User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 17

Was is FT2 talking about?

You asked what FT2 was talking about. Perhaps he was referring to this awarding of cupcakes vs your more recent opinion? Just a guess, I don't know for sure. Chillum 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's my guess, as indicated by my response.[1] I couldn't figure out what else it might be. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and thanks, much appreciated - I think I figured it out the same time you did, and posted that while you were posting here, but that in no way negates your helpful post here. I am frequently slower to figure things out, and you were very kind to try to help me out here. Much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I often find myself in need of things being pointed out to me. Chillum 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your stance

You posted at RFAR today (summarized to make the comparison more blunt):

"An admin who[se]... friends come before policy... she should not have Wikipedia's trust... An admin who knowingly aids and abets... a sock account... is also grossly guilty of violating the community's trust. [Such a user should not] have the admin tools, having proven they are untrustworthy and place personal friendship over the community, the project, and policy."

1. Was this your view 2 months ago, in relation to the evidence of concealment of sock-puppetry by an admin, at this case?
2. Please reconcile your strong view on admin socking concealment (above and today) in the case of Jennavecia and GlassCobra, with your dismissal of identical or more serious^[1] concerns at the RFC.

^[1] In three ways worse: Geogre was an admin, not merely applying to be one; he was actively stacking and abusing, whereas the undertow had behaved well for months; and the stacking directly benefited the concealing party, whereas the_undertow's did not.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, dude... Geogre was desysopped for his socking. He said, and I have no reason to doubt him, that in the few instances both accounts supported a view on a page with any weight (ie, not merely nattering on a user talk page) it was an error. He lost the bit anyway. I never opposed, nor do I now, his desyspooping. Its precisely what I'm asking for in this case, where the socking and the consequences were immeasurably more serious. There is nothing to reconcile. George was not evading an ArbCom ban when he created Utgard; nor did anyone knowing Utgard was a sock nominate or support him for sysop. To the best of anyone's knowledge, and according to all the evidence, Bishonen figured out Utgard was Georgre, didn't realize he had not openly disclosed the account, and had zero knowledge of his using Utgard for any !votes, and she certainly didn't nominate him for admin in violation of an ArbCom ban. There is nothing, I repeat, to reconcile. My view on the Rfc was merely to say, I think this is a silly Rfc. I still do. Its apples and hand grenades. This situation is completely different. While knowing Law=the undertow, under Arbcom sanction and created in violation of ArbCom ban, GC nominated, and Lara supported, his becoming an admin. There is no comparison at all. And as for JHochman and I arriving at the same time, look at the thread above, titled Unclear. You're sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Of all people to think I'm in collusion with! I'm used to people accusing me of being a member of the mythical "IDCab" but accusing me of some nefarious secret agenda with Hochman? No secret messages are needed, its right here in the open on my talk page. You're not "exposing" a thing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

True. I came here to ask for clarification of a diff I didn't understand and got sucked into a discussion about me being a coward, so then I went out and found my backbone and stood up for what I believe in. Jehochman ^Talk 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, sorry for my lack of tact. I guess from your perspective that's what I did though, or close enough to not matter. Your statement of events did sound like you'd been intimidated into backing down; this can happen to anyone. The fault is theirs for intimidating, not yours. Please accept my apologies if I hurt or offended you. Such was not my intent. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all! That's just my deadpan humor at work. In real life I have plenty of courage. Jehochman ^Talk 01:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good. I'm glad I didn't hurt your feelings. I know I can be a bit blunt. Its so hard to tell with text how your words come across. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FT2, you're just stirring up drama again. The differences between this situation and the other are clear (notably, KC's comment at RFAr about "aiding and abetting" applies in this case and not the other). Frankly, it seems like you have a bit of a vendetta here, as evidenced by your rambling "disgust" at RFAr and your previous RFC on Bishonen (which, alas, I missed out on, thus missing my chance to join the cupcake brigade). Anyway, this'll probably be my last comment on WP for a while, since I've decided to enforce a long Wikibreak (note, not due to this incident; it was a long time coming), so let me conclude by suggesting quitting looking for conspiracy theories by those you don't like, and quitting drama-mongering about how disgusted you are. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• FT2 is my friend. Please recognize that he's trying to say what he believes to be true (even if he might be mistaken). I recommend adjourning for the night (UTC -5). Further discussions here and now are unlikely to be productive. Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 03:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pity he hasn't respected my request to cease harassing me on my talk page by repeating the same question with minor variations then. I'm sorry he doesn't care for my answer; that does not give him carte blanche to repeat it ad nauseum until he badgers me into a different result. His loaded questions are getting tiresome; he's been offensice since he first posted his slurs on the Case page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A pity, yes. Hopefully the point will be taken. Jehochman ^Talk 03:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Asking a question that is directly relevant to a matter of admin misconduct and admin ethics, can in no way be described as "harassment". You throw such terms round very loosly. I asked a question related to your stance in a dispute and RFAR matter. "Yes", "No" or "I don't want to answer that" would be valid answers. "You're harassing me by asking!" isn't. The question stands. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And asking "when did you stop beating your wife" is a loaded question, regardless of whether I answer "yes" "no" or "I don't want to answer that". I've answered your question, or all of it that made any sense to me; your repeating yourself three times is indeed harassment. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And in case you missed[2] it:

More to the point, what does this have to do with the current case? Nothing. I actually AGF'd and thought you might actually have a concern, FT2; but that is rapidly fading at the increasing evidence you're just trying to pick a fight and drag up an old, dead Rfc from two months ago where you didn't get your way. Your vendetta is showing; I suggest you move on to new venues and new pursuits. I would think FT2 would be ashamed of muddying the waters with his sour grapes, rather than making lame accusations far past their expiration date.

Now please be done with this inquisition, which has nothing to do with the current Rfar case. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My comments at the dramafest arbcom

KC, your comment on this page pretty well sums up what I was curious about - the specfic differences between that situation and this one. I read FT2's post as "Holy crap, they did the same thing, add'em as parties", then re-read and struck, as you note. I ask for clarification mainly because others may have read what I did, and it might be useful for Jehochman to clarify the differences between his position then and now - read in vacuum, without context, FT2's comments sound quite serious. I think that any clarification from Jehochman will ultimately strengthen his point, not weaken it. And a solid trout-slapping to me for feeding the ZOMG drama. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. OTOH, there is that all FT2 has done is muddy the waters by dragging in a completely unrelated Rfc, one he started, one which had very little support, and one which I found to be somewhat frivolous. I think the other two editors who brought the Rfc have accepted that it ended. I think its a pity FT2 is trying to resuscitate it. I'm not sure that giving it any more "air time" if you will, will be of any benefit. If ArbCom takes the case, there will be an evidence phase, and FT2 has evidence of... well, nothing. He can show that JHochman was confused by an edit summary of mine and our subsequent discussions led to the ArbCom filing - that's all out in the open - and he can show that there was an Rfc. That's hardly a secret. He can show I asked him if he were clueless, which was probably not my most patient moment, and doubtless led partially to his harassment here on my talk page now, trying to troll me into something which will shore up his assertion that the two cases have more than a very, very fragile and nebulous similarity. I think my response on the case page is sufficient; Hochman may decide to amend his statement also. I just wonder if your wording would add weight to the accusations. Perhaps "to avoid confusion"? However, its your statement and you must say what you think - thanks for taking the time to consider my concerns about the verbiage. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the overnights, it looks like my addendum was largely ignored, which is fine. Every time I poke at it, it gets a little worse, so I think I'm going to leave it alone. FWIW, FT2's comments also seem to have been left to the side, with the exception of Ncmvocalist - who likely would have said as much without my help. Again, sorry for stirring the drama - and thanks for the compliment, btw - much appreciated. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. ArbCom is pretty well aware of the hostility FT2 feels for Bishonen; his extension of that to me is something new but they handled the Geogre/Utgard Loki case so they can see the differences. I don't think any of them would bother with it unless FT2 keeps harassing to the point that sanctions are necessary against him. I could well be wrong, of course. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate pattern of behavior by Ed Poor

You previously warned Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about inappropriate behavior on the topic of Unification Church/Sun Myung Moon. You cited Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Ed_Poor_placed_on_Probation, and your most recent warning was [3]. He acknowledged he saw the above comments from you at his page [4]. Ed Poor has a self-admitted conflict of interest on the topic (I'm secretary to a major Unification Church leader and I am staunchly pro-Moon.). He has since gone again to make a change in article-space based on his own assertions of what he believes to be true, based on his COI, rather than secondary sources [5]. Might be time for some other action to be taken. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That one is fairly minor; I see, however, that he's actually arguing for keeping unsourced materiel in a Moon related article on the article's talk page[6]. He's right on the line; I'm beginning to wonder if he's seeing how far he can push. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am listening to Cirt's suggestions on how to abide by source rules, and would appreciate it if you two would "coach" me rather than threaten me with action. But either way, I do intend to comply. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already placed a note on your page Ed. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to an edit conflict, I don't know if my latest post about a properly sourced addition has become visible yet. I found a NY Times article about funding, and I'm about to hit "Save page" on another source. Do you want me to put these suggestions on talk pages for approval first? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, this is a pattern of Ed Poor (talk · contribs) across the vast majority of his edits on the topic of Unification Church/Sun Myung Moon - to add unsourced info based on his own POV assertions from internal knowledge (even at WP:BLP articles) and he continues to do this despite your warning him. This is past the line. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to add any more unsourced information.

