User talk:KillerChihuahua

This is a Wikipedia user discussion page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.	Wikimedia Foundation
Talk to the puppy To leave a message on this page, click here. If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there. *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. *Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ ) Comments which fail to follow the rules above may be immediately deleted.
Archive 6 - Archive 5 -Archive 4 - Archive 3 - Archive 2 - Archive 1	Archives

---

All Eyez On Me

I didn't really need an admin. I was overreacting, and I knew it. I haven't been on Wiki quite long enough to gracefully handle potential edit wars. Thanks for the heads up, though. I'll re-add the article to my watch list and try to keep a cool head. Ford MF 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you'll be sticking with the article. We have essays on how to keep cool on WP: WP:CHILL, WP:MASTADON, WP:TIGERS, etc. Give Mastadon a read for the humor value, it helps. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in this, as I never finished The Good Soldier and do not like Pound enough for the witticism to bite, but Mastadon is pretty darned funny. I even added a line. Geogre 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Brit/American spellings

Sorry, I wasn't sure of Wikipedia's policy on spelling variations. Thanks for the heads up.

Your puppy is very cute, by the way. He makes me think of my longhaired at home. Finduilas 09 06:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - that one trips up a lot of new users, who "fix" the spelling without realizing what they're doing is changing the style of english used. The puppy is a generic pic from Wikimedia commons, not my personal puppy - but yes he is cute! If yours is as cute, I imagine you get a lot of joy out of him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award you this Barnstar in recognition of your sense of humour and ability to lighten editor morale, even in otherwise serious, divisive discussions, like Talk:Abortion. Some of us would've packed it in, for sure, if it weren't for your good humour! Severa (!!!) 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very very much! I am glad to hear that my sometimes wry sense of humor is appreciated, and if I have managed to lessen tension with a laugh, I am delighted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tirade

What can be done to discourage User:Sugaar from continuing on WP:ANI#Unjust block? (watchlisted you) --Ideogram 11:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears this is already in hand. Several admins have weighed in on the advisability of dropping the subject; if s/he persists, someone will surely mention it on the user talk page, and so on. I suggest you drop it as well. No sense escalating this. It really needs to move from Current Events to Past Events. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I had no intention of touching it. Just wanted to hear your thoughts. --Ideogram 11:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your favorite article

... appears to be Tupac Shakur. --Ideogram 11:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well mine certainly isn't, and yet somehow I always seem to wind up editing Tupac articles. Sometimes Wikipedia is just like that. Ford MF 12:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are in error, Ideogram. If you check my talk page history, back in March, I actually posted a request for other admins to keep an eye on the article.[1] I don't like rap music, I really don't care for 2Pac, and yet it is my highest edit count, due to TUPAC IS ALIVE, TUPAC is the greatest rapper EVER, and TUPAC is just another dumb dead nigger type edits. It is one of the most vandalized articles on Wikipedia. 99% of my edits are rollbacks; 90% of my talk page edits are variations on Do you have a source for that? and still I babysit the darn thing because no one else has taken over. The person whose favorite article is Tupac Shakur is License2Kill, who is not an admin, occasionally allows his admiration for 2Pac to cloud his judgment on NPOV, and has less clout for dealing with vandalism. Doubtless Fordmadoxford has similar rationale for editing Tupac related articles. They are fan magnets and 2pac-hater magnets, and often the people editing come directly from forums with no knowledge of V, RS, NOR, and NPOV. We clean up the article and educate the editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Why do you care enough to maintain it? --Ideogram 13:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is on Wikipedia. 'nuff said. I also babysit Guiding Light, but I've made no real effort to clean it up. And I don't even want to tell you what I think of soap operas. All I do for GL is make sure the unsourced tag stays on the article and people don't grab the castlist directly from Soap Opera Digest. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR/172

I'm surprised by your unblock of 172 for 3RR; it looks like 3RR to me. I'm even more surprised that you didn't explain yourself on the 3RR page or on RA's talk page. Its hard to see that as polite, though I'm prepared to see it as such if you care to explain William M. Connolley 20:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant to, then r/l interfered, and I ended up going to bed without remembering to log back on and do so. I am open to discussing it if RA or you feel it is desirable. 172 made a series of edits which RA himself described as "In the first reverts, he removes "anarchist communism" entirely but then decides to merge it into the preceeding section" which aligns with 172s explanation that he was attempting to reorganize per the talk page, on which he made 16 edits on 19 November. The original version was by Uusitunnus; 172's first two reverts were indeed reverts. The third was not a revert, with the edit summary "attempting new compromise, putting an abridgement Donnachadelong's section" - the diff between the reverted version and the new version is this, which is clearly a re-org. A paragraph has been moved below and rewritten. The final edit was summarized as "Compromise. Inserting the abridgment of Donnachadelong’s section under a new title, so that anarchism does not appear to be subsumed under Marxism" and the diff between the "new" version above, and the "final" version is miniscule: this is the diff. So it was two reverts, followed by an attempt at a rewrite and one revert to end; for one shy of breaking the 3rr. It was edit warring; it was questionable, and RA or you or anyone would certainly have been within bounds for blocking him for 3RR as a warring editor can be blocked for edit warring regardless of whether 3RR was actually broken. However, the decision was one-sided; the edit warring was certainly bilateral; and 172 was (witness his 16 edits on the talk page and attempt to rewrite to compromise, followed by the final reversion which was a small change but still moving in the direction of compromise) attempting to work with other editors to acheive a version all could live with. He was not contentiously reverting repeatedly to "his" version. Reading the history and talk page, I concur with 172s assessment that the other editors are promoting a POV and "gaming the system" and his blocking would send the wrong message. IMHO Communism would benefit from mediation or more experienced editors, so that 172 is not battling a concerted POV group alone, or nearly alone. I do not see how blocking him for attempting to work with other editors while maintaining accuracy benefits Wikipedia in any way.

