations. -Kyd 04:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Will comment on notice posted on my userpage when I have time to give it due investigation. Currently devoting time to abortion incidence research (see User:Kyd/test). Also, have to run soon. Thanks for the heads-up. -Kyd

Inappropriate

Your admonisment to Duncharris for calling creationists "cretinists" is nowhere near stern enough, and is extremely inappropriate.

Dunc, please!

No calling creationists 'cretinists' - be civil. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[5]

I would hope you would take a less "pleading" tone towards someone who calls creationists "cretinists." Not only is this a personal attack against creationists on the talk page this is hate speech. As a participant in Duncharris' previous RFC you are well aware that this is a user that Mr. Jimbo Wales himself has recommended be desysopped for his previous attacks.

I trust that this is an error in judgement and you will consider your actions as administrator more responsibly in the future.--Ben 09:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I don't even have words for how inappropriate you're being. I would hope you would take a less lecturing tone to me in the future - you're not my mother, and you don't tell me what to do. I trust this was an error in judgment. As a participant in YOUR Rfc I believe you know a good deal better than to try to threaten me or tell me what to do. Watch your step, Ben.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ben's simply trolling you; don't take his bait. With his history of personal attacks and abuse of others now well documented at his still open user conduct RFC, I'd hoped he'd get the message, but he's shown himself to be thoroughly refractory and utterly resistant to reform. FeloniousMonk 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

FM, I appreciate the heads-up, I am well aware he is trolling me and have already left a message on his talk page to that effect. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've taken to ignoring him...it's just easier. Jim62sch 01:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations !

A super big congratulations are in order for your recent promotion to admin. With your dedication to the project and it's policies and conventions you certainly deserved it.

I see above the usual malcontents have wasted no time in critiquing your performance. You must be doing something right... FeloniousMonk 18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

GRATS!--ghost 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Rollback button

While it's great to have and lots of fun to use, you should use it judiciously. Some people believe that it should only be used for vandalism, although there is no rule on it. Guettarda 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Blatantvandal

"For my part, I can't imagine a situation where I'd want to use such a scary horrible template..." Yeah, it took you long to come out in your true colors! :-D Bishonen | talk 20:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a poor imagination, what can I say? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL

You don't care who put it there...that's why you asked!!!!!! Chooserr 01:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh sheesh, my apologies. It was a rhetorical question... I didn't realize you were answering my question, because it was rhetorical, if that makes *any* sense. Thanks for the info, apologies again for not making sense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Until

Freeze the Bigfoot article until the current dispute is resolved. I have told User:Beckjord about what will happen if there is another personal attack, another Edit War. Only Admins will be able to edit the article, and I don't think WAFE has any Admins in it. Martial Law 02:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

replied on article talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding a item

Hi KillerChihuahua, and thank you for the offer. I am curious of how I would insert some information about the organization I belong to? And where on the page? Thanks again MarcusTCicero 03:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

replying on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Bored

Thanks, I checked out the cleanup list. You were right: it's boring. Say, how do I return my talk link to its original lovely red colour? I like red. Fool 15:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) <-- red!

Well that's fair, I suppose I am disruptive and anti-social, and possibly worse. Can I just delete the account entirely? I hardly use it. Fool 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been generally very exopedian for a long time, and am becoming more so, is why. Doesn't matter. It has an unfinished feel to it, but I can just stop using the account. Sorry to take up your time. Fool 17:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Advice for KC???

LOL, my friend, I know nothing. Your best advisor is in the mirror. "(S)he who conquers a million men in battle wins a battle...(S)he who conquers (her)self wins all." - Buddha (I think) --ghost 17:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ayn Rand article and, generally, quality

The Ayn Rand article, I just saw, has been nominated as a "good article" and candidate for being a "featured article." This article is, in fact, a substandard one, being put up and edited mainly by her supporters. The claim that her "Objectivism" is a philosophy is arbitrary; she has not the reputation of Aristotle, Hume,or even (what must be almost her ideal) Nietzshe, and neither the perspicacity, incisiveness, nor, for sure, the sense of humor of Will Durant! Ayn Rand suffered the consequences of having lived under Communist oppression, namely to over-react, as did Edward Teller. Her books have appealed to many people who are "down and out" because in some ways they tell the story of "The Little Engine that Could," but the children's version is shorter and no more childish than hers. She appeals to people who do not like to pay taxes. So she collects a lot of supporters, the more literate of whom have gravitated to extolling her in Wikipedia. We can forgive her (with Teller) for over-reacting, but to lionize her is foolery.

Where do I vote against this nomination as a "good article"? I can't find a way to remove that tag or vote against it. Thanks.

