Misplaced Pages

User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive04

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.
< User talk:KillerChihuahua

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Journalist (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 11 June 2006 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:58, 11 June 2006 by Journalist (talk | contribs) (comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is a Misplaced Pages user discussion page.

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages itself.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/Archive04.

Wikimedia Foundation
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.

Archive 3 - Archive 2 - Archive 1 Archives

Pro-life

Talk, then edit. You simply reverted without bothering to read all the talk. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And you know what I read and did not read HOW, precisely? You are clairvoyant, I presume? KillerChihuahua 21:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but read her/his sig s/he's good - good at reading minds, obviously. You skeptic materialists who refuse to believe such obvious proof of clairvoyance! Guettarda 21:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
In such cases, the reasoning is as follows: 'You didn't read the talk page, because, if you did, you would have agreed with me, because I'm right. Because you didn't agree with me, you didn't read the talk page.' It's the logic of an autocrat or a child. Geogre 17:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua->Thank you for reverting the edit having to do with "unborn child". There was no agreement on the talk page to insert that POV phrase in any place except the section talking about political framing.--Andrew c 22:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites nominated for deletion for a fourth time

The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And the Winner Is ...

Greetings, KillerChihuahua/Archive04. The judges would like to announce that the winner for the Esperanza User Page Contest has been chosen. Congratulations to Sango123 for winning the contest. The winning entry can be found here.



If you'd like to participate in the contest again, check by the contest page in a few days and sign up. See you around. (^'-')^ Covington 03:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Great userbox

Hi, I was just wondering if it was ok for me to use your awesome writing-on-the-wall userbox. Its just so painfully true. Thanks in advance, _-M P-_ 05:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

killer

killer chihuahua very nice. i like ! paris hilton clone Unixer 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't recall interacting with you on any pages - also the Paris Hilton reference has me confused. KillerChihuahua 13:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
we have never interacted before. the paris hilton thing is so deep that i don't understand it myself.

How do you manage to reply to messages on your page and mine at the same time ? is there a tool for that ?

Not that I know of. I copy/paste and use multiple browser windows. KillerChihuahua 13:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Coooool - Erudite

I subconsiously thought rude was in there... so it confused me all this time. Haha, thx. - RoyBoy 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Death

Thank you for your comprehension and kind words. The issue is not easy to deal with and I consider to have gone myself far beyond the line of respect. Your constructive mediation has proved to be necessary and meanwhile I'll make efforts to find a way of addressing the issue without provoking any unwanted edit war. Regards, --62.169.118.212 22:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem, thank you for your note. KillerChihuahua 00:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Swat's RfA

FYI, he has fixed his sig. JoshuaZ 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your message

KillerChihuahua, we must have the same watch list. Happens all the time, I start writing a post for AN/I asking for a block for some misdeed only to see that you have already blocked them. FloNight 01:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

apologies for not replying sooner - concur, I see you everywhere, which can only mean we have at least significant overlap. I should add that I applaud your actions and sense, which you display whenever and where ever I see your sig. KillerChihuahua 05:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade RfAr

Hi. Could I ask you to start the RfAr on Sam Spade? The general consensus over at the RfC's talk page is that it should be done, and I agree. But, I don't have a lot of time on my hands at the moment to be the "organiser" of it. I will support it and provide evidence and comments as necessary, but could you take that first step? Thank you. -- infinity0 13:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

as I am one of the few who has not signed on to the "its time for Rfar" on the Rfc talk page, I find myself to be a curious choice for this request. Why precisely are you asking me, as opposed to one of those who has agreed that Rfar is the appropriate choice at this time? I am not trying to be flippant (I know tone is difficult to convey in text) but am genuinely wanting to know. thanks - KillerChihuahua 10:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe that was because I suggested it. I thought you had endorsed the idea of an RFAR at this time — I'm afraid I must have assumed it and not checked. Sorry. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
I comprehend - no need to apologize. I very probably will endorse the idea, unfortunately. I am very slow to move to Rfar. I tend to try other approaches past reason rather than move in haste. As I had not yet, though, it seemed a curious request. Your assumption is a natural one, I'm just not quite there yet. KillerChihuahua 10:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:oops

Grr, block conflicts, they happen all the time. :) No problem, I personally think that user should be given the week I gave him, since it was his fourth block or something. Thanks for fixing it up. Regards -- Banez 13:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, he has it now. Thanks for understanding - KillerChihuahua 13:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus protection

You seem to have only semi-protected Jesus and placed a full-protection template on it. I'm confused. Could you shed some light, please? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. That would be the part where I screwed up - its fixed now, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I certainly meant to be consistent and fully protect. KillerChihuahua 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome, and thanks. :-) --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Missler