I will post a link to this section on 3RR, RAs talk page, and 172s talk page so if there is any further commentary or disagreement hopefully we can handle it in one place.

And finally, I apologise for failing to post an explanation last night. I plead r/l; I certainly did not intend to be impolite to anyone. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Re impoliteness, I'm happy to accept your explanation. Re 3RR, I disagree, and would have blocked him myself William M. Connolley 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Would you have also blocked or warned any of the other edit warriors on the page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any other blocks there - as far as I can see, only 172 has broken 3RR William M. Connolley 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding rendundant, that didn't really answer my question. Would you have warned any of the other edit warriors on the page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I say, only 172 hs broken 3RR. I wouldn't warn people for only 3R, if indeed any others do have 3R. If I'd been processing this report, I wouldn't have warned anyone else William M. Connolley

William M. Connolley and I are not on the best of terms. I don't think he is being a very partial judge here. To call the 4 edits a 3RR violation is ridiculous. In one of them I am reorganizing the article and summarizing another editor's work, working toward a new version rather than reverting back to an old one. To call this edit [2] a revert is utterly ridiculous. In that edit I'm correcting a mistake/typo that I made myself and admitted to on the talk page! That's a minor edit! I renamed the heading on Marxism "emergence of communism" in order to broaden the section's focus in a previous edit. That was a mistake; I should've changed the section name to "emergence of modern communism." So I corrected my own typo in this edit. [3] The edits were not a 3RR violation by any stretch of the imagination, unless one is to argue that self-correcting typos counts as a reversion. 172 | Talk 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

172, you are right "To call this edit [4] a revert is utterly ridiculous." However, if you look at the report, that is not listed as one of the 4 reverts. --BostonMA ^talk 00:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, then what did you include? My renaming of the headings-- that was a new proposal for a new version, not a reversion? My mistake. Frankly, this is getting silly. I'm going to go back to attemping to with other editors while keeping the article consistent with professionally written encyclopedias and the secondary academic literature on the subject, which I what I was doing before your report. 172 | Talk 00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the report, I see it was this one. [5] I was working toward new headings, a new structure, a new version trying to meet Donnachadelong halfway-- not a reversion. I think I'm the only one on the talk page trying to do this. Yet I'm the one getting hassled. This is unbelievably frustrating and unfair. Now, please llet me get back to some real work. 172 | Talk 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with William Connolley - the problem with 172's action was that he engaged in multiple, complex partial reverts. I feel that whatever debate and changes he wanted to carry out should have been discussed properly on the talkpage - edit summaries are not supposed to be a communication method. He should not respond to other people's objections by reverting their edits, albeit with compromise alterations. And the law is impartial - other editors did not come close to violating 3RR but it would be ok to give them a gentle nudge of warning as well. I quote a passage from WP:3RR here as I did on Bishonen's talkpage:

"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. 'Complex partial reverts' refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention."

Basically, I just want to understand the 3RR policy better and make better decisions. I have no issue or consternation at KC's unblock of 172. Rama's arrow 23:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you not turning a difference of opinion into a personal issue, and instead treating this in a professional manner, RA. As you can see there are sometimes disagreements. In my view, 172 did revert, but then made different edits. WMC sees a clear technical violation of 3RR, so there is a difference of opinion there. It certainly wasn't one of those easy cases where all reverts were precisely, or even substantially, the same.

All parties were edit warring to one extent or another, but 172 reverted twice then tried to work towards a compromise version. To state "no one else violated 3RR" is to focus on the Rules rather than the Situation - which is certainly a valid position, and WMC is tireless in his work on 3RR, so his judgment comes from an enormous amount of experience. Strict rules interpretation does not always take into consideration the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_without_edit_warring, which would exclude whatever in 172s rewrite may have appeared a partial revert; and on the part of the other editors, This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day from the intro to 3RR. Finally, one does not have to violate 3RR to be blocked or warned for edit warring. As the situation involved two parties, and one (172) was attempting to work towards a compromise, then the others were also at fault - not for a technical violation of 3RR, but for warring rather than trying to work with 172. Thus my unblock - as I have stated, the 3RR was not clear to me, 172 had begun working towards a compromise version. IMHO the other editors merited a rebuke for continuing to edit war. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Selig Percy Amoils

Dear Mr. Chihuahua, there is currently a discussion on this article's talkpage regarding how to properly apply BLP policy to this subject. Knowledgable comments from more experienced editors would be very helpful. I have therefore invited you and AnonEMouse to comment in the hopes that you can help clarify this situation. Thanks for your time and attention Mr Chihuahua. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Winter ice killed flower.

Gee, you've been off having (partial?) sex reassignment surgery, Mr./Mrs. Chihuahua? And here I thought it was just a cold! How the hell are you? Have an animated flower! Would you like something hopping and bobbing to look at on your page to cheer your convalescense? Say the word! Bishonen | talk 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

wrong wroom?

excuse me, but who're you, and what exactly are you asking me? (did that sound rude? I'm being puzzled--just clarifying here) but if I understand, then yes, that was my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAS (talk • contribs)

Dang, I just passed out at my keyboard. That's what I get for holding my breath while awaiting a response from KC. Normally I wouldn't do such foolish things, but I'm anticipating a nip from the pup for expressing myself a bit too firmly. C'mon, get it over with... : ) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WAS: You seem to have understood my question correctly, thanks for answering. In the future, rather than fragmenting a discussion over several pages, please answer on the page where the question was put - thanks. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which will sign and timestamp your posts. As to who I am, see my User page.