There is a more general issue here: many articles attract supporters of various concepts that I would call "deviant" in the sense of departing from the main body of the beliefs of civilised people. Examples are parapsychology (OK, I know AAAS allowed a division on this - I'll bet they are sorry), General Semantics, and the Noah's Ark stuff. On the other hand, the article on astrology seems well-balanced, and the one on Cold fusion is pretty much OK. The question is how to identify articles that represent - shall we say - the contributions of monomaniacs - and then how do we rebalance them? Carrionluggage 03:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks. I did not notice the little /{/{GA/}/} - that's why I contacted you. Your reference to GA (unfortunately not /{/{GA/}/}) sufficed. Thanks again. (Excuse backslashes - I am trying to use them to quote the little panel as in UNIX instead of having it appear on your page). Carrionluggage 05:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for explanation of quoting tags. Carrionluggage 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Still nothing...

Still got nothing on User:Goodandevil and the numerous IP addresses. Ah well, it's been quiet on that front for a while now so I think we can count ourselves lucky on this front. Hope your first few days with the mop have gone well! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahh read the thing wrong but now have filled in correctly i think ;)

Ok i read your comment and i think i noticed my misstake

LSHTM

You obviously do not realise that it is you that has lost the arguments. It just now your acting in a thugish way going around make threats because you cannot hold you own in an argument and do not understand what rules of refernce are all about. No I suggest that rather interpreting this as a personal attack. You should take it as constructive critisism. Much as I'm supposed to take your, what I consider, inchorent ramblings.--IanDavies 14:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, I made no threats. I suggested you enter this at article Rfc or follow WP:DR procedures. Anyone can check my contributions log and see I have made no threats whatsoever. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not nonsense. Your reference to broken rules and RFC etc, is quite clearlly designed to intimidate. --IanDavies 14:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I made no reference to broken rules. You did. I still suggest that if you have an issue with the article, put it on article Rfc. That requesting comments from the community at large about the article. How is giving you advice on how to obtain input intimidation? You must be confusing article Rfc, which I have now suggested three times, with user Rfc, which I have not mentioned. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet more of you dishonesty you said "Please read WP:V and cease making personal attacks because you didn't get your way in an edit war." You acussed me of making personal attacks. WikiPedia records everything. --IanDavies 14:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you value my opinion. I understand we may differ from time to time, but it certainly has not impact on my overall respect for you. I hope you feel the same.--ghost 17:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Never a problem. I was flattered that anyone listened. ;-) --ghost 00:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about posting on the admin board

I am sorry about that I didn't know there was a page refer items to when they needed protection, I'm still rather new :-) Grandwazir 17:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

recent IP block

KC, I think you removed the wrong vandalism alert from the Vandalism in Progress page when you blocked 168.9.35.14. Powers 20:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I see you got them both anyway. Powers 20:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

re:Comfies

It's not your fault. Bit off more than I could chew. Thanks for the show of support. -Kyd 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Piedras grandes

Hi, a huge number of questionable edits were added by this user over a short period[6], including adding welcome messages to article talk pages, and AfD discussions. What to do, start mopping them up? I saw that you had reverted at least one yourself. BillC 22:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

<Something I'm missing? I'm trying removing the template and message from Talk:Bedford, Ohio by just blanking the page, but it's not letting me do it. Can you advise? Thanks! BillC 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Scratch that. It's preview that wasn't working. Regards, BillC 23:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

small

some the articles you're removing small tags from are indeed quite small--Piedras grandes 22:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, thanks for your help in checking Piedras' disruption. You told me on my talk page to ask if I need any help. Well, actually I do. Can you investigate wild revert warring that takes place on Simon Dach. User:Space Cadet is a seasoned revert warrior who adds Polish spellings into articles on every Eastern European locality. Although blocked for such activities in the past, he seems to have a stamina. Can you talk to him as a neutral party? Thanks. --Ghirla | talk 12:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I can try. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I listed the article on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. Let's see what other people think. --Ghirla | talk 11:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey that's news to me

Thanks for informing me on the rules of afd, doesn't bother me and makes sense. I do hope that the information helps. Jazzscrub 21:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

.

Puns

You are welcome, of course. Just don't tell too many admins or they will decide to put me in pun-stir (Just did that one - 2 seconds). By the way, I also like plurals done after the style of "Postmasters General" so I suppose if there were more than one of you (Lord spare us) the crew would be "KillersChihuahua" as in "Dobermans Pincher" or "Bananas Split" etc. Carrionluggage 00:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Request

Kielbasa. Pierogies. Nie Polski. That about the extent of my Polish. I found a French Translation of the Polish info on Zorawski. Sorry, if I didn't specify that earlier...but see my user page: no Polish listed there. Jim62sch 11:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides, Dach wrote in Middle German, not in Polish, and there are no links to anything in Polish on that page (Russian, German, PlattDeutsch, Esperanto, Bokmal (Norwegian) yes, but no Polish. You must be trying to see if I'm awake. Jim62sch 11:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE

Hi there. The AFD/DRV debate about Aetherometry inspired me to try and hack together some proposed guidelines about fringe theories. I saw you were an active and thoughtful participant in that debate, and thought I would solicit your comments and hopefully suggestions and edits. At the moment the page is at WP:FRINGE for lack of a better name. Thanks for your time if you can lend any. --Fastfission 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Myth, etc

Thank you for joining the discussion at Talk:Myth and Talk:Mythology. I appreciate your input. JHCC (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"Residual irritability" is a bit of an understatement, but keep up the good work. JHCC (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Królewiec

This city being part of Polish fief fills the crtieria of Gdansk vote which states clearly that : For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises. --Molobo 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Rm really loud template from Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion

--Molobo 23:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Constant guardianship of the article to preserve Polish name Królewiec falls out of 3RR rule. Attempts to erase Polish name of that particular city within Polish fief of Prussia can be regarded as vandalism. Please respect the community concesus. --Molobo 23:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am cross posting this to article page as well, please answer THERE. Thanks -

Except this isn't about Gdansk, this is on an article about a Prussian poet. Explain to me how it helps an English speaker to see Królewiec instead of Königsberg, and the article isn't even consistent in usage. I'm not trying to "preserve the Polish name" of anything. What the heck are you talking about? And there is no community consensus that I can see, there is a horrendous revert war, and when I ask why. I get vague references, and then finally a paste of a loud obnoxious template, that explains exactly nothing to me. Please try to explain this so it makes some kind of sense to someone who really does not care about Russian vs. Polish vs. German what the darn war is about. That's all I am asking for, and have been asking for, for days now. No one has done it yet. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Except this isn't about Gdansk, this is on an article about a Prussian poet. It is irrelevant.The vote doesn't cover just Gdansk, or implies naming Prussian poets in specific way. What the heck are you talking about? I am just asking you to respect the Gdansk vote. Please try to explain this so it makes some kind of sense to someone who really does not care about Russian vs. Polish vs. German what the darn war is about. I didn't took part in Gdansk vote.I didn't follow the naming discussions.However there is a vote that is enforced upon all articles.Please respect it. --Molobo 23:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And there is no community consensus that I can see Community concesus was reached during Gdansk vote.Those who violate the concesus of the vote fall under the guideline : Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers. --Molobo 23:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason you keep posting here? Please confine the discussion to the article talk page, so it is preserved with the page. And content disputes are not, by definition, vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW - people can't exempt themselves from policy. Please feel free to laugh at people who make that assertion. Guettarda 14:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I reported User:Molobo on WP:AN3. Your comments are most welcome. --Ghirla | talk 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things poeple wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

myth and mythology articles

Hi... I'm afraid that things just keep getting worse and worse on the myth and Mythology articles. You changed "*In the academic field of mythology, a myth is a story of supernatural events or heroism that is believed to be true by a culture that perceives religious or spiritual significance in it." to "In the academic field of mythology, a myth is a story of supernatural events or heroism that is believed to be true by people who perceive religious, spiritual, or cultural significance in it." Unfortunately that screws the definition up... Cultural significance alon does not make something a myth, there has to be religious or supernatural significance.

I'm pretty much at my wits end here with this headlong rush to go in and change the definitions of terms away from what the academics use to whatever some person off the street thinks it is.

And, seriously. Codex needs to be banned totally, because he is consistently lying. This nonsense about the meaning not showing up until 1963 is just completely nonsense, and he knows that, because the sources were already provided on the Mythology talk page. I don't know if there is any policy that can get him banned, but for the things he's doing the lack of any existing policy to kick him off is a clear failure in the way Wikipedia is set up.

I mean, seriously, why even go through the motions of calling this an encyclopedia if the academic definitions are ignored and changed and sources are ignored and lies spread? It's an absolute embarassment. DreamGuy 22:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Tupac and Drafty 1

Never realized you were into Tupac :D... anyway I need motivation, musing, inspiration on how to beautify drafty 1 on my meta project. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy question

Is this sort of nonsense post which serves no conceivable purpose out of line? Talk:Fetal_protection. -Kyd 07:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing up the policy. I've reverted talk page vandalism which involved an edit made to another user's comment, but I've never reverted nonsense posts. I hestitate to call it vandalism, because it isn't malicious or disruptive, although it is unhelpful, random, and pointless (especially since there is no ongoing dialogue on that article; generally, I consider silly or off-topic comments forgivable if they're made adminst an involved discussion). So, I reverted it, and it was reverted back. But, ultimately, there's about as little point fighting over a comment like that as there is defending it. -Kyd 14:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Approval to use material from Jewish Encyclopedia

