Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:::Oh and I'm from the American south. We don't "push back treacle" we "wrestle grits" - ] are a kind of porridge, sort of... well, grits are hard to explain in any concise fashion. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
:::Oh and I'm from the American south. We don't "push back treacle" we "wrestle grits" - ] are a kind of porridge, sort of... well, grits are hard to explain in any concise fashion. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Thanks. <grins> Trying to envisage KC grits wrasslin'.... Moulton's behaviour does seem to be consistent. .. ], ] 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Thanks. <grins> Trying to envisage KC grits wrasslin'.... Moulton's behaviour does seem to be consistent. .. ], ] 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
== Arbitration request ==
A request for arbitration involving you has been filed . Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. ] ] 03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:20, 6 September 2007
KillerChihuahua is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.
Wikimedia Foundation
Talk to the Puppy To leave a message on this page, click here.
If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )
As so many have asked about my health, in email and on this page, and been so kind as to offer kind thoughts and prayers for my health, I feel obligated to post an update. For those for whom this is Too Much Personal Information, please just ignore this.
The good news is that none of the truly nasty things which my physician tested for came back positive.
More good news is that I will be back to "normal".
The bad news is that she doesn't expect me up to full par for at least a year, as of my last visit, May 10, 2007, although she assures me if I am a good puppy and follow her directions, I will improve steadily (I'm being a good puppy).
More possible bad news is that she hasn't ruled out all of the nasties, she just wants to see how I'm doing after 6 months before deciding whether to send me for more tests (current condition could be masking other symptoms).
The truly excellent news is that so many people have been so kind and understanding. My thanks to you all.
Congrats,KC!;-) I didn't know that admin meant adminastrator. I thought it was and ad making company trying to win you over. My Bad. I hope there's no offense, KC or other admins. Sorry. So your the Man now! Well, one of the Men and Ladies. Here a nice bone for a new admin. --Angel DavidPresents 21:14, 11 August2007 (UTC)
A year? Wow! I had no clue! Hey I have found the editor who sent me that Ghost Whisperer message his name is "The no erz", the only way I could find out who his indentity was by looking at the history of my talk page since he didn't put in the tildes (~~~~). However, I emailing back to him but he's not responding. In creppier terms he hasn't edited since August 17! It's like he's dead or something. I mean I know a person is sick because they put {{user health inactive}} and I know when a person is on vacation the put {{vacation3}} and I know that when a person is on a break by them putting {{wikibreak}}. Yes, this is strange indeed! --Angel David23:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Not always. Sometimes a person is taken suddenly ill, or has a real-life crisis which does not allow for the time to add a message, or takes up a person's attention to a degree that they do not even think of Misplaced Pages until the crisis is over. Also, there are those who edit occasionally or leave without explanation. Many use those templates, but not all. KillerChihuahua22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Now, I get it! But, I'm not sure if that happened. One time before August 15, he did not edit sice June. Oh well. Probably it happened to him twice. And KC,I think you would be interseted in putting the template {{respond conversation start}} because, you know, you respond on your own talk page.--Angel David19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Which I already state, in the Talk to the puppy section at the header, above. I prefer not to have multiple templates cluttering up my talk page - even if there are templates for everything I say there, it would take a screen and a half to scroll past them. KillerChihuahua20:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
In this edit summary, you might have found that being polite would have helped you out a bit more. You misinterpreted the need for a cn tag. Someone was seeking the actual existence of the bands mentioned, as well as the Wizard Rock movement, whioch seems crufty as hell. I don't need to tell you that while admins make mistakes, it is their politeness and helpfulness that tends to separate them from the heard. Maybe you didn't get the memo? :) - Arcayne()03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Being clear and offering an example does not necessarily mean being rude. Being succinct does not necessarily translate into lack of politeness. Perhaps you misunderstand the distinction?