Doc Tropics: In my opinion, something gentler would have been in order. Test2, which is nonsense, would have been more appropriate to the edit in question. However, certainly a repeat offender has frayed the tolerance of AGF, so I have no quarrel with your choice. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KC, I agree. My original response was probably too harsh; I had planned on using test2 until I saw all the other warnings...but things seem to have worked out. With just a little self-control WAS will be fine. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Communism

Thanks for the feedback on the references and other issues with the article. If you have time, any further help-- now that I have started work on references-- will be greatly appreciated. 172 | Talk 09:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, I hope it helped. I regret that I cannot commit to taking on anything more right now - I will look in from time to time and offer any suggestions I can, though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Religious POV from your user page:

I totally disagree with your POV issue on your user page. Mainly because I don't feel that Christianity is as pushed as you say. One good example I've come across was the Dinosaur article. A scientific viewpoint was held over the Christian view point on the subject of dinosaur/evolution etc. Further still, I feel that the Jewish viewpoint is even more pushed than the Christian's view point. So yes I do agree with you in that a small religion has such a big part on Wikipedia. Anyway, was kinda lonely, so decided to randomly message a person I don't know. Have a great night/day depending on which side of the Earth you are on... :) Spawn Man 11:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What part does a dinosaur play in the religious beliefs of Christians? Sorry, your post makes no sense to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about Religious perspectives on dinosaurs? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a horrid article, btw.  ;) •Jim62sch• 14:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What's not to understand? Spawn man totally disagrees and agrees with you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Spawn Man has totally misunderstood me, and also that he considers "Christian" and "Young earth creationist" to be synonyms. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, for an administrator that was a bit uncivil sounding. Anyway, I said in relation to the Young Earth creationist vies on dinosaurs. It was just a comment, jeez... ;( Spawn Man 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reversion on Creation-evolution controversy

It is a bit ironic that I already did discuss the removal on the talk page, while your edit summary requests that this be done and you did not add to the discussion! Could you please place your rationale there, so that the matter may be discussed appropriately? Seraphimblade 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ping

Puppy ping. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Clown ping. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no!

do we all have to have them? My Mac is still in bits after the move! The best I could do was Image:JzG.gif. Bah! Guy (Help!) 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Neighbors

I had thought we might be neighbors, but wasn't sure, and was reluctant to ask (privacy y'know). But yes, I am here. Well, technically I am actually here at the moment, due to business and family obligations. I miss the sun, I miss the sea, and most of all, I miss my friends. With luck I'll be back in January. Don't hate me because I look like a snowbird, I'm actually a native who just has to spend a lot of time away from home. Doc Tropics 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You poor baby, you must be freezing - still Chicago is a beautiful city.

Speaking of here and there - Why, oh why, do you persist in splitting conversations? Why do you answer my post on your talk page here instead of there? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's fun to watch you run from page to page like you're chasing your tail? Sorry, I'll try to keep them in one place at a time. It's actually snowing like *%$# right now. Good thing I laid in some firewood. Email sometime, if you want...Doc Tropics 07:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"As" and "is" on Intell. Design page

Your recent one-word change produced this text:

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause

I suspect that what's wanted is this:

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause

(Excuse the intrusion into your talk page. I have a lot of trouble using the ID article's talk page or editing the article. It's probably my browser's fault.) Cognita 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that is what is wanted?

The one affirms that it is an alternative, the second affirms it should be taught as - and I didn't make a change, you did. I reverted your change, which changes the meaning slightly and was not discussed on the talk page of the article - whcih is where you need to take this next, watch the page history for talk page archive if you're having trouble loading it. I realize this may seem like a trivial difference, however we have had six month long edit wars over one word on the ID article, and it behooves you to have good reasons for making a change which changes meaning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You knew this, but just to make sure - I didn't write this vandalism you correctly and understandably reverted. See WP:VPT#Major_edit_glitch for more explanation. Art LaPella 08:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew it had to be something like that - I was just rolling back the weirdness, no worries. The worst thing I thought at all was "huh! that's odd." But I did wonder what happened, so thanks much for letting me know! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Speciation

Hmmm.. You removed what you called "speculation" about the validity of speciation in the context of macroevolution. In the previous paragraph, the concept of uniformitarianism is cited as the reason to infer causes. My post on where the gene variation in finches comes from uses this same principle in a much more reasonable sense to infer the preexistence of the gene types, and hence, that no evidence of macroevolution is observed in the darwin's finches example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furrypig (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Take this to the article talk page please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Query

With regards to your suggestion I should archive my talk page — do you suggest it purely for technical purposes, or is there something I should be concerned of? — Whedonette (ping) 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither. Merely that there have been some minor hostilities and a fresh page might assist in ending it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a pity. I feel strongly that had those who oppose investigated more deeply, they would have found that in those controversial cases, you were pitted against Trolls and POV Warriors who would have done considerable damage had you not held fast. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly! AnnH ♫ 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame. I think MONGO would have been a good arbitrator. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for the Barnstar. This simply started as a simple task I though I could perform very occasionally -- one which required little work, really -- and it's gotten quite out of hand. It's very difficult to stop once one's started! --CalendarWatcher 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I know what you mean! Welcome to Wikiholics-not-so-anonymous. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Diff or not