I sought and received permission to use some material from the JE on the Noah's Ark article (section on Rabbinic and Islamic traditions). Jim (I showed it to him) has pasted it into the discussion page, but does it also need to be registered with Wiki in some way? PiCo 01:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

Finishing with a sentence saying that there was much debate leaves the reader hanging, especially since the 20th century is over. Roe v. Wade is the most notable court case tied to abortion and is worth mentioning as an example of the changes that were occurring. the other sentence added was what the paragraph really needed - a conclusion about the status of it today. It wasn't an essay... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.63.245 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Take it to talk. Roe vs. Wade is US only, you are showing horrible bias by re-writing the article to a US centric point of view. If you want to write about Roe vs. Wade either put it in the article about that case, or possibly Abortion in the United States, although I strongly recommend you read the talk page and archives first. Please make any suggestions for improving the article on talk; do not make the intro any longer. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we need to explain what the debate was. Is there another, more prominent example? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.181.63.245 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please take this to talk on the article page. Even if you are just asking what article would be best for your content. And sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Block question

Am I unblocked? I am not longer on the block list, and I seem to be able to edit. I just want to make sure that I am following procedure, because I don't see any notice on my talk page that it was lifted. Thx agapetos_angel 03:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to assume that you kindly lifted the block as my edits can be saved, and I haven't done anything except sign in under my user name. I would appreciate confirmation. In the meantime, I'm only responding in Talks, rather than making any edits in articles. agapetos_angel 05:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi KillerChihuahua/Archive02, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

NLP page

Thanks for helping out on the page, particularly in talk. I'm trying to do a mediation there but the parties are so vehement it's hard, plus this is my first mediation. Thoughts?Swatjester 18:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're off to a good start - be patient, be redundant, and eventually you'll get there. I advise no edits of the page yourself if possible, except for reversions of vandalism, if possible. OTOH it looks like Comaze has been a major pain, and HeadleyDown has responded by becoming uncivil. That's just from a quick glance-over, I could have the order exactly backwards, so don't take my word on it. I never saw the article before today, don't plan to get involved at all, except to monitor for violations of NPA. If it gets to the point where its 30 reverts a day and no progress, you can always request page protection during dispute resolution. This often gets parties contributing to the resolution instead of edit warring, because until a resolution is found the article sits unchanged. Good luck and let me know if I can help in any way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that on the Arb case page at least one editor has suggested an article freeze anyway. See here. You may also find Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming/Proposed decision interesting reading, if you haven't read it already. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

hadn't seen it yet. TBH, i was just going to drop a warning and ignore it, but they attacked me, so I felt like smothering them with kindness. Your glance-over is about accurate. Comaze and Camridge are revert warriors against each other. HeadleyDown at first glance appears to be a violent scientist insulting anyone who opposes his opinions. That guy on my talk page, Deky something? I can't remember, but he's accused of being a sockpuppet for Comaze, which might well be true.

Anyways, on an unrelated note, congrats belatedly on your adminship. You were one of the first names I saw repeated all over wikipedia, good to see you're recognized for your work. Swatjester 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a genuine dispute of ideologies between parties, rather this is more likely to be caused by disruptive attention seeking behaviour (rather like tantrums). The best strategy is not to award bad behaviour with either positive or negative attention and proactively encourage good behaviour. There has been several failed mediation in the past. I think conflict resolution is unlikely without establish clearly ground-rules and training all the editors to adhere to civil behaviour in the first place. Unfortunately, this can only be achieved with one dedicated admin who is willing to spend some time to re-establish civil behaviour. Currently, VoiceofAll is semi-involved but he is not actively pursuing the case at the moment. I would be grateful if you can find a volunteer admin who might be interested in getting fully invovled. It will also be courteous to let VoiceofAll know if you have any specific plans for this page. Good Luck--Dejakitty 19:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi KC, You've probably already noticed, but a decision has been made. Re the jVirus edit at User talk:Camridge#Camridge I've got to know!, jVirus may be responding to an existing checkuser request which has been referenced in a few places. Camridge isn't on the list of suspects but I think a few other NLP editors are. Not DaveRight or Headly, though DaveRight and D.Right are perhaps socks of each other. I did address Camridge, DaveRight and HeadleyDown collectively, which was a mistake on my part that I shall have to correct. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, noticed, read it, had chunks pasted to my talk page... heh. That article is some kind of evil vortex, I swear. Thanks for the additional info and links. Kudos on your post on the Harmonious editor's page - very nicely done. Good luck. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Abortion talk page

While User:84.146.245.55's comments are borderline personal attacks, I would say just to leave them there for the time-being. Other readers are smart enough to understand what is going on and will discount his comments on the basis of his behavior. Sometimes letting the idiots speak for themselves is enough to make them lose the argument. Peyna 22:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Have to give fair warning, in case it gets so bad it becomes a block issue. I agree, though - been warned, all done now. The puppy is not interested in feeding trolls. Thanks for the input, much appreciated! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine-tooth comb

Hey, I offered at one stage to come and do my best to find your mistakes and mock you for them. Still keen?
brenneman^(t)(c) 02:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear me, there's one mistake already coming back to haunt me. Sure, go for it. But in the interests of my being able to hold my lil canine head high, email me - thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That bit of wisdom alone make me think I was wrong to oppose! *gets out magnifying glass* Will do.
brenneman^(t)(c) 03:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see

Talk:Abortion#Formal_vote_for_the_establishment_of_standards_for_images_and_external_links.