I fail to see where I misunderstood anything. "Someone" seeking the actual existance of the bands mentioned might have noticed they are wikilinks to the actual band articles. When "someone" is looking for sources that cats exists, the place to look is the Cat article, not the Egypt article. If sources for "cats" are lacking, tag that article, not the Egypt article; or in some cases, the article should be placed on Afd, and if deleted, the links to said article removed. I am delighted to have been helpful in this regard, and hope your understanding of where to place CN tags has improved. Oh and nota bene: sarcasm and/or patronizing lecturing rarely results in the target of said comments feeling gratitude or goodwill towards the comment maker. Perhaps you might consider adjusting your communication style accordingly. KillerChihuahua10:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
And now I see you've done a basic Revert on my edit, without waiting for me to reply here or even asking for my reasons on the article talk page. Indeed, before you even bothered to post here at all, you rolled back both my edits. Basic reverts with orders to follow instructions are generally reserved for vandals or clueless newbies. Which do you consider me, for clearly you have skipped the first step in DR (discussing with me) in favor of treating me like a vandal. I look forward to your reconciliation of simultaneously lecturing me on "politeness" while treating me like a common vandal. KillerChihuahua10:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for alerting me of your responses; as I don't watchlist your page, I was unaware that you had taken issue with the revert. While I did revert your edit as being both unnecessarily snarky and uncited, I did notify you of the edit reasoning (and not a "basic revert" implying one without explanation) less than a minute later, which is atypical of most first reverts. DR usually begins when a dispue appears to be looming. You presented statements which require connection and citation; you failed to do so, and were reverted. Allow me to be clear: I do not object to the info being added; I object to uncited info being added. I don't consider you a vandal, common or otherwise. If I did, I would have simply have cited 'rvv' in the edit summary and reported you to the approrpiate admin nocticeboard. You will note that neither actions occurred.
As for my own sarcasm in asking about the memo about being polite, I do apologize for that. Dealing with the cruft which seems to collect in these articles makes me less than interested in being patient sometimes. As for your comments, consider that they were inspired by the tone of your edit summary which in no way came across as being succinct but instead as patronizing and snarky. As well, I am delighted to have assisted in enlarging your knowledge of how actions are perceived in Misplaced Pages. - Arcayne()21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Lets try for accuracy here, shall we? I did not "present statements" - I removed three citeneeded tags. In the second and third instances, there are "main" articles, where the cites are indeed to be located. In the first instance, there is no cite needed for the band names, that is what is clearly Potter inspired. As far as a "Wizard Rock" movement, I've never heard of it and would not be surprised to find it was total BS; I suggest a rephrase. These to my mind are two separate issues: do you concur? KillerChihuahua21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, you might want to practice what you preach; getting snippy with me ("let's try for accuracy her, shall we", implying I'm lying) isn't going to garner you any good faith. Your first instance of cn tag removal, regarding Wizard Rock, being inspired by HP, requires citation - your opinions as to what is "obvious" isn't citable; secondary sources are required.
Your second and third sources relate to other articles. That there are other articles in Misplaced Pages is immaterial and doesn't relive the editor od the responsibility of citation. Any claims made in an article require citation. You argument that citation isn't needed due to the presence of other articles is silly, for if the other articles were deleted, there would no citation whatsoever for the statemetns which were tagged. This is not to suggest that one cannot use the same citations presented in those articles; put simply, you cannot use other WP articles as sources - they are side-reading, not support. - Arcayne()23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) This is getting worse and worse. You think I am snarky and rude; now you think I am snippy and accusing you of lying because I used the word "accurate". I assure you, neither is the case. While I appreciate that text is notoriously difficult to convey tone in, and easily mis-read, this constant attack on my motives and methods is ABF on the face of it, and is not helping us resolve the issues at hand.
My mention of accuracy is paramount to the issue of whether it is incumbent upon me, as you have implied, to add citations. As I did not add the content, the onus is not on me - the question is whether citeneeded tags are indicated in the three instances. If you disagree, please let me know so we can work forward from common ground; if you disagree, please let me know so we can find common ground; and in either instance, please attempt to refrain from allegations of ill-will or hidden motives on my part, which again I assure you is not the case. KillerChihuahua23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Let's start over. :) I understand that it wasn't you that added the info. Hoever, it is my understanding that 'cn' tags that are placed are to remain unless the statement is being removed en toto, or if citations are replacing them. Otherwise, they remain in place. If you feel the statemetns are unnecessary, then we can remove them (and this matter should be brought up on the Discussion page so that others can weigh in). If this is a matter of you feeling the info doesn't require citing, that becomes a content dispute, seeing as I feel it does require citation.