Mr/Mrs, I did not ask for a diff, nor for help. I want my name respected on WP. In that interreality case, my name is still used out loud but all my original text is deleted by myself last week. The current text in the article is not mine but of other contributers, i suppose. But still suspects and accuses are made by some establishment about me, using my real name in their comments. That is going too far, is violating my privacy rights, especially because MY text is deleted, and i have quitted that whole article. Not by the critics, but by the way newcomers are handled. Including the blunt comments of Doc Tropics that when I (unexperienced and confidently) use my real name, I have to accept the consequences. If that is representative for WP, than this is not my world. That's all and that's over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.207.182.13 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread my post. I asked you for a diff of where anyone had posted personal information about you, or made any attacks towards you. What comments, specifically, are you complaining about? From what I see you posted your own name - I fail to see what you are unhappy about. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The first 5 lines, from "This article ... to sources." My full name and website are posted, but these relay to the original article. Not to what now is. After I was repremanded about being OR, I discussed that with some and after about 2 days I withdrawed my article text and deleted all my posts as far as I could. In days between some others contributing to the article with their focus, something about history and cartoons and so. That is not my business nor core. So, I am unhappy with my name in comments to text that is past and gone. Also i don't except being accused when I am out of action.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.207.182.13 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, sign your posts with four tildes. Secondly, the first 5 lines of what page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

neo d

Hey KillerChihuahua, if that's how you feel about the term, I noticed it's also at Lynn Margulis — coelacan talk — 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I guess it's an epidemic. — coelacan talk — 02:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is a redirect, but ah well. I primarily objected to it being used as the primary description; I'm not going to argue the use of the term across all of WP, as even though it is a neologism it is one gaining currency. Thanks for the heads-up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding: Note that Margulis is described in the intro as a biologist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email, perhaps you missed it? Or your email is not working? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it, but did not want to engage in an extended discussion about a simple observation. Fred Bauder 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an extended discussion, I asked three simple questions. Are you saying you'd prefer not to answer them? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

law school

Hey puppy! I haven't heard from you in forever!

You have no idea how good it feels to have law school so close to being out of my hands now. I took my LSAT's and did ok on them, got a 162 (out of 180, its 87th percentile). That's a good, decent competitive score, but a little lower than I'd have liked. But it should be good enough. I wrote a really good personal statement and resume [6]. I'm 90% done with the application process. Hopefully I'll be done by the 15th or so. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How are things with you?

I am so delighted to hear that! Be sure to keep me informed, ok?

Things with me.. heh, scroll up, see the last few sections. IRL, incredibly busy, weirdly enough. I keep having these odd illnesses and accidents. I had bronchitis, then I was bit by a brown recluse, then I hurt my finger (typing impaired, heh) and all kinds of fun experiences - I think you knew about some of them, but its been almost a trend. I hope I'm done with that kind of stuff for a bit, its cramping my style. ;) Overall I'm doing well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading the papers now... wow, great stuff here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I love the line "Perhaps it is a natural progression, from soldier to lawyer—the law is another pursuit requiring a mighty heart and a dedication to service." and the entire closing paragraph. Lots of great accomplishments, too! Outstanding. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Be not pestiferous, inslut not our friends. Looks to us like you're a rodent with a dog-complex.--SanIsidro 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We're sorry, but this page's allotment of incoherent rants is already full. Please take a number and we'll be with you as soon as possible. Doc Tropics 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh....I'm completely confused by that. Anyway, I do remember some of the strange illnesses and accidents and the like. Glad to hear that it's over. It may sound stupid but if you believe you're invincible, you will be.

As for the law school stuff, I'm hinging basically everything on the fact that my LSAT scores are decent, military service, and that I can write like a beast. I have to, because my GPA sucks, it's around a 2.9, just shy of a 3.0. Considering the school I attend has an average law school entry GPA of 3.85, I'm behind the power curve. I think I can do it though. If you like it, that gives me confidence.

Read through your talk page. Sounds like you've been busy. I'm easing back into wikipedia. I had a nice break over the summer working on a mountaintop with no internet, no phones, hell, no real power. Four months of that definitely revitalized me. You should look into it, even for a weekend, just spend a weekend camping someplace nice. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To Lucas19: pestering

Lucas19, it looks from this page like you are pestering KillerChihuahua and taking up an unreasonable amount of her time. Since you reject all the advice and information she gives you, I suggest there is little point in your continuing to demand more and more of it. Please be assured that experienced wikipedia admins tend to know more about policy than new editors. This state of affairs comes about because of an astute admin selection procedure, which only approves editors who are knowledgeable about policy for adminship. You may safely trust policy advice from Killer. Please note that Wikipedia policy is not a system of law and not a bureaucracy: it is the consensus of admin practice, as developed on the admin noticeboards WP:AN and WP:ANI. Written policy sometimes lags behind, or fails to cover every detail of, this policy-in-practice. Please click on the links I have supplied in this message, I think they will be interesting and informative for you.

I see you request Fill and Killer to move their comments to User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Your_Warning, on the argument that "this section deals with the behaviour of KillerChihuahua." I quite understand that you're not familiar with the function of userpages, but it is in fact quite inappropriate for you try to give other users orders about how to format their page, or inform them that a particular section on it "deals with" whatever. I hope nobody does that to you; you probably wouldn't like it. I feel, on the contrary, that Killer and others should be spared from seeing your quarrelsome posts every time they use this page, especially the ruleslawyering about calling a person stupid via calling their actions stupid (how would stupidity manifest itself other than in stupid actions, pray?) and therefore I have moved "your" sections to their own archive. Note the link, and feel free to study the material there at your leisure, to copy it for your own use, or whatever. Don't edit it, though, as it's an archive, and don't use it to set up an attack page against Killer, because that would likely merely be deleted by an uninvolved admin; please see our policy against attack pages.