When I wrote Let's not delete the references I meant:

• Let's not permanently remove this information. Rather, let's all work together to find the proper sources. Then, once we agree the material is properly source, let's restore the properly sourced material.

Okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already told you what I think, Ed; I think you should self-recuse from all Moon and Unification related articles. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Proper sourcing

KC, is this an acceptable edit? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you already know the answer to this one, Ed. Perfectly sourced; the NYT is unimpeachable RS, and the article sources the content you added. You don't need to check with me, you know, especially with a source like the NYT. You're still editing where you have a COI so even if you get the sourcing accurate, there is always the question of bias creeping in unintentionally. If you do have a question about sourcing, ask at WP:RS - I know you're well aware of that page as you used it recently to check a source, and I commented there. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the congrats and the lighthearted humor! I'm currently taking a WikiBreak, but I'll definitely keep your name in mind if I need advice. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome; and I do mean the offer. Have a nice wikibreak! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For using the journalist Robert Parry as a source in a dustup with a supporter of Rev. Moon. Parry is one of the best American journalists around, and I support those who use him for sourcing Wikipedia. Great work! Jusdafax 02:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

late spam

Hey KC, sorry I didn't get this to you last night, when I moved it out to main space, I moved it to the wrong name, and then there was some scurrying around to fix it - anyway: Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there...

I just saw your message that you aren't feeling well and just want to say get well soon. :) Thanks for the messages to me too. Hurry and get well, I hope it's just a bug that grabbed you and a 24 hour one at that. Get well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

ty very much - so very glad to see you posting, and I hope you are recovering well, or at least as well as can be expected? Please do take care of yourself!!! We are all hoping for a very strong recovery from you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

(I originally posted this to User talk:SB Johnny, since you were away, but then I saw your post on AN/I.)

Would you *please* come to Talk:Sarah Palin and do the uninvolved admin thing; we have an editor who is acting in an extraordinarily disruptive fashion, and since you and SBJohnny are the go-to admins on this topic, I'd appreciate you stepping in and doing something. My next step is going to be requesting a topic ban at WP:AN; let's see if you can talk him off the ledge.

Well, I don't know if it was what you had in mind, but I have taken action and hopefully it will help. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't want I was looking for, since other admins had already set 1RR for all editors, and 0RR for User:Scribner. What I was looking for was someone who has a familiarity with the article and no history of editing it to have a chat with Scribner; his behavior on the talk page has been especially disruptive. Take a look at the last half-dozen or so discussions on the talk page for what I am talking about. Horologium (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nods, saw that. Me talking at him won't do any good. He has to recognize that he must discuss, and with respect and an earnest desire to achieve consensus, with other editors. 1RR and 0RR are merited, no doubt - but sorry, its just "you may edit war, only very slowly" if he doesn't try to work with others. He may, and he may not. But y'all have three days to try to find common ground with him and make a Fresh Start^TM - this may be more helpful than you think. And if not, The World Will Not End because Sarah Palin was protected for three days. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(smile) I didn't realize that you were still sick; I wouldn't have bothered you if I hadn't seen you pop up in AN/I. Horologium (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sad, isn't it? Clearly I'm not too sick to drag myself to the pc and check in here. At any rate, either Scribner will attempt to discuss during the three days, and show Good Intent, or he won't, and will go back to TE when he returns. I'm not expecting a third option - he doesn't seem the Total Meltdown type. Either way, you have three days of peace or productive discussion, hopefully both. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you fully protected that article for so long, when there were 1RR and 0RR restrictions that attempted to resolve the issue (you didn't even comment on either of them). The article hadn't been edited for 19 hours. The article keeps getting protected in hopes that it will resolve an edit war (though in this case, there wasn't even an edit war going on) and it accomplishes nothing. Could you please undo the protection and instead participate in enforcing the editing restrictions? Scribner has been approached by several users, myself included, and simply removed the warnings from his talk page. If other editors need to be warned, then that should be done. But please reconsider the protection of that article. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note

[7]. Can you now please leave me alone? I made a mistake even involving myself here. I admit I fucked up, please stop rubbing it in. Majorly talk 13:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My intent is not to "rub it in" my query is regarding conflicting statements you have made. As you've made replies both here and on your talk page, where I asked, I will respond there. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Shredding

Some say a picture is worth a thousand words.[8]. I found this in the shredder. It seemed like evidence tampering to me. Hidden agendas and the like. If not, I apologize. If so, for what its worth. --Buster7 (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you are probably quite correct, although there may be differences of opinion on how to interpret the history of that file. However, that particular incident is now Past Tense; lets not beat a dead horse. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oronooko

What happened? I thought you and another editor or two were going to save this FA? I'm not trying to give you a hard time, it's just that I turned my attention away from it because I thought that several editors had committed to fixing the article so it wouldn't be delisted. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No no, thank you for pinging me about this. I had extremely good intentions, and barely got started... then I was sick, and I was overrun a bit with Reparative therapy factions, and I'm on the BLP task force, and *still* sick. and of course I've given statements in two Rfarbs (!) as well as gotten involved in several related discussions, and frankly, it has slid through the cracks. Dare I hope your appearance here is indicative of a desire to help out? Or, unfortunately but deservedly, is it just a whack to remind me? Either way, I am appreciative. Moreso if its the first than the second, mind you... KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the books listed as references for the article, but if they're available on Google books or something, I can help out. Cla68 (talk) 00:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I. I had thought of requesting them from my local library. Apologies for the further delay, I'm ill again. Or still. Not well, anyway. TY for your patience. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• My local library system's online catalog has yielded nothing; but it is notoriously cantankerous. I will take the list in and attempt in person, when I'm up to it. Have you had any luck with online searching? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Salud

I hope you feel better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry to see the return of your off sick banner. Take it easy, and give priority to a speedy recovery which we're all hoping for. Do get well soon, dave souza, talk 07:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks much, I am drinking fluids and napping much. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I just noticed the TP header myself - sorry to hear you're under the weather. Hope you get better soon. Must be that time of year, I know a lot of folks have been not feeling well lately, even my grandkids were pretty sick here the past week or two. Keep up with the fluids, take good care of yourself - and let the puppy snuggle with ya. ;) — Ched :  ?  21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not waste a keystoke ...

... but just know that your talk page stalkers are wishing you well (soon, no rush, but sweetly soon), dear puppy. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you so very much. Current dramatics have caused me to waste far more than "a" keystroke; I'm much rather be thanking you for your kind words. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The new stylee....

'parantly, User:Born Gay was somekind of sock/meat puppet. ( Although, I think it's wrong to besmearch the Meatpuppets, one of the finest American rock bands, ever IMO!)

Just in case you didn't already know all of this stuff.... Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't say this, but wow that makes things so much simpler. Thanks for letting me know, I had missed that in all the kerfluffle of Other Things. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, this man is the puppet-master. He loves the intrigue. Hyper3 (talk)

Every new sock he makes will be easier to spot. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone

Further information about the "first citizen journalist" claim has become available, and I am not satisfied it is a valid claim. Because of that, and as I mentioned in the comments below my 'vote', I've changed my opinion to 'delete' on that AfD. Since you cited me in your 'keep vote', I wanted to inform you of my change in position. Cheers! Prodego ^talk 03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Twain

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." Nitpyck (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice, thank you! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Birthday note

Thank you for the birthday note. The years seem to go by faster and faster, don't they? Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

You have nooo idea, you youngster. (Ok I'm not much older than you, but I am older.) The 40s are good for a man, though. You get to be taken seriously, become distinguished. Women just age. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Afd

You posted a comment in the first attempt to delete the BLP of Ray Joseph Cormier It is nominated for deletion again. Would you please take another look? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this courtesy note. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh...

...please do! It's a wiki after all! My writing can really suck when I'm scribbling drafts. Thanks!  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I was merely stalking, and that didn't quite flow for me. Thanks for being so gracious about it - its clear its still in rough form, after all - I didn't want to appear to be criticizing unfinished work. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Now don't do that again! (i.e., Hurray, puppy's well!)

Love this dif. :) (Feel free to edit topic title. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking positively, dammit. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If you'd like stay-well prayers, you may have them. If you prefer stay-well pudding, you may have that instead. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Greedy pup asks, can't I have both? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweet puppy gets both! Special delivery of favorite-flavored pudding by freshly appointed guardian angel ... en route. Italic transmission specified by God Herself on High, who knows favorite pudding flavor of puppy without asking. P.S. No stress allowed. Selah. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We missed you madam. Good to see you back. It's been a season for the kook brigade around here. It seems all the hotspots have an entrenched POVer or three without ears and the softhearted wiki welcome wagon crew has decided those mean ol' science editors need to learn some humility yet again. Frustration abounds. I'm even finding myself getting snarky to the newbs.