Anon IP is being disruptive and counterproductive. Thanks. -Kyd 09:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Doubtless. The shadow of GE is long. I have a feeling that this is the same user using some sort of programe to anonymize his or her IP. The pattern of behavior is there: repeated edits to one post made in consecutive edits, brash often belittling conduct toward other editors, rants against the "liberal media" and Wikipedia as being out to censor the "truth" about abortion. I just only wish I knew how to prove it, much less how to deal with it. -Kyd 09:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thought it might be a good idea to try to put to rest the accusation that the standard was little more than an arbitrary dictat. However, users seem to support the introduction of propoganda and the consequent reduction of quality in the article. I am disappointed beyond description. -Kyd 09:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've realized I actually feel a lot more comfortable with it like that. Right now, at least. -Kyd 10:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Habitual uPage-blanking as evidence of an exploded Wikistress thermometer? I think so. Actually, I like the old version better. I don't feel like working from the ground up. -Kyd 10:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. Sorry for forcing you to waste your time warring with a troll. Thinking about moving whole discussion to archive as Tznkai did with Barwick. -Kyd 11:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset)

I set out to foster democracy (or, at least, user input) and ended up having to play dictator. Irony is strange beast, isn't it? I've learnt my lesson. Polls are evil. -Kyd 11:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

*Pours nice, hot cup of coffee* Irrelevant comment: my neighbour has two of the most adorable chihuahuas (or is that properly chihuahuae?) which have helped to erase my childhood cynophobia. Relevant comment: Thank you again for all the support and guidance. -Kyd 11:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you like coffee. Just remember not to have any hot cocoa, alright? [7] Oh, as for the Barnstar, don't worry — I'm so entirely floored that I got one, it doesn't matter that it didn't come from you. Your constant support and advice is just as good — if not better — than twenty barnstars. I'm just chuffed to know that you'd even considered it. :-) -Kyd 11:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I got it. -Kyd 14:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the specific issue with userboxes? -Kyd 15:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A growing feeling that they can be divisive, when not informative in a useful fashion. A small skirmish has started about it. Userboxes such as the anti-homosexual one have been deleted as violating NPA, to some disagreement; userboxes such as the pizza-eating user one have been castigated as useless by some, fun by others - its all in the wiki-en archives if you care to scan through the mess. Also watch Templates for deletion for a while, it can be educational. There is {{User Wikipedian2}} now also. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) And if you want to weigh in on this, a good place to start might be: Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Back from a brief WikiBreak. Personally, I like the concept of userboxes (to a point), though I dislike clutter, so I'm going to trim mine down. Also, thanks for weighing in on the anon ip's post on my user talk page. I'm glad to see that the hullaballoo has died down on the article so that now we can get back into gear. -Kyd 12:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Neuro-linguistic programming

I don't think he's going to let the mediation work. Also neither is User:Camridge. Both of them delete any warnings to stop given to them, and both are excessively insulting and ad hominem prone. TBH, I think the only solution for the article is to remove those two, and let the others go to work on it. Lets see what happens? Oh check out that Camridge guy's talk page though....Swatjester 11:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops....somehow my comment got mixed up with someone elses. Moved. Swatjester 11:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Protect page to try to allow mediation to work? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised it hasn't been done already, but yeah. protect the page, then figure out what they're arguing over, then come to a compromise on each section? I'm not sure of the process as this is my first mediation, but I'd assume that's whats up. BTW, I've got military training this weekend, so I won't be around to help out much until the evenings. Swatjester 12:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at User talk:Camridge. Let me know if either of them needs blocking. The last insult Headley offered was to me, so I don't feel its necessarily appropriate for me to block. I will if you feel it would be helpful and/or necessary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Projects

Well, given all of the "fun" I've been having on other pages, and with visiting my Mom in the hospial, I haven't gotten very far. Once things calm down a little, I'll be able to devote some time to it. Jim62sch 13:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ack, that was meant as a gentle bit of humor due to your extreme business, apologies. How is your Mom doing? Better, I hope? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure there is! :)

I moved that guy's comment on RfP to his user page. Yes, IPs have user pages. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Just a little on edge this morning. I wish that cartoon article would go away. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 15:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Query About Me

Hi KC. User:67.184.14.210 is not me. That you ask is a concern for me as it might reveal biases you are forming. Please let me assume you also wouldn't mind saying hello... So, hello to you.