You are here to edit articles, I suppose? Please discuss them on their associated talkpages from now on. There has been enough repetiton of your concerns on this user talk page. If your interest has definitely shifted from encyclopedia articles to your conflict with Killer (which I hope is not the case), and you remain convinced that she has acted less than appropriately, there are two ways of complaining of admin behaviour: posting on WP:ANI, and setting up an RFC. Please click on those links to see how to go about it. I should mention that I personally believe you'd be wasting your time, though. Bishonen | talk 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, looks like you are pestering me given [7] and [8]...Lukas19 12:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

About your comments about stupidty, I'll quote myself: "Even the smartest people can say silly things. It's unreasonable to expect anyone can make perfect arguments about EVERY single subject. So when I call your arguments stupid, I'm not addressing you. However, I admit I could have worded my comments more constructive but given the quotes such as User_talk:Doc_Tropics#Civility_warnings, give me a break." I'm trying to move on. But seems like you have opened it again...Lukas19 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific perspectives

Thanks for your previous comments on this issue. At this point only 2 editors are active in the discussion, which makes any attempt at consensus a little shakey. The most recent comments are here if you would like to review the progress. Thanks. Doc Tropics 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind congratulations... and sympathies... and thanks. :-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

new stuff

Well, I've decided to revive the WikiProject Climbing. Unfortunately, on the more technical side of things, especially involving templates and infoboxes, I'm a little over my head. Mind helping out? Most of the articles under the project could use some simple rewriting for tone and standardization, and I'm planning on taking care of that. Mainly I just need some advice making all the templates and infoboxes and such work, so I don't look like a klutz, and a second pair of eyes might help ;) Oh, and what do you think of the new (shorter) signature? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I can help with templates and infoboxes for you, sure. brt. And the sig is better, I approve. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Killer—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 15:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Potential Impersonating User

Just wanted to let you know, an account called User:The Puppy was created that states it's an account you use when not editing from a secure location. Since it doesn't appear to have been created under your existing username, I've reported it to requests for comment. If you genuinely created this account, please accept my humble apologies. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, looking at the contribution you made at the same time I reported the user, it appears to be you. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, me. Thanks for being so vigilant tho, much appreciated! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Sparrows point

I believe it is correct to use the word "theory" when discussing evolution as it relates to speciation and origin.

Nowhere did I mention anything about creationism or God.

Do you have a problem with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparrows point (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 December 2006.

What are you talking about? No one said anything about creationism or God until you did just now on my talk page. My edit summary[9] referred to "excess verbiage", which is the use of the word theory every single time, or even almost every time, evolution is mentioned. In a biography, we introduce the subject in the intro, John Thomas Doe, and afterwards we say "Doe" only. This is similar. Its a style issue - and now that you bring up God and creationism, it does appear you're trying to push the creationist "its just a theory (in the colloquial not the scientific definition)" POV. If you have a case to make for using theory that many times, then do as I requested in my edit summary and take it to the talk page of evolution. Had you troubled yourself to read either my edit summary or the notice at the top of the page, you would have been informed twice that is where to discuss such issues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider.

I was surprised to find your vote against me. I consider your vote quite valuable, as we've worked together on numerous projects. I considered the vote against me bigoted because the individuals doing so are doing so in spite of my attempts to draw in members of a broader community.

I personally feel I've been contributing to the expansion of the Wikipedia projects across the world with my contributions to Commons, and was in utter shock that someone would consider me Anglo-American centric. I have since apologized for my remarks. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bastique, as I said I oppose with great regret - we have indeed worked together, and well. I will think this over again, but apologizing does not undo calling people bigots on such slim and shaky "evidence". They didn't accuse you personally of being biased - their position is that more stewards are needed from other backgrounds than North American. Whether I agree or disagree, or agree with their approach, is not germane. Your response, however, is. I will think this over thoroughly, as you have requested I do so. If I do not change my position, then you will know that upon reflection and reconsideration, I have not changed my mind. FWIW, I don't think my voice will make a difference in the election. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A newbie's plea for help

I am still pretty new on Wikipedia and there are a lot of things I do not understand very well at all. One of the things I do not know much about is deletion and undeletion. I wrote an article about ‎Peter Cusack a musical performance artist, professor at a University in London, host of a radio show in the UK for several years and head of several international art collaboration projects with government funding. When I wrote the article originally, I misspelled his name as Peter Cusak. It did not have many pages linking to the mis-spelled name, and was put up for speedy deletion. I added more material, and corrected the spelling. In the corrected form, it now had 10 or more pages on Wikipedia linking to it, mainly from musical collaborations with famous commercial recording artists of various kinds. I had two or three people visit the talk page who said they would argue that it should not be deleted. I stupidly did not understand the process and thought with the extra links and the people on the talk page vouching for it that is all I had to do. I really do not understand the process to be honest. I looked at the instruction pages here and even now, I have no clue what I was supposed to do. I thought having plenty of cross links from other Wikipedia pages (most existing before I wrote my article; I had no idea Peter Cusack was that famous), people supporting the keeping of the article, my having put a note on the page asking them to hold off etc would have been enough. But I probably followed the wrong procedure. Because the rules make no sense to me. And my Peter Cusack article page I wrote is gone and the talk page is gone too. What do I do? I cannot find it in the logs of deleted things although I have no idea how to search and no idea what ADMIN deleted it. I do not even know if you are an ADMIN but I think you might be. If you are not an ADMIN, maybe you know one? I think this happened in the last 10 days or so. At least I think so. I am so clueless. I am sorry. I feel like a dope and you are the one person on here that I suspect might be an ADMIN so I could ask. At least I hope you could tell me where to ask because I cannot even understand the forms for complaining about this and I feel stupid. Sorry.--Filll 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Making a strong case for Cusack's notability would have been step one. This should be done on the talk page after adding the hangon template to the article. I have asked the deleting admin if they have an objection to undeleting the article - that's a courtesy thing, I don't think there will be any problem, but they may object, we shall see. You cannot view deleted pages because they are hidden from non-admins, not to worry, they are there. Meanwhile, I suggest you keep doing research and find some good sources, which establish notability. I can userfy the article to your space and you can work on it there if necessary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate it. I guess I was not aware of how strong a case one needed to make. And where it had to be made.--Filll 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Userfied and note left on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you KC. I really appreciate it.--Filll 13:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - be sure to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and ensure your article meets notability requirements. More sourcing is preferable to less sourcing. Let me know when you think your article is ready for mainspace. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

want an admin coaching student?