Sorry to lay that all on you, just take it easy. I hope you've pruned back your watchlist (and does this beta allow for multiple watchlists which we desperately need?); I've been doing some housecleaning on mine. I get these pages on my list and I can't remember how they got there, coincidentally one was Retrograde amnesia --hah. Anyhoo, take care, pup. And keep your sweater on. Auntie E. 17:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kook brigade is fairly normal around here, surely? LOL re Retrograde ... something or other. Knit me a sweater and I'll wear it, otherwise I'm sticking to my fleece. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A bit late, but just wanted to say I'm glad the puppy's feeling better. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there!

Well I noticed you finally took down your not feeling well banner. I hope you are feeling better now and that you stay that way. I'd like to see you back to your happy puppy self again. :) Take care of yourself. All's going well with me. Recovery is moving along greatly. I finally lost both the walker and the cane. Now we are working on getting my left arm back in action. Take care sweetie, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful news!!!! I am so glad you are doing so well. My husband and I think of you and talk of you often, and are pulling for you to make an amazing recovery - so please don't disappoint us! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

May I email you ? It will have nothing to do with the project. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I think you should know that you have been mentioned on my talk page. Looking at his contributions is showing his WP:COI problems but I can't get the difs together and type it all up for a report with my arm still not functioning well. Anyways I thought you should know. I'll try to get an email out to you soon. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I see no need to feed that particular fire. I appreciate the heads up, however. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 05:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping, you've got mail. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential for major conflict at Karl Rove

Greetings, Killer. I see you are on the Mediation Committee. I wonder if you could check out the current situation on the Karl Rove page? It's not serious yet, this is atm a mere heads-up.

To be extremely brief, there are 2 editors there I am in substantial disagreement with (one of whom has been warned about edit-warring on the page previously and has reported me for incivility with no action taken, and the other new to the page.) Both have revealing edit histories, in my view, given the subject matter. I am reluctant to react further to what I see as WP:BAIT. Prior to starting the possibly time-consuming process with the MC, which I have never previously done and am reluctant to do, I thought I'd get an uninvolved admin to take a look. Thanks for any time you can spare to this matter. Best, Jusdafax 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. My memory isn't always great... I see I awarded you a Barnstar; now I remember that I liked your work. I'm hoping despite this, that you will look into my issue. Should you feel the barnstar makes my request a COI, could you please hand this matter off to someone you know to be reasonable? I am not asking for a POV from left or right, but mere reason. Thanks, and best wishes to you always. Standing by. Jusdafax 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This discussion at Rowe is a simple content discussion, and this kind of drama spreading is a bit excessive , imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The above user has just now edited a second time. Suggestions? Jusdafax 16:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have caught me at a time when r/l is eating almost all my available time. I will look when I can; meanwhile, if things become too heated and you feel you need more immediate assistance, you can beg at ANI or at another admin's talk page; I recommend checking to find a currently actively editing admin and attempt to gain their attention. For non-admn head breaking, Durova is occasionally available. I apologise that I am not able to give this the attention it deserves at the moment. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 05:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I understand completely. The matter was taken today to WP:BLP/N which would not have been my choice (it languished there earlier this last summer as well with little effect, if I remember correctly) so under the circumstances I withdraw my current informal request to you as a member of the MC, and I am going to watch and comment with no further reversions at this time. I find I am inspired by User:Kingturtle to ease off from drama... depending on my mood. Best, Jusdafax 08:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSC

When all is said and done, I felt you were a decent AUSC candidate. I am confident you'll get in and do a good job. Cheers. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; if selected I will certainly do my best. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 05:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note from another puppy. I know I haven't had much time to stop by and chat lately, apologies for that, but I did take the time to support the extra burdens that you're up for. Actually, while I didn't outright oppose anyone - I did only support half of the candidates. I wish you luck, because I think you go to exceptional levels to be fair, unbiased, and reasonable in all your actions. All my best puppy, Cheers, — Ched :  ?  18:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, we have some good volunteers stepping up to stand for this subcommittee. I'm sure we'll get a good group. given the pool we're drawing from. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for running along side the rest of us, and I'll do my best to do you credit. --Tznkai (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tzn, I am certain you will all do an outstanding job. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Postlethwaite

Postlethwaite claims you were involved [9] in an alleged investigation of Sunray's mediation. In light of this reply [10], I am asking you for a detailed, on-wiki report describing the duration and extent of the alleged investigation, with a summary of all evidence considered in this case, including a clear answer on whether or not Sunray was contacted or involved in the alleged investigation and to what extent. Furthermore, I will need your view on the exact moment that Sunray ceased to be a mediator in this case. Your prompt reply is requested. Gimmetrow 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have neither the time (check my contribs for the past few weeks!) nor the inclination to dig back through history and do this level of research for you. You have given me no reason whatsoever to consider assisting you in any way, let alone a reason sufficient to motivate me to comply with your very peremptory demands. What precisely are you trying to accomplish here? MedCom has investigated, you've been answered. You have given absolutely no reason for escalating your request again, and to this level. Your "alleged investigation" is a direct slap in the face to everyone in MedCom who took the time to look at this at your request in the first place, and you have not thanked anyone for taking the time SFAICT. After that kind of response, were I to bother to write you a "detailed on-wiki report" I have no reason to think you would not insult me and reject any information I provided and and insist I give you all emails and discussions along with my Internet provider's useage log, etc. What escalation next, my birth certificate? This is entering the theatre of the absurd. I suggest you take Ryan's advice and start an Rfc, or better yet, drop the subject. There is a reason you're not getting what you want - you're tendentiously arguing for preferential treatment, and stomping all over everyone in pursuit of it. That doesn't work well here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding: If I did have more time I'd be helping at Karl Rove, as requested two sections prior to this one, and/or being more help at the BLP task force as Cary is pleading for me to do. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

SFAICT, there was no investigation. I was not asked for any further clarification. SFAICT, an allegation of mediation abuse was handled by Postlethwaite assuming jurisdiction, stalling, and then saying "it was investigated", without, however, asking for any evidence or showing any indication that even prima facie evidence was considered. Was it? Gimmetrow 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I was not asking for "preferential treatment", but for a fair hearing. Gimmetrow 15:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You are in error. You requested an investigation to disprove allegations which you made with no evidence. I asked a preliminary question of you and was ignored. An investigation was nevertheless carried out, as you have already been informed by both the Chair of the Mediation Committee and myself. When you now state "SFAICT, there was no investigation" you are calling us both liars. I repeat my advice to take this to Rfc if you insist on pursuing this matter, as I have already given you my answer. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

At no point do I recall ever being asked for further information or clarification of the details of my allegations; therefore, I would like to know what information was used in the investigation. Gimmetrow 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you'd done a ton of work on the Infernal Bridegroom Productions page...

...and wondered if some info I came across should be added. Jason Nodler and Tamarie Cooper have a new theatre company in Houston called The Catastrophic Theatre. It doesn't have a WP page as yet, and I considered adding a line on the IBP page about the new company, but wasn't feeling bold enough, being only a lowly wikisloth. Please let me know what you think. I'll look for your answer here. Thanks! ~ zerodark | talk 06:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Intriguing. I cannot find a third party source other than 29-95. Have you any other sources? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Love ya sweetie...

...but not that way ;-).

(Dunno if you're following that particular drama, so thought you should know why your ears are burning). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe that case is worth watchlisting after all... MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Goatherd woos small dog. Film at 11 ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear me... This place is fraught with unexpected ... err... Information. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy KillerChihuahua's Day!

User:KillerChihuahua has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as KillerChihuahua's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear KillerChihuahua! Peace, Rlevse 00:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Shell ^babelfish 01:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A Well Deserved Honor - 'Grats! Jusdafax 01:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thank you very much! This comes at a good time for me, too. I have been a little discouraged recently. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that last part. I admit I'm a little discouraged myself (it appears my only Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow will be a turkey sandwich at Subway), but I guess we just have to keep plugging along. And glad to see you got a day today! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome to join me for Thanksgiving. I'm going to the Trilateral Commission's secret volcanic lair for turkey, beer, and football. I was invited by Pfizer to thank me for all of my hard work suppressing cheap, natural cancer cures on Wikipedia. The secret ingredient in the gravy is eeeevil. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yippee! Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Great Hippocampus Question

Congratulations! Good to hear the first part, hope the encouragement succeeds. Am fair wore out with all this Darwinning myself, puppy day makes a nice afterlude. So, all the best for the coming year! . . dave souza, talk 16:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not hosting turkeyday myself this year, but I am making pumpkin cheesecake and descending on friends. :-D

I am sorry to hear your day will be a sandwich, Heimie, but hope the sandwich is good and your day is happy anyway. Still much better than a day with no sandwich, as so many in this world have. Mastcell: sources? Video? You're making this up, false authority syndrome reigns. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You should pop up here for lunch: I'm making my famous smothered goat cubes, and the wife is making her famous butternut squash bread ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds yummy, but your wife might object. Does she know we've been having an affair? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)u

Well, I was assuming you wouldn't bring that up ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't even know about it until you put that link on my talk page! Now that I've been told, I can hardly un-know. This is all your fault. The romance is over. Over, I tell you! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Awwwwww, just when we were getting the popcorn ready. Puts B.B. King's "The Thrill is Gone" on the music player :-( . . . dave souza, talk 21:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*. Well, we'll always have Wasilla :-/. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard some laughter ... all the way over there. Coming here to find out what it's about. Oh, nice. Congratulations! :) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ayers

Hi, I essentially restored to my previous edit of Ayers, but added a citation. AFAIK there has been no discussion on the talk page regarding this since my last post, and I missed that someone removed my edit. I think my version should stand as factually accurate, cited, and npov, but I posted at talk in any case. Best, Kaisershatner (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks, and hopefully this will be easily resolved. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC

I willingly dropped the issue officially here: old ver [11], diff: [12].