I think you'll find the NLP discussion is lengthy and complex. The archives show that many so-called "fringe theory" supporters were bludgeoned off the page and remain in the wings. I consider myself neutral and I welcome anyone to cite a diff of mine that could be considered POV-pushing (and I shall learn from it). There are many anon IP's that chime in from time to time on the page. Research has been done on these IP's before and they appear to be legitimate casual wikipedia users. A few of these users stated they simply felt drawn into saying something on the talk page because of the openly hostile and poor quality of the NLP article. This appears to be legitimate concern as far as anyone can tell. If you like I shall provide a few diffs for this kind of behaviour.

I think Arbcom is doing a good job on this one (and doing a great job at not forming opinions too early). I've seen some recent comments from some of newly arrived editors passing judgement about who appears to be aggressive and who appears to be POV-pushing. I suggest you take your time and perceive slowly or you may well be lapping up someone's propaganda. Peace. Metta Bubble 04:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

An important addition regarding your comment, "unnamed body of editors". I take exception to this. The editors in question are a finding of fact in the NLP Arbcom case. There are pending special circumstances for these editors. If you plan on mediating the page it might be useful to be familiar with who the editors in question are and what the requested remedies and enforcements are. Note the following excerpts from the case:

• Adequate sourcing

3) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to provide an adequate description of the source of information included in the article, in the case of publications to page and edition.

• NPOV

4) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are reminded to ascribe point of view statements to those making them.

• Discuss reverts

5) Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey are required to discuss any content reversions on Neuro-linguistic programming on its talk page.

As much as these things are desirable for all users, they are blockable offences for these particular users. So again, "unnamed body of editors" is actually quite inappropriate. Equal footing is a beautiful thing but it is simply not the case on that page anymore. I believe the Arbcom ruling will be rendered next to useless if you try to generalise a list of users that has already been made very specific. All concerns aside, good luck with the meditation. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked because you made almost identical edits. Do not assume bias when there is another possible reason.

I am NOT mediating.

I can, and have, read the arb pages myself. Please do NOT litter my talk page with long posts consisting primarily of content available elsewhere. If you wished to point me to the Arbcom case, you could have done so with one wikilinked word.

I don't CARE about the NLP archives or discussion at this point, I AM NOT EDITING NLP.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

But it sounds like soooo much fun to edit... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough KC. I won't assume anything about you when there's other possible explanations. I'd appreciate the same respect from you about anon editors supporting my edits. I have no control over which anon editors support me. I'm sorry if I upset you, but you're the one throwing loose assumptions around. Peace. Metta Bubble 08:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Loose assumption? I did no such thing. You reported a 3RR; I checked the edits and saw an anon had made nearly identical edits to yours, and asked if that were you. This is a perfectly reasonable question, and assumes nothing. I asked the question on AN/3RR, and you respond on my Talk page with a large post which is 90% NLP, an article I am not editing, am not interested in editing at this time, and have never edited. Now you accuse me of "throwing around loose assumptions"? Think again. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

KC, I differ with you on this. That anon editor merely reverted the same edit I reverted. Two people doing the same reversion doesn't qualify as an "identical" edit. Asking me if I am using sockpuppet accounts under such circumstances IS inflammatory. Nonetheless, I didn't take it that way and I showed good faith towards you here. I merely pointed that it might reveal bias. Please check my actual words.

My NLP response was in reference to your edits on the NLP talk page. To reply over there would have been inflammatory. I'm glad you have read the Arbcom findings now, as your previous statements appeared to indicate that you hadn't. Peace. Metta Bubble 11:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Bendix Trophy

I've scoured the web and completed the table data as much as is humanly possible I think... only 1 pilot could I find no information for. Feel free to fill in the blanks if you can scrape up any more information!  ALKIVAR™ 04:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke's RfA

Hi KillerChihuahua, thanks for your support in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WP: Florida

Hey pup, I didn't know you were from florida. I'm from Palm Beach Gardens, though I spend most of my time in Tallahassee. ⇒SWATJester 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rfa??