Hi KillerChihuahua. Don't you call yourself Puppy? Anyway, according to the admin coaching program status page, you don't have a student right now. Would you like one? If so, I would match you with User:CFIF. Let me know if this is ok. Thank you, Fang Aili ^talk 20:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I answer to puppy, KC, KillerChihuahua, MurderousCanine, and various other monikers. Just don't call me "bitch" as Ed Poor did once, I don't find the joke amusing. Sure, sign up CFIF. I will probably want to chat with him or her on IRC if possible to get an idea of what they want from the coaching. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your message

Thanks for the kind words. I'm inching back, but trying not to let myself get too obsessed. --Mel Etitis (Μみゅーεいぷしろんλらむだ Ετητης) 11:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Warrant officer article

I'm a bit surprised you re-added that material. The "Episode Source" is that he wears an unidentified pin - that's it. The rest of it - is "so fans guess that makes him a warrent officer" is the problem. At BEST he could be in an article that says "people with unidentified rank pins".

Unless something major has changed with policy "fan literature suggests" is NOT a source. --Charlesknight 11:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Then edit it, dont' remove it.
2. Did you see above, where I state "Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here." and in my edit summary where I said Take to talk? I meant article talk, not here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as a comment - if you want people to notice it it needs to be at the top and not hidden amongst various other notices. As for editing it, there is nothing to edit - it's purely all fan guesswork there is nothing to edit, so I find the suggestion baffling. However I will take it to the talkpage where I will suggest blanking it. --Charlesknight 11:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is at the top.

I have already edited it, feel free to comment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry by top - I mean LITERALLY at the top, the first thing you see - in big red letters. You have to scroll down slightly to come across it, most users will scroll straight down to the bottom to post and miss it. I do some stuff around HCI and if it's not at the very very top - the vast majority of users will not read such an instruction (even then some will still take no notice).--Charlesknight 12:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I cannot place everything at the top in order to satisfy users who ignore notices at the top of talk pages. Big red letters is beyond yelling. No, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Thanks for being my coach, how do I get started? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you, but your first task is patience - I'm horrendously busy this weekend. I would like to set up a meet on IRC if possible and get a feel for what you want out of this - is that possible? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried using Wiki IRC before and it hasn't worked. How about email? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 03:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The idea is for real-time two way conversation. What IRC client software did you use? What chat programs have you used with success? KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not many. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 14:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not informative. Do you have any chat software? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No. (I haven't been on at all today or much yesterday, sorry for the late reply) --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) No problem, we all have real lives. Ok... we'll do it here then. Why do you want coaching, and what do you hope to gain from it? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to be an admin because I want to be able to serve the Wiki in greater ways. The more admins we have, the more hoax articles deleted, the more vandals blocked, the more Wikipedia becomes a credible and reliable source of information. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 02:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you've spent some time on Afd, the noticeboard, and Rfa. Where do you feel you could use some help or guidance? In general, I suggest watchlisting all the Policy pages, and reading all of the WP:RULES, as well as the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. Read all of WP:DR, and follow several Rfc's and Rfars - no need to get involved, but follow a few to see how they work. I suggest also following a few cases from the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee and consider volunteering at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal if you feel you can mediate effectively. I find Advocacy a mixed bag, as I do the Mediation Cabal, but overall the cabal is more effective IMO. All of this is general knowledge stuff. Avoid Esperanza - again, my opinion - and I will elaborate if you were considering joining and want my rationale. Be specific in your next post to me on what you feel you need to learn and I can help you better. I welcome feedback - if at any time you feel I am not being helpful, or the focus is wrong for you, please say something! KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I think I'm fairly proficient in AfD policy and RfA stuff. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright there! Right to start all we're doing is each taking reponsibility for a whole group of warnings, go here and pick a type of warning you are familiar with or fancy having a go at. Click on a red link Not started and start the page by copying the contents of this page here into it, and bad-a-bing, your started. We will finish this overview table getting the first draft of warning pages ready, then look into any problems like Misza's sig problem mentioned on the talk page. Once this is done we'll need admins such as yersel to implement these warnings, as alot of the pages are protected. and then we will try and implement this whole new structure and the redirects in one 24 hours period to minimise the disruption. Any further question don't hesitate to give me a shout. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy question

Is this kind of characterization allowed on Wiki? Sandy (Talk) 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're referring to the "Good" and "Bad" editors? Wikipedia does not allow attack pages. Pages with "notes" on other editors has been handled more ad hoc. I see that there are only three "Bad" editors, and that one is Jim62sch who has at least 2 Featured Articles to his credit; I am one; and one I don't know. Its clear it isn't how well the editors write which Sadi is using as a "Good" vs. "Bad" delineator. It isn't disruption, either, as all three editors characterized as "bad" have never been blocked. The defining factor is probably some level of perceived difference of opinion, which is a bit of a fool's errand. Sadi is almost certainly in at least partial error, for one thing, and for another, it does not matter on Wikipedia what anyone's personal leanings are. All that said, this is not an attack page although those particular labels could be interpreted as uncivil, or possibly as personal attacks. Does this answer your question? KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does, thanks - in other words, not necessarily against policy, but not necessarily a good idea, either. Sandy (Talk) 07:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and context should be taken into consideration as well. Were the page nothing but a list of "bad" editors, it would qualify as a quasi-attack page, and such pages have caused a good bit of sturm und drang and been deleted in the past. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Bearly541