You are quite correct; in many instances cn tags lead to either a source being added or the content, being deemed unsupported (usually after a "reasonable" period of time) being removed. In other instances, however, citeneeded tags are simply removed, which happens fairly frequently, when they are added unecessarily - which of course is sometimes a matter for debate. It seems our first division of opinion is about outright removal of cn tags - do you think they should never be removed for any reason? I except replacing with a cite, of course.
Regarding the Wizard Rock segment, IMO this is inappropriate in this article. It is obvious any band named Harry and the Potters or The Cruciatus Curse has a Potter-inspired name. Google gives the combined term search of "Wizard Rock" "Harry Potter" 106,000 English pages. But we shouldn't be covering this in the main Harry Potter article at all: this is already covered in Harry Potter fandom#Wizard rock, which btw has 11 cites. I suggest removing the Wizard Rock segment from the main Harry Potter article, and adding Harry Potter fandom to the "see also" section of the main article. Had I taken more time to investigate this at the outset, that is what I would have done in the beginning.
Your solution is reasonable, and I can agree with that. In answer yo your earlier question, I do think that cn tags should remain, but not in perpetuity. After a certain amount of time, they - along with the uncited information - should be removed. Usually (if I think it can be cited), I remove it to the discussion page, allowing for someone to cite it before re-adding it back in. If it is utter rubbish, I simply purge it from the body Wiki.- Arcayne()19:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey KC. I, by chance, landed myself right into a good faith, yet very burocratic and ownership-oriented crusade on the article Yoshiki (musician) on the IRC help channel. The users Yskent and ExtasyRecordings (the record label Hayashi works for), along with several others whom I have yet to track down, are promoting the artist's POV by adding information that he himself approved (Yskent has confirmed over IRC that he is a member of Yoshiki's staff) and planning to protect the article once it is added, and even canvassing to become administrators (confirmed over IRC and by and ). Of course, the RfAs and/or RFPPs of these users will never succeed, but action needs to be taken. Use your discretion, but I suggest an indefinite block of ExtasyRecordings (I'll report them to WP:UAA if you want) and a temporary block of Yskent along with a stern warning. Of course, I'll be working to track down more perpetrators, as they are all meatpuppets in the least, although I'll hold my tounge when it comes to sockpuppetting until I gather further evidence. Cheers, Arky13:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I will get back to you as soon as possible, if the situation is urgent pls contact another admin or place note on AN/I - sorry, I have only minutes here today. KillerChihuahua19:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikimedia essay, Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles used to have a shortcut WP direct of 'WP:GAY'. Recently, there was a decision to change the redirect to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies, kinda leaving the essay hanging. I created a new article, WP:NOTGAY, and put a redirect there, cut I think I've screwed the pooch somewhere there. As I notice that you are part of Misplaced Pages too, and have been able to work through an earlier issue without clubbing me like a baby harp seal, I was hoping you could help me fix the issue. I would love to know what i did wrong. - Arcayne()17:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Arf. Please see this and offer your thoughts. Am I correct in recalling that this is the same person who was harassing you and Bishzilla?? ⇒SWATJester14:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Moving Anthony Chidiac Article back into MainSpace
Hi KillerChuhuahua,
I'd like you to review my currently adopted piece on Anthony Chidiac for consideration of moving into mainspace.
I believe that:
1) with the work I have done to provide factual pieces of information to support this biography, and
2) with the rumour of Chidiac being shortly announced as playing a pivotal part of the billion dollar University Hill Development in Bundoora, creating worldwide attention.
This article should now be moved into mainspace.
Don't forget, I also successfully picked John Brumby as being the new Premier of Victoria, Australia and noted such in other admins pages, and do have the inside track on news pertaining to major technology developments here in australia with encyclopedic notability, so based on such and the promise that I will progress this article as well as some other key players
in this major announcement, I hope you find my work of a quality that meets your exacting standards.