Only message after this was to Alexh19740110 [13] to tell him I didn't share his views about AGW until Connolley marginalised the third party interventions (following diff) and then re-opened the conversation without further prompting from me [14]. Look at the succeeding edits and diffs to see who was driving the conversation. Dduff442 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

why are you here? What do you want from me? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I just don't understand how actions carried out at WMC's prompting could constitute harassment. Dduff442 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He did not come to your talk page and ask you questions. He was attempting to respond to your highly confusing posts on his page. Kudos to him. Why are you here? Are you unclear on how you were harassing him? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't share your opinion regarding his motivations in re-opening the debate or regarding the confusing posts. It's quite out of character of him to indulge enquiries he considers trivial. The entry was entitled 'an offer' and there was only one offer in the message... I think anyone with average intelligence could work that out. I'm unclear how it's *possible* to harass someone at their own volition, so yes. I'm here to answer your questions. Dduff442 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking any. I had one, "why are you here" and your answer is "to answer your questions" - this is circular. Looks like we have nothing to discuss. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well you threatened me with a block for harassment. Now you agree no harassment occurred are you not embarrassed at all? Dduff442 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my intrusion, but in the spirit of the holiday season, I would like to offer to any party who wants one, a deluxe apology — this includes my eating dirt followed by washing my mouth out with soap. If this would in any way help any situation (which I am intruding into), please let me know. I will go wash some dirt and peel some soap. :-) In any case, happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm being defensive. But I've been getting threats from all angles for days inspite of trying my very hardest to act with fairness, directness, honesty and integrity. Consciously or unconsciously, there's a buddy system in operation. This encourages cynicism and gaming of the system and damages editors' faith in the admins. By extension, faith in the editorial system itself is eroded.

I just came up with a good analogy on BozMo's page, so I'm going to repeat myself without shame: Wikipedia is like a giant steamer with no captain and no rudder. If it goes off course who'll set it straight, and how?

I did get a smile out of your post.Dduff442 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As someone in a stranger doghouse than you can imagine (not KC's beautiful floating one), I certainly understand how the waves of Wikipedia may crash upon our heads ... often simultaneously and from directions one cannot imagine waves coming from. :-) Again, please excuse my light intrusion into the matter which I know is frustrating — there are so many barfights going on lately, I feel compelled to do anything (even eat dirt) to, um, lighten the mood.

Not my place here to offer anything but apology with dirt/soap option. :-) Let me know (I think some are taking bets:-) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader, you are amazing. No soap no dirt just thanks for being who you be. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Accidentally very happy ... must write down recipe .... dirt, soap ... :-) Bless you, dear puppy. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have now proudly and beautifully displayed wonderful surprise on my user page ... with slight text color adjustment to coordinate with purple pigment pile beneath ... for enhanced beautification effects. :-) Again, bless you. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by Ed Poor at his conflict of interest

You had previously given Ed Poor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this warning: Ed, I'm not going to play your games. You've been warned; watch your step on Moon and Unification related articles. I will not hesitate to block if you continue to disrupt. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done.

Ed Poor has continued to engage in disruption at articles directly in his conflict of interest; namely attempting to remove info linking related organizations and front groups to the Unification Church and Sun Myung Moon, removing sourced information, and making disruptive page moves against consensus. Please see [15] and [16] for two recent examples. Enough warnings have been given at this point. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Updates

1. Edit-warring to remove info from the lede, that, per WP:LEAD, was verbatim sourced later in article [17].
2. Sourcing info to another non-static wiki website? [18]
3. Unsourced change to POV term "opponents" [19]
4. Unsourced addition pertaining to a BLP individual [20]
5. Edit-warring to restore POV and unsourced page move [21]
6. Seemingly professing ignorance of violations of WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN [22]

Cirt (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sarah's open...

Your protection expired, and the vandals have already started in on it. I'm involved; can you reprotect it for a longer spell? Horologium (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I semi'd, lets see what happens. Its like babysitting a shark feeding, I swear. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt Crypto

Please keep an eye on Matt Crypto (talk · contribs) edits to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. He's repeatedly deleting references to the material being stolen, for obvious POV reasons. I've warned him already but I suspect he may need a firmer reminder if he persists. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He's not only changing the content from what the sources say to what the sources do not say, he's reverted three times already. I'm guessing you have the 3RR report all ready to file? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He's a bit upset [23]. I'll try to reason with him. Wish me luck! -- ChrisO (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!

Wikipedia:Meetup/Miami 3 is coming up in the near future, you are invited to participate. Thanks Secret ^account 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe I will actually make one of these shindigs. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole

And it's back... Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Query

Could you take a look at the history of List of Unificationists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ? There was a bit of reverting going on, and if asked I will gladly self revert something if need be - but I thought that per WP:BLP, any unsourced, controversial information about BLPs should be removed forthwith. In any event, post the conflict, I moved all unsourced info on WP:BLPs to the article's talk page. Look good, for now? Cirt (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but yes, you're absolutely right. If its BLP and its not sourced, out it goes. If its controversial it goes out on speed rails. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks, just wanted someone else to look it over. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, looks like some of these are sourced in their main articles. I'm looking at Bo Hi Pak right now. IMO you might want to make a list of the names you removed and go through them, slowly, verifying the sourcing on the main articles and re-adding to the List if indicated - including the source on the list, if you wish. I'm not sure where the rules are on that these days. I realize its a lot of work, but I think its worth doing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly why I moved it to the talk page. I plan to go through them one by one, but only add back with sources on this page itself. :) Sound okay? Cirt (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh I missed that, sorry! Yes, perfect. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: Now sourced and added back the (notable) entries, at List of Unificationists. Cirt (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Making reports on AN/I

Would you consider refactoring your comments on AN/I — or at least toning it down a bit in future reports? A lot of them seem to be in rather poor taste. Calling another editor a 'bigot' is quite beyond the pale, unless you're prepared to back that up with some really damning diffs. As well, referring to Ed Poor's four-year-previous ArbCom run seems to be a way to attack and embarrass Ed, rather than to address any problems he might have in his (current) editing. Moreover, it's a weak argument, first because several of the supporting votes (which you chose not to copy into the thread) endorsed Ed as a strong supporter of NPOV, and also because as at least four of the opposing voters have sinced been banned outright for their socking and trolling.

From your signature, I gather that you brook little interest in being civil, polite, and courteous for their own sakes', but please try to bear in mind that you'll be a much more effective advocate for your arguments if you present your requests a tad more dispassionately. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

More than happy to back up truly horrifying and hateful bigotry, via email, if requested by ArbCom. If you really want it, I'll email it to you as well. Do you? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, I'd rather that you either add suitable supporting diffs to the thread where you made the statement, or you withdraw the claim. It certainly appears that you've gotten the editing restriction that you sought in any case, so there's no need of it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem terribly concerned about this, yet I assure you it is not as provoking as you seem to think. Ed hasn't bothered to deny that he's a bigot, and as its fairly common knowledge, while I appreciate that you are concerned about how I might appear, I prefer to be accurate rather than withdraw one of the things which continually creeps into Ed's POV edits. Or hadn't that occurred to you? It is relevant; it affects his edits. Yet you seem more concerned that I used the term, than at the thought of a clear bigot editing articles in a biased fashion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding: As the issue is now resolved, I fail to see what would be gained by adding links which could only harm Ed's standing, such as it is, even further. I don't understand your insistence that I continue to add to the pile of what's stacked against him after he's been topic banned. If you're curious, I suggest you check out RationalWiki's page on Ed. It has a lot of the links you are probably looking for, and he actually was awarded an award for bigotry there. Its not the most egregious content I am aware of, but seriously, dude, its about as controversial as saying the sky is blue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, the comment reflects more poorly on you than it does on Ed, because of the appearance that you are making an unsubstantiated (and serious!) accusation. Calling someone else a bigot isn't taken lightly anywhere, as far as I know. On the other hand, if Ed is (currently) using Wikipedia as a soapbox from which to make bigoted remarks, then I'd be inclined to recommend something more than a piddly-ass little topic ban.