Hey killer, so as I mentioned on my talk page, I was considering making an RfA. What do you think? I've prepared a sample RfA application at this temp page [User:Swatjester/admintest]. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wirral Vandal

Hi

He is back as 86.5.160.69.--IanDavies 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

He is continuing.--IanDavies 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Left final warning, if he does it one more time, let me know and I will block immediately. Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

All three of us are getting tired of this, but all three (I presume) know that blocking is relatively ineffective against a determined editor. I propose to leave the link only on the following three pages - Ellesmere Port and Neston, Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, The Wirral Peninsula. If and only if the link from those three pages is left unmolested, I shan't add it eleswhere.--86.5.160.69 22:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't threaten our favorite pup....it's unbecoming, and people who kick small dogs have to go to the back of the line ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for rushing to my defense - I love the "our favourite pup." :)

I dont' think its so much a threat as an offer of truce. - KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I was referring to this sentence in particular " blocking is relatively ineffective against a determined editor.", seemed like a threat to evade to me, but guess not. Welcome though ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think from his/her pov, its more a statement. Its true he/she can get a different IP easily, but we can keep reverting and blocking as long as we need to. So its a stalemate in one sense, but not in another. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A stalemate eh? I did hear this saying once about a barking puppy never until it gets a treat....just kidding ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well you can see it isn't true, because I've never barked at you and you gave me a compliment|treat. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that was actually referring to the other editor, but as you will.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) Yes, but I turned it around to me because I am the puppy! (Accept no substitutes.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Bwahahah don't tell my roommates, one of them used to work for animal control ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. Incidentally, one of Ian's complaints seemed to be that the external site is "commercial". Well, yes, it has Google adsense. Is there a policy against linking to sites carrying Google ads?--86.5.160.69 12:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (formerly Wirral Vandal)

You are welcome, and no. Ian may have thought the Wirral site sold Internet services and access as a business; it appears to me to be primarily an informational site, albeit a limited one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Aw gee... I like the star polygon! But, Sparkling prose??
Thanks! Vsmith 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

camridge

Is User:Camridge's personal attacks on his talk page worthy of submitting to administrator noticeboard (note: I'm referring to the ones against Comaze, not myself.) ? If so, would you mind doing so for me, I don't feel right in doing so myself, it'd be a conflict of interest right? Finally, how does that work based on the Arbcom decision he's named in? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You could put it on AN, or on WQA. To do so is not a conflict of interest. I added a warning to his talk page. Let me know if he violates NPA again - it seems endemic to the page, and that needs to be stopped. The Arbcom did not mention NPA, so there are no special remedies which apply. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've posted this to AN citing Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming/Workshop#Personal_attacks_and_discourtesy_by_Camridge and a Camridge recent removal of my post from the discussion page2006-02-08 08:35:11 diffs --Comaze 09:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As the Arbcom case is closed, I would not have added anything to it. I suggest you post it on WQA or AN. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Human psychology

What you put in the talk page looks great as the main focus isn't on who is involved in psychology but what it is about. Thanks for your help. dr.alf 10:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's in the talk page now :-) dr.alf 10:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert 8-Feb-06

You're probably already watching this but User:Wjhonson has just blanked his talk page again after your warning.

Do you know what User talk:USERNAME/monobook.js would be used for? His statement that this is "just the first salvo in the war." makes me wonder what the need is for a script file. MARussellPESE 15:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My own talk page

I cannot find any reference that changing your own talk page constitutes vandalism. Please be more specific about the *exact* location where this is noted. And please be aware that this vendetta is by Baha'is who are pissed that I'm posting actual sources to their propaganda pages. Wjhonson 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On Wp:vand#Types_of_vandalism, sixteenth (currently) in the list: Removing warnings Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

Please restore the warnings. There are no threats in the warnings, they are perfectly civil, so they cannot be removed per WP:NPA. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And anyone can post a warning to anyone they please? And those warnings even if they were caused by simple mistakes stay with you forever? Wjhonson 16:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless they are a personal attack. Then you can remove them. But remember you can archive also. Although in the case of warnings, is best to wait for a week or two after warning. There are more things to take into account, however - if you feel you are being harassed with unfair warnings, you can post what they are complaining about, as a diff - with a statment to the effect that you dispute that this is vandalism; to either your page or AN; if it reaches the level of harassment, you can open an Rfc; and there are other methods. Let me know if you want assistance in navigating all this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont' know how to archive. Also this quote User talk:Neutrality states that a person can remove any comment they want from their own talk pages. Wjhonson 17:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And from the official wiki page on Vandalism this quote "Talk page vandalism - Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. ... The above does NOT apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove outside comments at their discretion. " (emphasis added) Wjhonson 17:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wjhonson, even if Wikipedia policy isn't clear or contradictory on this point, removing criticism from one's Talk page is considered bad form.

I have created an archive page on your Talk page. Please move dated discussion to that page, and keep the link to the archive prominently displayed. -- Ec5618 18:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

However "bad form" is not policy and doesn't give you the right to revert these comments from history and otherwise modify my user:talk page anyway you see fit. A better approach would have been to inform me of my options and how to do the archiving myself.Wjhonson 00:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is this meant for? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Health Food type POV (Article Revert)

My POV is that Salt is a Medicine rather than a Spice. Did You know that some People in India (Snaketamer) live on a no Salt diet? There are even People on this planet who don't eat at all and only drink water to get rid of waste.