Thanking you in advance for your positivity and assistance in getting my first article in wikipedia published.--T3Smile16:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Your expertise and knowledge are valuable, no doubt; however, unless they are backed by strong references to reliable sources, they are original research. Your rewrite has no inline citations - I count three external links (not cites) within bodycopy, one of which is to YouTube. This is manifestly insufficient, and one of your links is to a commonly disallowed source. Without dredging though all your sources and notes and checking every sentence of your article against them, no one can verify that any of your statements are sourced at all. Please trim the article to only statements you can source directly with inline citations - and I do mean trim. I realize I'm being a hardass about this; but this article has been beyond problematic. If you don't know how to use inline citiations, there is a wealth of information at Misplaced Pages:Inline citation. KillerChihuahua16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Compare HUGE pleasure of seeing Bishzilla on page ! Puppy too clever to eat ! Clever almost like Corvax ! Er... yes! Clever little puppy perhaps code template Zilla welcome ? Puny 'shonen so conceited about her {{vww}} template! Always boasting ! Newbie welcome more useful! bishzillaROARR!!10:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC).
What, you mean I can simply dumb it right down, quote the newspaper and headline news articles, and keep it to a few paragraphs and make it a stub? And I can get it published here? Gee, here I was trying to dig up every little bit of anything I could get my hands on when all I needed was to just keep it to the published articles? Why didn't anybody tell me wikipedia was this easy to do?!! :) Hey ok, I'll do a nice trim, taut re-write from scratch, get his bio published in a big publication (like the one I work for) and...voila, let someone else do the other work!! Gee, and all this time I was thinking I wasnt giving enough information! OK, I see it clearly now...I'll msg you again once i start and finish which would take 5 minutes but before I do I'm going to watch some TV :) and chuckle at those entries in the uncyclopedia. Oh, one more thing, KillerChihuahua you are a crazy nut and so are your friends, and - well I'm nuttier than you and smaller than a chihuahua so that makes me better :) hehee rgds --T3Smile14:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
sorry, I meant to leave a note on Mer-c's page about this, but determined delete reason would suffice for why, and it is indeed a complex question, and I will be back sometime today for discussion of this - apologies but this hit right as I was leaving - and long term abuse pages should be there not in userspace eh? and so on and remember can be undeleted which I will do if after discussion that appears to be the correct course of action but damit, we have too many userspace pages which are for tracking people which are most often used by trolls to harass, and that this was being used by "the good guys" to track a "bad guy" doesn't make it necessarily a valid exception regardless of format - hope that helps give some idea of my thinking in this regard. KillerChihuahua12:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Good afternoon - please let me know if my run-on scribble above answered your questions, or if clarification and/or discussion is called for. KillerChihuahua16:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
NOR
Yo dog - do you know that NOR has been protected for several days and some people want it unprotected? I haven't been able to sort out the precise cause of the dispute but there is a lot of talk on the page about how stupid the policy is, claiming that it forbids all use of primary sources. I have commented that it allows the use of primary sources if they are verifiable and not used to forward an editors own POV, and some have responded that well that's a stupid policy too. I think it is serious and hope you can check it out. Current discussion is occuring in many different threads which makes it hard to pin down, but the fact that the page was protected tells me something serious is going on, and whatever the source of the dispute editors currently active on the talk page have not reached any consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk18:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear me... This is Not Good. I'm terribly buried right now with various things, and probably should have put a busy tag up. I will do my utmost to take a look as soon as possible - thank you very much for drawing my attention to this. KillerChihuahua00:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Me too, but policy pages have erupted into worse messes than this and then righted themselves )mental image of ship almost swamped, slowly righting.) KillerChihuahua00:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Privacy essay
Heyas!
You might've noticed the essay on privacy I linked to on the mail list...er, yesterday? I was hoping you'd give it a once-over, though I do understand you're quite busy.