Bigger picture — I'm suggesting that if you took an ever-so-slightly less inflammatory approach, you'd be more likely to get a fair hearing at AN/I (and elsewhere). While it appears that you got what you wanted this time around anyway, I'd be inclined to suggest that it was in spite of, rather than because of, your reporting style. Whether you intended it to or not, you gave the impression of someone who was hoping to goad an opponent into an intemperate response (through various attacks, and the cheap shot about the old ArbCom election). With that sort of approach, you're going to end up shooting yourself in the foot one of these days. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is me, Ten. I've been here almost as long as longer than you (June 2004). I've spent over five years being polite and careful, and you even misunderstood my sig to mean that I "brook little interest in being civil, polite, and courteous for their own sakes" which is about 180 out from how I think. In fact, it hurt my feelings a good bit, I never did get the thick skin they say you need for this job. But FYI, my sig is not advice to not be courteous. It is advice to not be a bitch when someone else is rude. But you saying it reflects badly on me? I'm willing to back up my accusation, but would prefer not to have to, because it would only be poling on Ed and it would be a good bit of work for me to no purpose at all. Go check out the links on the page I mentioned. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and cheap shot?!!! No, showing long history of same behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, pulling out an election result from five years ago – in which Ed received a substantial majority of supporting votes, and in which about a third of the comments you quoted were from now-banned trolls and sockpuppets – is a deceptive, cheap shot. You're experienced enough to know that ArbCom elections tend to bring out the nastiness in voters, and draw the trolls like moths to a flame. Showing that a small number of editors five years ago didn't want Ed as an Arbitrator was an unfortunately weak line of evidence for you to present. Choosing to quote it in full on AN/I as by far the largest part of your evidence (in terms of length) in support of your request came across as petty and spiteful. If you want to show a pattern of behaviour then do what you did elsewhere: provide appropriate diffs, and link to previous, relevant instances of dispute resolution.

As to your opinions on civility — consider how it looks when you link to that essay in your signature, and it appears right after you say things like "POV pushing, rules-ignoring bigot", "tired of your bullshit", "spends most of his time rewriting the bible at Conservapedia", "he'll just weasel his way around the edges". It gives the impression (fair or not) that you're asking everyone to give you a free pass on any incivility in which you might engage — and placed after those sorts of comments, you'd have reason to ask. There are far better and more effective ways to say those things, and after five years here you should know that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've read your first sentence and stopped there. NO, it was NOT. I'm really sorry if it looks that way but I took EVERY SINGLE oppose from that nom, in order to be thorough and not cherry pick, and only to establish that these concerns are of long standing. You might want to try to AGF a teeny tiny damn bit and not be so sure I have such foul motivations. I'm offline for a bit. I've had about enough of getting shit on by you and accused of motives I don't have, because of one bigoted troll who has been sanctioned several times by ArbCom and who apparently has enough nostalgia factor to get some sort of weird sympathy for the hole he dug himself. You have voiced your view; I have disagreed. Now be done with that and cease informing me, incorrectly, of my motives and thought process. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

JettaMann

Unfortunately JettaMann (talk · contribs) has totally ignored the warning you gave him earlier. Please see WP:ANI#Persistent personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:JettaMann, where I've requested that he be blocked and/or topic-banned. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dang. Some people are just too hot headed, and won't slow down and consider their own actions. Thanks for the fyi. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: my RfA

Bahahahahaha! I needed a laugh today, thanks a lot! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Delighted, and I do mean #6! If I can ever help, I will. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln's dog tail

One last note for the holidays :-) ... I don't read everything on user pages ... but I finally read that Abraham Lincoln "tail." I like Abraham Lincoln. (lol) I did not know that one. But that quote is PERFECT for all kinds of (stupid) rhetorical occasions. Amen. (I now return puppy to her regularly scheduled episode of dramatic non-tv.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AFEA

You're quite right, of course. I took one look at his userspace and jumped way too early. Thank you for the reality check, so to speak. Yours, @Kate (parlez) 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for taking it so graciously. Edit summaries are, by their nature, a bit terse. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. :) And I believe that you and I can agree that the more articles that Wikipedia has (that meet its criteria), the greater wealth of knowledge that it is. Thanks, again. @Kate (parlez) 02:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent post

Killer, I was surprised to get a warning from you on my Talk page (see diff here). I acknowledge your concern and will endeavour not to counter-revert WP:BLP reversions in the future. Madman (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to be leaving it, believe me! I much appreciate your increased care with BLP issues in the future. thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

False analogy

KC, can I trouble you for an explanation of why you consider my analogy a "false analogy". As you pointed out I should not have insinuated that you did not have a rationale when you made the comment, but I have since apologized and I have stricken that insinuation. Perhaps you did not notice this, or the fact that I have asked for such an explanation. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd explained that; and you are correct, I haven't been back to that page for a couple of days. I'll take a look. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you handle this?

Hi puppy, I just came across this editor and before things get out of control well you'll see, that is if you are curious.  :) never mind user name is spam, editor's user page is spam. The editor has already been final warning for spamming their site to the IBS article. I figure maybe nipping this one quickly will prevent a lot work along with preventing a lot of agrevations. If not interested, I'll wait and watch but I hate going to AN/I for obvious reasons. Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like CactusWriter already got it! Wow, we have some great admins here, don't we? sorry I was afk when you posted this - glad someone else saw the issue and took care of it! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey no problem! I have to admit I was totally surprised at how quickly this was handled. I even looked to see if the administrator was one of your many talk page contributors or lurker and saw my comment. Yes, we do have some wonderful administrators. Take care and thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Struck my comment

I struck my comment on the RS/N that made reference to the previous dispute. It was unnecessary and unproductive. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated. It was also an accusation of POV pushing and cronyism, which is something you should avoid unless you have actual evidence, and not to be used to smear another editor in a dispute. This is the second time in a week you have struck comments about me. I note you are also using that tactic, whether you are aware of it or not, against other editors. I suggest you remember to comment on content, and not resort to character assassination of those with whom you may disagree. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

PUG PUG PUG

		The Pug Barnstar
		Hey buddy, this is just to say thank you for putting the list of films featuring pugs into my userspace. You're a champ. I was telling my wife about it as we were making dinner and we are now going to start watching them all. I'll let you know how we get on. See ya around, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and have fun. So nice to hear of couples having a common interest and spending time together! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said ... I'm not going to edit war

I've left a note about your block threats and edit warring here:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:KillerChihuahua_issuing_block_threats_during_a_dispute_he_is_invovled_in

I do not find this behavior appropriate but I am not about to get myself blocked because you're goading me on. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have responded. In the future, I suggest you use the standard ANI notice template, as less hostile and accusatory. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I was ever mad at you.

I remember for some reason I used to be mad at your editing, but these days, I forget why. I seem to be in the position of agreeing with you on quite a lot of things (such as AGF not being a suicide pact, the Civility Police, and the Censorship Criers). Weird. Maybe it's because we're becoming part of the "old crowd" that have been here for over half Wikipedia's life? Sceptre ^(talk) 01:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, its far enough in the past that I cannot even remember you being mad at me. Senility? No, just my inability to remember or care about disagreements. :D And yes, we've been here a while, now. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There are probably some arbitrators who joined after either of us got the mop. Probably some after I gave up the mop. I guess that in a few years they'll lose their optimism and idealism regarding behaviour on Wikipedia, but then they'll be replaced by even more annoying people. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Cynic. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

When you see stalkers gaming the rules to get protection from scrutiny, you can't really help it. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You can take your noodles, and

put them in whichever orifice will give you the most pleasure. ;-) ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, will do. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should've capitalised spaghetti... ‒ Jaymax✍ 02:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop censoring Wikipedia

What the-- it didn't work? Dangit. I was so hoping to get a really wicked buzz off of that autoblocking mechanism. Guess its time has not yet come. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hah. glad you got a chuckle out of it. For my talk page stalkers, he's talking about this edit. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have actually considered incorporating the following analogy into a template:

Please don't confuse maintaining a civil and goal-directed working environment with "censorship". If you showed up at a town council meeting, grabbed the microphone, and started ranting about all the things and people that you don't like, would it be "censorship" if someone turned off your mike?

Then, I could just cut and paste it as {{User:MastCell/Censorship}} a couple dozen times a day. MastCell ^Talk 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed taht for you and made it a real link! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Alas, it was not so much a chuckle as a wistful "if only". But that works too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good all of you, it made my day start with a laugh! Oh and I prefer lurker, stalker seems like, Stalking.  :) Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Stalking, lurking, squatting, flopping, crashing, laying low, riding through, stopping by; however you're here, you're all very welcome here always. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh darn. Now I'm a bully. Its been a while since I've been accused of being an ABUSIVE ADMIN. I was beginning to think I wasn't doing my job. What a relief to know I'm still working that mop. Kindof a pity it didn't actually, you know, involve any Admin actions. But, we settle for what we get. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin's being abused? Again??? And it's everyone's favourite puppy, where will the abuse end? These puppy abusers must be stopped >:-/ dave souza, talk 16:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hey! I have noticed your work in templates and was wondering if you could do me a favor. Would you create a template that says something like you have made a lot of good pages and you should request to be an autoreviewer? One more thing. Can you nominate someone to be an autoreviewer? Thank you. Btilm 01:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and I'm not sure, respectively. Let me look into it a little. I haven't actually read up on the Autoreviewer function yet, this would be a good time for me to do so. I can certainly make a template for you, though. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And while I'm at it, I have an admin ques for you. Do pages like Template:White Album Characters, that aren't really necessary, have a speedy delete tag? Thank you. Btilm 01:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Not unless they are copyviolations, or vandalism, or meet another of the speedy criteria. Otherwise, just do what you did - list on Mfd and let the process take care of it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Grrr. Disappointed, thought it would include Sexy Sadie, Rocky Raccoon, Julia, Prudence and of course Bungalow Bill. Away with it! . . dave souza, talk 16:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WQA

My understanding of WQA isbased on the stuff at the top of the page and a two month stint editing about a year ago before a long wikibreak. It's that neutral editors could sometimes intervene using persuasion and peer pressure to either tell a reporter they were overreacting or a reported user they were being uncool. Idea being to solve disputes without loading down administrators and in a more congenial manner than blocks. Ideally both editors walk away happy. Yes, that usually doesn't work, but it does sometimes and it's really cool when it does. Frequently one or the other (eventually) gets the idea their position doesn't have a lot of traction and goes away unhappy. And sometimes it's just beyond when can be accepted by the community and needs attention by folks with enforcement power; at this point the idea is to refer to AN/I.