She deleted my comments; and as she did to you, replied on my talk page, when (again, like you) I have a notice about keeping discussions on one page. Then she revert stalked me a bit; so I warned her to test2, and reverted your comments (and mine). She now thinks I'm harrassing her, ironic, as she's the harrassing party, but a common claim by such persons. I'm going to leave her alone now, and not re-revert my warnings about her voilations of WP:NPA. Just thought you might want to know the happs. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are on top of things. Heh. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 15:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Already seen and replied, thanks! I support your desire to de-escalate by leaving her alone. It appears she has a good deal of potential - note the creation of new subject headers with the month/year on pages with nothing but vandalism warnings - and she clearly wishes to do well in vandalism fighting. She does, however, need to learn to take constructive criticism in some more productive fashion, learn from her errors, and not resort to attacks and denial. I have hope for this editor, and hope also that I will be able to get through eventually. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; she does have her heart in the right place, I told her as much in my first message. Sometimes people want so badly to be "right" that they lose sight of the common goal. Thanks for your help! -- weirdoactor ^t|c 15:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nod nod, the desire to be right can cloud the judgment about what is right. I'm not sure how helpful I've been here though, she seems to have taken the whole episode badly. I've left what I hope is a thought provoking and encouraging message on her (newly blanked) page, and will watch. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I saw that whole thing on TheBeatles (is she going to have to change that name?) talk page. Wow. You have the patience of a ROCK, dude. I don't know what she's smoking, but I want three. To go. And a pizza. Wow.

Tell me, Killer. Are you angry? Or, tired because of school? Let me know when you are yourself again. We all are worried

Wow. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 00:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the positive feedback. I try to be patient, but I'm not a doormat. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

She's asking about getting you de-sysoped? For REAL? Is it RfC time yet? I volunteer to start it for her. -- weirdoactor ^t|c 01:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. See this and this. I don't think an Rfc is warranted unless she keeps hassling newbies, giving them odd orders and issuing inappropriate vandal warnings. If she continues though, I think it might be in order. I have the example of Arniep to remind me that users who start out like this, if they don't listen to reason and scale back a bit, usually get worse and worse. Her accusations of stalking and harassment sound exactly like Arniep. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Just realized you must have already seen those or you wouldn't know - unless she's asking elsewhere and I missed it. Apologies, early senility. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Third post, I'll eventually get it all out - TheBeatles has already requested a name change, to NDfan007 (I think I have the caps right.) So she's an Indy fan as well as a Beatles fan. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for the Magneto thing. I am not sure where magneto dished gossip about doing thor but i feel it unlikely! Could you take a look at something else for me? Chenogne massacre. I am not sure if what i have been doing is right or not, but the recent edits seem to go against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but maybe I am in the wrong. K, thanks, and merry/happy holidays. WookMuff 05:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re:Ilena

Thanks for responding to my Wikiquette alert on User_talk:Ilena. She's back with no response to you that I can see. Her responses to me seem slightly better, still assuming bad faith, still reverting my edits with the comment that I'm biased while ignoring my detailed explanation for my edits. She seems to just ignore all wiki policies and guidelines, though she is signing her comments appropriately now more often than not. --Ronz 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

She's replied: [10]. --Ronz 23:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Goodness... I'll take a stab at answering tomorrow. Thanks much for the link. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least you got some response. She must like you ;^) --Ronz 01:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Rofl, that's liking me? Glad she doesn't hate me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Edit summaries whould help" ?

How?! It's not like I don't do so already, and "Remove section lifted from "AllExperts"/about.com" seems to reasonably describe my removal(s), and according to the message he left, it wouldn't've mattered anyway because "balant text removal is often seen as vandalism". 68.39.174.238 07:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm going blind or senile or something - for some reason I thought you'd skipped the summary on the first Bone healing edit, but in rechecking the history I see I was wrong. I have no explanation for why I thought that - I looked at history before I posted. I plead nolo contendere. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It's OK. My main concern is just that that blatantly copyright-violating text is removed (The edit that had the word "shit" in the summary removed some other text which was also a copyright problem). 68.39.174.238 10:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

ML

Thanks, KC, for your kind inquiry on my talk page. Ann did indeed read quite concerned and you know how close she and her mother are. After the e-mail that bounced back I have tried once more and this time it seemed to go through - at least I got no error message. I will keep you informed if I get any news from Ann. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Florida Keys

Do you know of a species list for the Florida Keys? Specifically I am wondering about palms. Thanks. Guettarda 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of an inclusive exhaustive list. I'd try the International Palm Society first - they have a South Florida chapter who may be able to assist with resources. The people at Fairchild Botanical Gardens know a great deal about native florida plants, and palms in general. The Monroe County Extension Office (UFL, Key West) are a good place to contact as well. Looking on the web, I found List of Plant Biologists of South Florida and the Florida Native Plants Society. I know nothing about either of these resources but they look like they might be helpful, especially the Florida Native Plant Society. Sorry I couldn't help more - KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The John D. Macarthur foundation in West Palm Beach might be helpful too. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks, I didn't think of them. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for the support! MONGO 09:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please help TheBeatles ?