and which I linked to on my userpage day before yesterday, so clearly I think well of it - but if you want a critique you are right, please be patient - but I will take a look as soon as I can. KillerChihuahua10:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much - I just don't see how continuing this will have a positive result at all, especially given all that's been going on. KillerChihuahua00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Giorgio Armani
I disagree with your reasoning in removing the speedy tag. Of course he is notable. But the article as it stands is blatant advertising, not just an article that reads like an ad. Big difference. However, I will not revert you, just point out that you're thinking simplistically. Jeffpw10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Shopping for a less careful admin by edit warring over the tag is not advised. As an admin here, you're pretty much required to assume good faith with an established editor, aren't you????? I'm not feeling the love, puppy. In any event, I acknowledge the power imbalance in our Misplaced Pages relationship and am not shopping or (as I stated earlier) reverting. Still reads as blatant advertising in my book, though. Pity you can't see it. Jeffpw11:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with a power imbalance. This has everything to do with speedy criteria, which I explained to you on your page. My comments on edit warring with the admin who denied speedy were a direct reply to your comment of "I will not revert you". I appluad your good judgement in that decision; and the quote which you pasted above is cherry picked from my reply to you, for what reason I cannot imagine, but taking it out of context certainly skews its meaning. As I have neither accused nor insinuated wrongdoing on your part, and in fact said "good thinking" I fail to see your point in bringing up AGF. KillerChihuahua12:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
more nor
Since others are taking stabs at rewriting this policy, I have decided to try my own. Before I share it with a wider group, could you go over it and make such edits as you see fit? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk14:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Another OTRS person is currently looking into this, so I'll contact him. Remember that you can always renominate for deletion - I have looked at the ticket and this should not present a problem unless other issues arise which are not in the current ticket. Hope that wasn't too obscure! KillerChihuahua16:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's first wait till this other OTRS person has done his or her looking (though I wonder how many more weeks this will take). -- Hoary09:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
COI/N Thread
Hey, KC. I posted a thread about that issue earlier on AN/I, but I was pointed →thataway→ to the COI Noticeboard and have posted the issue there. Your comments would be appreciated! Thanks :) Arky21:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Say, do you have a source for Gorham having designed the Davis Cup and the America's Cup? All evidence I can find points the other way... the America's Cup appears to have been made by Garrard & Co in the UK, and the Davis Cup by Shreve, Crump & Low... for the time being, I have removed this mention from the article. Lupo16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hm, found it at the company web site. Can we find an independent confirmation of that claim? I consider it highly unlikely that Gorham in the U.S. designed that bowl that Garrard & Co in the UK made in 1848 and sold and that then became the America's Cup... Lupo19:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but I can't find any evidence for that. says the America's Cup was "designed and built be Robert Garrard, the Royal Jeweller in England". Lupo08:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea, and don't have time to do any real research. I wrote the article over a year ago, I think, because it was a redlink, and my source for that information was the Gorham website. I applaud your desire to correct any inaccuracies, and wish you luck. I hope the information I located on the Davis cup is helpful to you. KillerChihuahua13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
its up to individuals whether they give personal information or not. He's 18, so he's not a minor - which would be automatic oversight. My advice is to discuss it with him, warn him of possible harassment and stalking, and abide by his wishes. If he agrees it should be oversighted, contact an oversight person and have it done asap. If he disagrees, that's his prerogative. KillerChihuahua15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The Moulton affair
Sorry to disrupt your break, but after you modified Filll's view to be inside, Moulton made this edit deleting some of Filll's view and adding his own parody, with the edit summary "- Is this section really a kosher part of an RfC?" Not knowing the answer, I re-added Filll's comments under a note saying what I'd done, moved Moulton's comment under a comments heading and told Odd Nature that signing assent might be worth reviewing in light of the changes. Should the whole lot be moved to the talk page? Puzzled, ... dave souza, talk18:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I quote directly from the boilerplate on the Rfc page: "All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." Feel free to remove or move to talk page any content not following this. KillerChihuahua20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
...and I removed the "comments" per the above, btw. If Moulton wants to comment, he can do so on the talk page as he has now been repeatedly instructed. KillerChihuahua20:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, will remove my own note in a bit. Notice that you didn't undo Moulton's last edit,, which frankly seems a bit off to me. For information, I corrected a grammatical error in the Description after email discussion with Filll, as it seemed rather ambiguous to me. Sorry this is rather tedious, dealing with Moulton's rather like trying to push back treacle. In my opinion. ... dave souza, talk20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and I'm from the American south. We don't "push back treacle" we "wrestle grits" - grits are a kind of porridge, sort of... well, grits are hard to explain in any concise fashion. KillerChihuahua20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
A request for arbitration involving you has been filed here. Please view the request, and add any statements you feel are necessary for the ArbCom to consider in deciding whether to hear the dispute. Videmus Omnia03:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