If WQA is a place to be monitored by admins, it seems to me it's kinda just another AN/I, which isn't the vision as I understand it. Gerardw (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it has evolved and changed several times over the years. Originally it was supposed to be a pre-Rfc page. See here, where it is clear that if WQN cannot help, the editor is supposed to be sent to Rfc, not Ani. However, from the beginning there were admins monitoring the page, and it rather quickly became as I described, a whine and complain page for demanding that other editors be blocked. I suspect that was when most admins de-watched the page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit muddled.This here Wikipedia:DR#If_the_situation_is_urgent suggests WQA for urgent situations, which doesn't make sense to me, either. Thanks for the insight (and history lesson) -- I'll keep user RFC in mind in the future. Gerardw (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, IIRC, the "urgent" bit was added to the Dr page during the worst of the "WQA = InstaBlock" days. I'd support changing it back. Rarely is name-calling "urgent" in any sense. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be bold, then. [[24]] Gerardw (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warning on Peter Lee

I understand that you cannot block Peter Lee right away and have to give him a final warning. I am already happy with that, I feel I am now understood, so thanks! You seem reasonable and I trust you do take appropriate action if Peter Lee again calls my edits "vandalism", insults me or accuses me falsly... By the way, there are several typos in your message on his talk page, like the template: shouldn't that be {{uw-npa4}} i.s.o. {{tl|uw-npa4}}??? That doesn't do much... MarioR 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:DTTR, but wanted him to get the message. Please leave linked as I placed it, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks, learned a new thing then. Don't worry, wasn't gonna touch anything. As a matter of fact, I decided to leave Peter Lee's page alone, as he keeps deleting everything all the time anyway... MarioR 18:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, KillerChihuahua. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor review/Thejadefalcon.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Autosig

What happened with the autosig code? I actually created the first one (okay, it probably already existed, but I thought of it). Btilm 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Um... Looks like I broke it, then you fixed it. :-D Oops. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi KillerChihuahua! When handing out holiday cheer, my mom taught me never to forget the puppy. I would like to wish you the very best, and hope this holiday season brings you much joy. Zaereth (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!! I hope your holiday was wondeful! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Any problems ...

... that dirt and soap eating would solve? :-)

PS One night right before I logged off, I noticed in the watchlist you said in an edit summary that you "liked" your talk page watchers, stalkers, etc ... And I know you've said things like that before ... but I didn't remember seeing it in the watchlist ... Anyway, the point is that it made me smile when I read it, and I turned off the computer for bed with a nice warm feeling. (I know, too much attention to the watchlist, but true. lol)

Bless the rest of your holidays and beyond. Proofreader77 (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's lovely!!! I hope your holidays were wonderful! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

BS.Player

I haven't investigated that software, but I saw your posts on Miami's talk page. You may have luck reopening the AfD. I had with OggConvert; sources were just ignored there. See background. Pcap ping 20:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP issue raised again

Hi KC, you commented a few weeks ago on a speculative interpretation of a private e-mail, which you said was a violation of BLP (see Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident/Archive 9#Removed per BLP). The issue has been raised again at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Two MMs. If you have any additional comments on the issue, please feel free to chip in. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User: David Rohl

He's been making repeated, heated, personal attacks against me at the new chronology page. I left a warning on his talk page, my second suggestion that he adhere to WP:CIVIL (the first time he replied with more personal attacks) and noted that you had previously warned him quite strenuously not to make personal attacks on that particular talk page. Just a heads up.  :) Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello, KillerChihuahua. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collectonian (talk • contribs) 22:33, 20 September 2009

19:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Sent you an e-mail. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, received and considering reply. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you reply today though, don't expect a response. I'm barely holding on to consciousness from sickness right now... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I never take it personally when I don't receive an immediate response. I trust and assume people will answer when they can. As I was completely off most of this week due to illness myself, I can currently add a very recent sympathy pang for you. Take care of yourself and get well; do not overtax yourself in an attempt to meet others' (real and presumed) expectations. Those worth your regard will be understanding; those who are impatient are generally too self centered and demanding to ever satisfy, anyway. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Looking on the bright side (though right now, that's a very small bright side), at least it didn't happen tomorrow. That'd be one way to screw up a perfectly good nineteenth birthday... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I replied. If you had noticed but hadn't gotten around to it, take your time. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I had seen but dang, that's some serious queries you've tossed at me. I will be replying soon; thank you so much for your patience. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear KillerChihuahua/Archive 17: Hello, my name is The Wordsmith; I'm a mediator from the Mediation Cabal, an informal mediation initiative here on Wikipedia. You've recently been named as a dispute participant in a mediation request here:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-08/Global Warming

I'd like to invite you to join this mediation to try to get this dispute resolved, if you wish to do so; note, however, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate, and if you don't wish to take part in it that's perfectly alright. Please read the above request and, if you do feel that you'd like to take part, please make a note of this on the mediation request page. If you have any questions relating to this or any other dispute, please do let me know; I'll try my best to help you out. Thank you very much. Best regards, The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Weakopedia

Saw your run-in with this fellow on jadefalcon's review page. His comment to this review was his twelth edit. This account has my alarm bells ringing. Reading the User page, and his note here (second edit) just screams masked retread. This new account is obviously a BATTLEGROUND account. So what can we do? Auntie E. (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

He's a troll of the first order; whats worse, when not trying to insult editors on review or troll to get a rise out of admins, he seems to be spending his time adding welcome templates - presumably to ensure he has supporters once he is inevitably brought to task for his foul manners. I am almost entirely unavailable right now due to r/l demands upon my time, however I support strongly any attempt to identify this killjoy. I suggest you ask Durova; although she's made a few errors she still is very good at discovering and identifying socks, as you suspect this person to be. Good luck. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of Reality

Hi there. Back in 2006, you commented on the last deletion review for this article here. The article has since been recreated and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Fringe Theory Ground Rules

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fringe Theory Ground Rules and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Swood100 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like some people would rather whine than follow procedure

• [25] Also see User talk:Chief RZ. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch out he doesn't persue you! They're a bad lot these heterophobiaphobes :-/ . . . dave souza, talk 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think he got what he wanted. He trolled until he got blocked, and ignored unblock procedure so he could whine about it on his blog. We're so mean! We won't let him get the Truth^TM out! Bah.

Still, that's a cool category you've coined. heterophobiaphobes... I'll have to try to remember that. Of course, "bigot" is easier to type, and fits as well. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Evolution

Thanks, very descent of you. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

lol, I am so sorry! I don't normally correct anyone else's typos. It was just hard to read that particular typo with a straight face... thank you for seeing the humor as I did. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Could use your help if you are available.

Hi KC, how are you doing? Listen there has been an ongoing problem with an editor vs. a lot of others that needs resolving. There were two administrators that tried to help out but have gotten frustrated and so now I'm involved and trying to get the needed help. If you are interested and available to at least guide me I'd really appreciate the help. I've never had a problem which required this kind of help before so I'm kind of lost. If you have the time with any of this or are at least curious let me know so that i can send you an email about it. I think this needs to go off to email for the time being. Look forward to hearing from you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Email me if you wish, or place the info here. I can promise nothing. FWIW, redundancy is often the key - when one is arguing against consensus, simply say "consensus is against you", link to WP:CON and WP:HEAR, and repeat as necessary. Eventually they'll alter their approach - or not, but you've done what you can. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll get an email together so you can see what I am dealing with. Give me some time to put one together. I appreciate the help. I don't think it would be wise of me to post it all here. If I did the drama alone, never mind the noise, would be overwhelming. Thanks, I'll get one out to you hopefully tomorrow. I'm too tired now unfortunately and not feeling too well to boot (long story on that alone. :) ) Thanks puppy, I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Take your time - and take care of yourself. I am sorry to hear you are not doing well right now. :-( KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I finally got a note off to you just now. It gives you an idea of what's going on I think. I am slowly doing better. I haven't been around here that much lately which has also helped. :) Thanks, talk soon, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Kansas_evolution_hearings#The Big Story

Please provide your view, as you asked if a source was found for it to be discussed on talk. TransUtopian (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have time

Good morning, if you have time can you check out this? Unfortunately things are getting weird and I'd like to put a stop to it before it gets any worse. Thanks, I hope you have time to check on this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you look in on the Ejaculation discussion?