Could you please help TheBeatles with her template? You have been here longer than I have and I feel that it is appropriate. Bearly541 21:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if she wants the help. Will post on her talk page now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you deleting information off of people's talk pages? Bearly541 01:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read the edit summary, you will know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don'tt want to make templates, Thanks anyway! And my name is NDfan007 now -- NDfan007 8:15 December 13, 2006

Ok, - if you ever do want to know something, ask me and I will do my best to help. Love the new Uname, btw. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- NDfan007 8:00, December 24 2006 (UTC)

Ilena

Just wanna let you know that Ilena and I, though sharing the same last name, are no relation ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Her last name is Jester? wow. *grins* Sorry, couldn't resist. How are things going? When do you hear something about your application? Am I prying? If so, tell me so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah, not prying. I submitted about half of the applications today. I'll get the other half tomorrow, and there will be about 5 more that will take a little longer because they're pending residency confirmation (in-state tuition and all). I won't hear back from anyone until probably February at the earliest. What's new with you?⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

aspdotnetstorefront.com page

Hello,

thank you for moving my page from the speedy deletion section. I've never done this before so it's going to me a little bit to get it up and going. I've added a reference and several links that show our company is legit. Could you provide me with a list of what else is needed to move from the current deletion notice on my page?

Thanks so much for your time and have a happy Holiday.

Andy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hunter0781 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it will be deleted. All your external links are to some page on the aspdotnetstorefront.com site. You need an article (preferably several!) in Time, Forbes, software trade magazines, etc, which show the company is notable - which you haven't. Wikipeida is not a web directory, a company directory, or the yellow pages. If there is anything notable about your company, that must be shown clearly. Read Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) and see if the company meets the criteria - any of them - and make sure you can source that per WP:V. Also check Wikipedia:Notability (software). Otherwise, the article is an advert, regardless of how neutral a tone it is written in, and will be deleted. Changing Speedy to Prod took the article off the speedy list and bought you a few days to fix the article, but if it isn't fixed soon, its gone. Sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding: The other sources must be something other than press releases such as the ones listed here - those are also from the company and hence are not other sources, regardless of who picks them up and prints them. They are good sources for what's happening with the company, but not for establishing notability. I hope that's clear. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion

An issue has arisen at Talk:Abortion, and, now that Doc Tropics is on vacation, input from a third party is lacking and discussion has reached an impasse. I'd appreciate whatever insight or advice you could lend. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this - KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad to be of service, I suppose. I'm thankful that you took the time to analyse the issue and comment. I'm remaining optimistic that the situation will take a turn for the better. -Severa (!!!) 00:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You're being too kind. I read that endless section three times, and couldn't make heads or tails of it. If we don't do either a bullet list or a table, I need a brain transplant to figure it all out, mine's worn out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, exactly. But I'm applying DBN here and assuming that he/she's just unfamiliar with wiki-formatting. -Severa (!!!) 12:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Gourock Garden Gnome award for much appreciated rescues!

Merry Yule style holidays or whatever!

Somewhat baffled by a puppy's comment, but usefully reminded of intention to express grateful thanks for several rescues over an entertainingly eventful year. Even more disorganised than usual this year, not least due to rushing about to get Darwin a wee gold star. However an April snowfall here provided a handy backdrop, and as a true Wikiholic, haven't seen much of the barber this year. Anyway, hope the puppy has frolicsome fun, and a happy Hogmanay! ... dave souza, talk 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OOh, thankee muchly! Let me know if you need more rescuing - my watchlist is so long I miss things sometimes. I'm not a St. Bernard but I do what I can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a third party

Resently, there has been a dispute on the History of Feminism's talk page. Personally, I think that the topic has gotten out of hand and the article is incompassing far more then it should, or is needed. I think the article should focus more so on the feminism movement, rather then the whole of so called feminists (AKA, anyone who's published a paper criticing the sociel stucture of the time) through out history. While I'm not disputing the worth of the information that the user Mgoodyear has added to the article.

I'm quickly losing my cool.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Crimson Palm

Thanks for taking the speedy off. Worked on it some, will do some more and thanks for your work too.--John Lake 02:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem - I don't see how the contributor who added the speedy tag could have read the article, but it was a horrific mess. It took me a little to realize it was a movie. Thanks for fixing my pathetic intro - it was all I could think of to prevent yet another speedy or prod from being added. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Feminism - "Move to See Also" ?

Hey, when you removed the "List of feminists" you wrote "move to see also" in your edit summary, but I can't figure out where you moved them to. Where did you put them? - TheMightyQuill 03:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Darn, I knew I forgot something. There is no "See also" section, and I was going to make one, and then my phone rang and there was a series of distractions and I didn't get back and do that last night. Doing it now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution

One mans fact is another mans value judgement. If people did not use words too loosely is such contexts there would be less confusion. Try not to take the guidelines too literally. but what the hell merry xmas and goodnight from 82.47.176.254 23:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)mikel

I think your edits made it clearer. However, I am working on a major rewrite of this section and the corresponding section in the evolution-creationism controversy article and also the separate Evolution as theory and fact article. I had quite a heated argument with two other editors and I realized several things:

• there is confusion about the two uses of the word "evolution": as a process and as a shorthand name for the "theory of evolution"
• there are scientists who use the phrase "scientific fact" to mean observation, but also some who use the phrase "scientific fact" to mean a well supported theory (although more that use it to mean observation, which I can verify with references).
• we needed many more references and citations to make this article and the corresponding sections far firmer and less questionable, while still retaining readability.

I have been building up a lot of references and trying to "craft" a much more careful explanation of this area of confusion, which is probably the main misunderstanding and complaint about evolution. However, I do not want to leave any area unexamined and unreferenced. I want to make very clear that I use only the highest quality references. I think our attempts so far have been pretty lousy and unclear, in my opinion. So I am working on this.--Filll 23:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

StuRat

As an uninvolved adminstrator, have you considered taking action to stop StuRat from harassing other editors? You may wish to review this recent edit? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the clarification. I think the editor could have been far more constructive in how he asked. Thank you for the clarification again. I appreciate it very much! WikiprojectOWU 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)