What is Your POV about that?

Jan Girke jangirke@gmx.net

1. My POV doesn't matter, because I'm not pushing it into articles.
2. I didn't revert you, so why are you even posting here?
3. If you believe there are people on this planet who don't eat at all and only drink water to get rid of waste, then I hope none of them are your friends, because you won't have them around for long.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Thanks. That's still pretty well hidden though, and only covers warnings, whereas I think that disputes can also be very instructive to people viewing the page. --Malthusian (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss it on WP Talk:VAND. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Spin + disambiguation

re: your change to Spin I do not agree that Physics is necessarily the main or most likely reason for searching for this word. Please disambiguate these links when you get chance. I think most of them should link to Spin (physics). Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 23:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

And why precisely don't you fix the redirects? and I am now home from work, where I can receive email, and trust you have received my reply to yours? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

They were working before you redirected Spin, and now they're broken. Ergo, you broke them. Ergo, you can fix them. I'll go check my email now... Ewlyahoocom 23:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My change??? I didn't redirect, you moved. I reverted your move. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to make this more clear: You moved a redirect, "fixing" some pages which were linked simply, and went to the redirect, rather than actually piping the links yourself. This was a Bad Idea. I reverted. Now you want to tell me I "broke" something? Wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a little more involved: look at the list; look at the articles (most of the meanings use the physics meaning, or allude it like Spin (politics) or Spinning (cycling)); look at how many articles link to which pages. It becomes clear that Spin (physics) is the main meaning. Disambig the remaining links, fixup the dab entries, redirect Spin, and you're done... until someone breaks it. Ewlyahoocom 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, why don't you do that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase:

Sorry, it was a little more involved: I looked at the list; I looked at the articles (most of the meanings use the physics meaning, or allude it like Spin (politics) or Spinning (cycling)); I looked at how many articles link to which pages; it beame clear that Spin (physics) is the main meaning; I disambig'ed the remaining links, I fixed-up the dab entries, I redirected Spin, and I was done... until you broke it. Ewlyahoocom 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Wjhonson

Wjhonson just deleted a negative comment in his archive. I would put it back myself, but I think he obviously won't respect me. this is the edit. Cuñado - Talk 02:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you put it on WP:AN, I think it would just inflame him if I were to do anything. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have the right to delete negative comments. Cunado19 is one of the group that has been harassing me. Wjhonson 02:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you have the right to delete personal attacks. What you deleted was a warning not to blank pages. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's archived. see for yourself Wjhonson 02:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait are you talking about a warning from two YEARS ago ? Wjhonson 02:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I presume that was what Cunado19 was referring to, as at the time he posted here, one of your most recent edits was this [8] which is indeed removing an archived warning from two years ago. Obviously I am not concerned that it is worth bothering with; or I would have done something. The deletion in question was, however, of a warning about blanking. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The person warning me back then, did not 'comprehend' that I was not blanking a page, I was in the process of moving, cuting and editing it into two pages. I didn't bother reporting that it was a false warning because I didn't see the point. Wjhonson 03:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Also policy still says you can delete any "outside comments" except warnings. It doesn't say they have to be personal attacks. Wjhonson 03:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, I see I was unclear - I meant to agree with your "negative comments" - in other words, to say Yes, you can delete personal attacks. I did not mean to make it read that was all you could remove. On second look I see that my phrasing was very bad indeed, and it reads as though personal attacks were all you could delete. My apologies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now what about this "you have been temporarily blocked" message. Obviously it's expired. Does it have to sit on my talk page or can I remove it ? If I remove it do I have to archive it, or can I just blank it? I don't want to get spanked more. Thanks. Wjhonson 03:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Stick it in your archive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much, KC!

Thanks so much for the advice, dear KC! I was very impressed by reading his contributions to Comanche and Comanche language, so I will follow your idea. I guess I'll send him an email right away, since he hasn't showed up in over a month. Btw, while we're at this, I also observed your own interest and great contribs to those articles, so let me post an announcement here:

Hello, KillerChihuahua/Archive02! By browsing through your contributions, I've observed your interest in articles related to Indigenous peoples of North America, their Culture and/or History. I'm happy to announce you the creation of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Native American and First Nations resources on Wikipedia and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. I hope to see you there! Regards, Phædriel ? tell me 07:19, Sunday, December 22, 2024 (UTC)

There :) You're formally invited, KC, and I'd be very happy and honored to have you on board. Kisses! Phædriel ? ^{tell me} - 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: Question

At this point in time, it seems to have resolved to an editorial dispute on Talk. Action might seem hostile, now that it's worked out, but if the edit-warring behavior continues -- definitely, yes. -Kyd 12:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No biggie. I felt obliged to catch up on the talk progression before commenting anyway. -Kyd 12:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)