Hi, I am getting pounded by about 4 or 5 editors in the discussion. three who have just recently appeared on the page, with no prior input to it. Usual stuff - "you are in the minority here", forgetting what has been discussed etc. Maybe it is a dead horse I am flogging, I am not sure, but those editors sure think they have me against the wall. I'll admit my tone has been uncivil at times. It hard to keep cool, with how this page is being edited. I'll say nothing more to influence you either way. I am considering taking this to either mediation or arbitration. Not sure which. Have asked for editor assistance, but has not arrived yet. Would appreciate you to look in even if you chew me out.DMSBel (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the page has been protected, do you still need assistance? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its been protected over the last few days. I have a number of issue with the way this page is being edited. Content is inserted from what I can tell under the banner of WP:NOTCENSORED. At least thats usually what I come up against if I attempt to delete anything there. In all fairness there occasionally are some reasons given for keeping the video currently on the page. They seem rather weak to me though and ammount to no more than it helps illustrate the article better. I have argued that most people do not expect or need an encyclopedia to go to the length of depicting an ejaculation. The video is one issue, the photos on that page are quite another. You might think I would be more against the video than the photos, but the photos are definitely porn, and proven to be so. Infofreak did some checking and found out the guy who uploaded the photos has practically identical material on a X-tube porn channel - so basically the photos are stills from one of his videos. My problem is not that there might be copyright issues, apparently there is not, but just that they are porn. When I give this as reason for deleting I get blasted with WP:NOTCENSORED. Also the photos were inserted in the midst of an ongoing dispute over the video. There are currently over the last week five editors arguing for removal of the photos, four arguing for removal of the video. You could add a few more to that if you go back a few more weeks. Cyclopia is one of the editors arguing for keeping the video, he says it doesn't matter how many editors support the removal if it is against policy - and he says it is against policy. I am rather confused. I thought I had seen in policy something about avoid uploads from users with regards to sexual content, but I then realised that it was a proposed guideline. So basically because we know where the photos are from there is no debate about whether they are porn. It's a dispute now between editors who say "so what" and "its irrelevant" and those who say this does matter, we should not be using porn here to illustrate articles. My question is should contentious content be put in an article when there is an already heated dispute about contentious content already in it? Also is porn allowed on wikipedia?DMSBel (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the infamous NOTCENSORED. You will probably never be able to gain consensus for deletion under the "its porn!" argument. It must be illegal porn. Wikipedia is indeed completely uncensored. Cyclopia is wrong, however, that "it doesn't matter how many editors support the removal" - it does indeed, it matters a great deal. While we dont' vote, we recognize that true consensus is sometimes difficult to achieve, so if a strong majority support removal, then the file is removed. Key questions to ask are, does this image or video add significantly to the understanding of the topic of the article? and is it informative, or merely shock value? A question which does not matter at all in this argument is is it offensive? You can find it offensive as all get-out, and it wont matter a whit. Really, truly. Because some strict Muslims are offended at the image of a woman's face, and we're not going to remove the picture on every female bio on the site - you see? Different people are offended by different things. We have discussed this at great length, and decided "I'm offended" must be discounted completely, under NOTCENSORED, for this site to have value and lack of bias. Hope this helps clarify things a bit. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply. I realise there has been much discussion on this and that merely saying I find the video offensive is not sufficient reason for it to be deleted. But what about an editor putting in more photos when there is a dispute already ongoing, with vague reasons like they are "supplementary".DMSBel (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Prayer article

I've got someone at the Prayer article who seems to think that describing points of view is the same as promoting them. Because I openly state my Christian faith I don't think this person is willing to listen to me when I say he just doesn't have a case. He even accused me of article ownership, and comments he made after his initial edit do not seem to be relevant to the edit itself. However, he might be willing to listen to others. Although no user warnings have been issued by either side so far (and I don't see that one is warranted - yet), hearing other opinions on this matter would be appreciated, especially from those who have stated POV's that are contrary to my own. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: it would seem that this person has decided to let the matter die. So never mind. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was not around to help; glad to hear it has resolved anyway. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tags

I monitor over 7600 articles now, after trimming back from 9400 recently. I sometimes spot something I'd like to work on, such as Lest Darkness Fall, but don't have the time. Please don't snark at me in your edit summaries. (I met Sprague during my honeymoon; and Harry and I were Guests of Honor at a convention together; I'd rather talk about that stuff than work on POV in the politics of Andhra Pradesh or correct vandalism to the article on West Bend, Wisconsin.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I was in a snarky mood, and didn't curb it as I should have. :-( KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that there are a lot under "reconfirmation".

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I should probably give this some thought; if I do not move it then yes, please remove me. Thank you so much for checking, and for the work of keeping the list current. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia be called "Wiki"?

I happened across this today and remembered a note you'd sent me a while back.

A poem

   There's way too much red tape on wiki
   Sometimes that tape is rather sticky
   You wouldn't be wrong, not by a particle,
   To say we each should write an article
   Instead of having to engage
   In drafting one more policy page
   Which (we lose sight of this) is very
   Clearly something ancillary
   Can't we all straddle this wide fence
   With just a bit of common sense?
   —(excerpted from a longer piece by Newyorkbrad)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR

The note was,

Please stop referring to Wikipedia as "wiki". "Wiki" is either a Hawaiian word meaning "quick" or a type of software. Wikipedia is a wiki. It would be like me referring to you, randomly, as "editor" and expecting everyone to know I meant you, specifically. Its nonsense. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems there's a bit of leeway there. Out of respect for you and unknown editors who may object to the apocope "Wiki," I have since made a point of using "WP." However, you may want to consider that many people quite innocuously say "Wiki." Regards, Yopienso (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude. First of all, it's synechdoche, not really apocope. And second... seriously? You've been chewing on this picayune perceived slight for more than a month? Actually, never mind, you'll fit in perfectly here. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Martin note

You are experienced enough to know you are warring on the Martin article, I have reverted to the version that has been stable for three months, I have also asked you more than once that if you want to change the article that you would please ask for a RFC and get some community opinion, also please stop calling my good faith NPOV edits about a man that I have no personal opinion about at all as a whitewash. Off2riorob (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, if you're going to warn people about edit-warring, you (a) need to do it before you hit 3 reverts, and (b) you can't do it in conjunction with a revert. Or you just look silly. Guettarda (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

May I just butt in here and say this, sir!

Your username is awesome. It's one of the best! Sounds ferocious. I like it. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Yours is evocative, as well. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely one of the all-time best names. My purpose, however, is to provide you with this link about Andy Martin, which I also included in the eponymous talk page. Flatterworld (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Seen and commented on, thank you. As the only person who holds the rather bizarre view that what a person is notable for should not be in the lead if its not a Happy Thing is Rob, and all others agree that it should be in the lead, and he has, rather than showing any inclination to work with fellow editors has instead turned this into a series of personal attacks on me, do you think an editor Rfc is indicated? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Supreme, Verx, Nick and Gatoclass AEs Merging

To KillerChihuahua & MastCell,

1) I'm a little concerned that the AE concerning Supreme, Verx, and myself are merging w/ the one concerning Gatoclass. I'm worried some of us might miss your Supreme or Verx might miss the fact that you are commenting about them on a different AE.

2) Following your comments, I hope it will be noted that I've already apologized for the "Zionist Lobby" comment.

P.S. I got confused and posted this to your "advice" link :-( NickCT (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So noted; thanks for bringing it to my attention. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I also said from the beginning that mentioning a "lobby" may not be the best thing to do and that I could delete it: [26] and I promise to not say it again: [27] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A strike through (not a deletion or blanking) would be a good step. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment is striked --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "was stricken"? :) Guettarda (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Strick, strike, struck; so long as its crossed out, I think its a positive move. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Extremely dramatic diff:

viz. <3 Heyitspeter (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

We must have differing opinions on what constitutes "extremely dramatic", and even what constitutes "dramatic". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily RS/N

I have recently referenced your comments offered in the RS/N discussion(s) on WorldNetDaily WP:RS considerations within a related issue being discussed in the RS/N "talk" page. This message is to notify you of that reference and to both solicit and encourage any further contributions you might have in this matter. Thanks. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

eh?

[28] When there are no admin RFCs having these visible just bloats the header of the pages this thing is transcluded upon. –xeno^talk 15:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but otherwise it is unclear that there are no admin conduct Rfcs. I'm an ooold admin, this is how it was when I was a noob, back when we had horses and buggys. Feel free to revert me. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

So old that maybe your memory is going? =) This is a relatively (since Nov 2009) new way of publicizing RFCs... I'm not even sure separating admins and editors is necessary, but I don't think that just showing an empty list is really necessary. Otherwise we'd have to show the empty bot list too... Which I've just unhidden. Notice the extraneous vertical space it takes up at WP:ANI... –xeno^talk 16:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) Now, now, you young whippersnapper! Show some respect for your elders... err, what were we talking about? Oh yes! Was formerly the practice, when such semi-headings were used, to leave them in place. This facilitates ease of use for the people adding to the lists, later - who may not realize such headings even are used, and also provides at-a-glance confirmation that the category, to use the term loosely and in a non-WP manner, is empty. As I said, arguments can be made either way, feel free to revert me - and feel free to have to Clerk everyone who adds an Rfc to that page. You might want to add to the instructions, if you're planning to leave it off the page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really that bothered one way or the other. Again, I think it should all be lumped into one and none of this "Admin RFC" and such. An RFCU by any other name... –xeno^talk 16:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

+ Dang, I forgot this was mucking up ANI these days too. Not to mention all those other Noticeboard pages which have grown. You know it used to be AN, right? No ANI, no BLPN, no NPOVN, etc. Then htere was that brief stint with the Sanctions Noticeboard, that was a CF.... come sit by the fire, sonny, I'll tell you stories of Olden Days. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I hear my mother calling ... <runs off> ;p –xeno^talk 16:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC Blp violation and Vandalism

BLP violation against and identifiable living person Blatant Vandalism

I am under i 1r restriction, is it ok to break this if an article is vandalized like it is in that diff? I am also unable to bring an RFE against WMC so am stuck for what to do here mark nutley (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The first is a content dispute, and the second is not vandalism, let alone "blatant" vandalism, which usually looks more like this[29]. I suggest you attempt to work this out on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I was refering the the comment made by wmc one right-wing(nut) US senator I have been doing rc patrol so i know what massive vandalism like that diff is :), but is inserting something which is pure POV with no refs and then reinserting it after it was removed not vandalism? Cheers mark nutley (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, its edit warring to insert unsourced opinion, which is not good but also not vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok fair enough thanks for the help mark nutley (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem; be sure to study up on WP:VAND#NOT - and do try to be a little more civil. "stupid" can hardly be considered polite, and if you call someone's actions stupid, you are in effect calling them stupid. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, whom did i call stupid? mark nutley (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) No one, that's why I phrased it that way. Your post here[30] could have been phrased in a more collegiate way. That is all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I see, i was saying the situation was stupid, not a person :) mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And again I note that if you call an action stupid, it is virtually indistinguishable from calling the person who performed that action stupid - and you were not clear in what you were calling "stupid" - the entire situation? Civility parole? The article? Someone else's action? Your own actions? If you cannot be very clear and very careful, in order not to escalate a conflict, it is best to avoid pejoratives. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

This edit is greatly appreciated. --TS 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You are quite welcome, I am sure you would do the same for me. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Limiting page histories to users

The API can limit page histories to a particular user using the &rvuser= parameter. For example, all of my edits to Main Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&titles=Main+Page&rvprop=user%7Ccomment&rvuser=MZMcBride&format=jsonfm

I don't think the API supports including the user edit count field with this type of query. A Toolserver tool could be created; I don't know of any tools that exist currently that do what you're after. If you can write a clear description of what you're trying to do, someone could probably make a report or a tool pretty easily. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's awesome. Would definitely be helpful at WP:AN3 and the like. –xeno^talk 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Docs are great! :P --MZMcBride (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Who needs docs? I have you! –xeno^talk 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, thank you thank you MzM! I knowed there wuz a way to do dat, but I am senile (see earlier posts) and could not 'member!!! Next time I'll just pester you first! :-D KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

be aware

You should be aware that the only difference between this and this are the identify of the account making the edit. You appear to have ruled the MN is banned from making the edit he made. Is not ZP5's edit a violation of WP:BAN - "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them?" Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation is that refers strictly to completely banned editors, not editors banned from making specific types of edits, or edits to a specific article. OTOH, meatpuppetry is also against the rules - but that must be proven, and in this case I think it is not a case of meatpuppetry but rather someone beating a dead horse. Forum shopping still applies; this is being discussed on GSE, so re-opening a closed thread in order to duplicate a complaint on another page would arguably apply, which is somewhat tendentious. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I disagree but I'll defer. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept "Specific types of edits" but I must stongly state that you are wrong with respect to page bans - from the chart at Wikipedia:BAN#Difference_between_bans_and_blocks shows that Content created during block or ban is the same between site and page/topic bans. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Not worth making a fuss over, really. My opinion only, yours may vary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive59#Gatoclass

Hi KC,

Sorry to bring up an old subject, but I had to calm down for a few days before further discussing the issue. I was most surprised by your comment there, calling for my topic ban under those circumstances. Having not interacted with you or noticed you at AE before, your entrance there piqued my interest. Then I noticed that Gatoclass's very first edit at Wikipedia was to concur with your RFC position.[31] While that inofitself is somewhat suspicious for a first edit, I am more concerned that there is some sort of off-wiki relationship between you and Gatoclass. If there is such a relationship or there was some off-wiki canvassing leading up to the AE comment, I would like you to disclose as much. Respectfully, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dang, that was his first edit? That is indeed odd, and I would suspect that Gatoclass is not his first account, or else that he edited as an anon before registering to comment on the Rfc. BTW, that is Sam Spade's Rfc, not mine, although it is my view. And no, I have no idea who Gatoclass is, and although I do recall seeing him around on the wiki, I don't know of any particular pattern or overlap. He did not email me or contact me off-wiki, and so far as I can recall has never done so. In short, I do not know him, not even to the point of regularly editing the same articles SFAIK, and certainly not IRL. FYI, I have been at AE many times before. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And here's the wikistalk:

I registered 2004-06-29

G registered 2006-04-11

However, he's been far busier than I, no wonder I've seen him around! He has 45329 edits to my 25645. We have edited eight of the same articles, total. You and I overlap on over 30 articles[32] KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see you dragged into this. You'd think that someone who was just warned at AE for making unsubstantiated accusations would want to be a bit more circumspect, but I guess not. I can only assume this line of inquiry was in regards to the user conduct RFC brewcrewer threatened me with yesterday, I could certainly do without the wikidrama but I hope he appreciates that when one resorts to dispute resolution, the behaviour of all protagonists comes under scrutiny, not just that of the accused. Gatoclass (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries; its part of AE - one must expect all kinds of allegations, smears and attacks. I merely felt you should be informed. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that last post was something of an overreaction. I guess I'm getting a little overly defensive because of the wikidrama of the last week or two. Thanks for the courtesy note. Gatoclass (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advice. apologies if it seems I haven't been listening - be assured that I have. Of course I reserve the right not to follow it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, and of course advice is always something one must weigh and consider and make one's own choice about. It is meant kindly and helpfully, and I am glad you have seen it so. Whether it fits your situation is of course something only you can determine. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, you were arguing to ban me indefinitely, and I have never thought I will come here to thank you, but I would like to thank you for this. I do not know this user, but I know how I felt, when was blocked for 48 hours for this, and it felt so unfair. So, thank you for your kindness, and for warning versus blocking of that unknown to me user. BTW about my indefinite topic ban. I really do not mind. I am not going to edit those articles anymore, but I am desperately afraid to get trapped as it was with my edit in question. It was the only reason of my own appeal--Mbz1 (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I do try to be as helpful as possible, and unfortunately it is clear TDLS is really having trouble. Regarding your own appeal, I'm sure you've noticed I have yet to comment. I think the terms you offered would be far worse for you than to wait out your ban - isn't it only for three months? I'm concerned about some of the alternatives you (and others) have put forth. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding my message. The thing is I am fine with any editing restrictions I am the subject to as long as they are clear to understand. The restrictions I have now are hard for me to understand, and I am afraid of them. Today I paused before reverting vandalism on iceberg :):( Lar has agreed to mentor me. I trust and respect him very much. I hope it will work out, but if my ban is not lifted, so it be. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Might i enquire about this

It is not an RFE, I am not forum shopping, i do want to point out this however [33] Might i ask you, what am i to do when crap like this occurs? mark nutley (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Remind yourself that the world will not end if this is not immediately dealt with, that Wikipedia is a work in progress, and you don't need to fret about every little thing. Indeed, you don't need to fret about anything. Edit a different article. Ignore that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You want me to ignore an article i just moved to mainspace? Yep great idea that one :( mark nutley (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you wish to do anything at all, then I suggest you fix the places where a fix is needed, add a cite where a cite is needed, remove any extra tags which are not necessary (ONCE) and ignore that it is WMC doing the tagging. I also suggest you remember you are not the only editor on WP besides WMC. There are other editors. This is excellent advice. Should anything transpire in the future, you will have no hostile posts, no aggressive actions to your detriment. It is possible WMC's actions will be viewed in a negative light, if you don't respond to him and escalate, which has been your tactic so far, and which has led to a topic ban and a block and very nearly other repercussions. If, on the other hand, you do not respond, there is nothing anyone can find objectionable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) and I see that is exactly what has happened. You are placing cites; others are pitching in, and the article is becoming much better. You see? No nasty fight, no appearance on some sanctions board. Stick to it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok i shall follow the advice. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)