Breaking a fixed edit is vandalism. Check the defintion. And stop rebreaking it. -James Howard (talk/web) 20:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Posting false information (Rv, Edwin Yamauchi is of Miami of Ohio University, not Miami University (which is in Florida)) without bothering to have done any research on the topic is rude and inexcusable. Before making an edit, even an admin should make sure they have their facts straight. I await your apology on my user page. -James Howard (talk/web) 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You've made the same inaccurate edit before, which my reversion of you called "vandalism" on the Chuck Missler article, to the Delta Upsilon article: . My information was accurate. Your changing the verbiage to that used by the original editor, which nonetheless led to the correct university in Ohio, does not obscure that you were changing those links to lead to the incorrect university in Florida. Your subsequent accusations of vandalism and personal attacks, which you have failed to explain, are beyond rude. In short, I concur an apology is indicated. We disagree on who should be giving and who receiving said apology. KillerChihuahua 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
No, the edit was correct. The original reference was to "Miami of Ohio" and I moved it to "Miami University," exactly like I did on Chuck Missler. Sitting here and just lying about my edits did is offensive and administrative bullying. -James Howard

(talk/web) 21:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. You were correct on AN/I when you stated I had become confused about the links.
  2. You have now added calling me a liar and a bullying admin in addition to calling me a vandal several times and insulting my intelligence once.
    KillerChihuahua 21:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Wait, hold on. I see your mistake. Let me make this easy on you. Miami of Ohio is a redirect to Miami University which was founded in 1809 in Oxford, Ohio under the Northwest Ordinance. The school in Flordia is the University of Miami which was founded as a private school in 1925. They have similar names. Often, the media refers to the school in Oxford as "Miami of Ohio." Alumni of the Ohio school, including myself, generally find this offensive. Because it is. They sell shirts there that say "Miami was a university when Florida still belonged to Spain." Regrettably, I never purchased one. Nevertheless, this confusion appears to be where you made your mistake. If not, please give some more details, because you're wrong and I have nothing better to do that figure out why. -James Howard (talk/web) 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That was indeed my error; however, I did not add the original link (Miami of Ohio). You did not attempt discussion, in which my error could have been discovered without hostility, you reverted with a summary of "Rv vandalism" and have since apparently made it your hobby to insult me. KillerChihuahua 21:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You are a bully and liar. Review what you have written here and on ANI. If you don't see it, you aren't being honest with yourself. -James Howard (talk/web) 21:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You are in error. I made an error, which was in good faith. This does not make me a bully, a liar, or a vandal. KillerChihuahua 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, James, we get the point. She made a mistake which is now resolved. There is no need to go on about "vandalism" and "bullying."— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talkcontribs)
Yeah! I agree with JoshuaZ, give it a rest. -- Donald Albury 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this seems to be a huge storm over a simple misunderstanding. KC a liar and a bully? You don't know her well. David D. (Talk) 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, "bully" and "liar" are not anywhere among the top 200 words I'd associate with KC. On the other hand, Howardjp nees to learn something about civility and collegiality. Guettarda 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral support, people. This is an odd occurance for me; I have made mistakes in the past, most recently completely misunderstanding something Andrew c was planning to do, and everyone was (confused and) civil, and the matter was cleared up very quickly with smiles all around. Others have misunderstood me, at times; I recall no time in which the matter was not handled with the same civility and ease. In this case I attempted communication with Howardjp multiple times, and received only escalating insults. I have been attacked many times by blatant vandals, and that does not trouble me; but that a regular editor would so viciously attack and accuse me with no justification and apparently no realization of the seriousness of making such unsubstantiated personal attacks is baffling, to say the least. KillerChihuahua 15:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

thewolfstar

You should unblock thewolfstar. Maggie needs mentoring, not blocking. Merecat 22:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Go mentor her on her talk page for the next 20 hours, then. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the note on my talk page, that was good of you. Tijuana Brass 06:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. KillerChihuahua 10:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, the user in question has asked that I try to find out when her block will be lifted. I've also posted to another kind admin in question regarding this. Please see Thewolfstar's user page for more. --Flawiki 01:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
My block was for 24 hours, which is well over. I will look into it and see what I can find out. KillerChihuahua 03:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ante Starčević

Thanks for actioning the semiprotection. I do not particularly like the way the article reads but the anon IPs situation was untenable. --Asterion 00:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As it is only semi-protected, you are free to edit it. It is only at full protection that we really manage to hit the wrong version. KillerChihuahua 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I just want the situation to cool down a bit. I made the mistake of trying to stop an edit war by the same factions before and got burnt badly. Not in the right wiki-mood now :o(. I appreciate the advice. Cheers, --Asterion 01:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly sympathise with the wiki-mood being off. Cheers then, edit when ready. :-) Let me know if there is anything I can do to assist. KillerChihuahua 01:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I do appreciate your wish to protect this page. But, bear in mind - do not prevent other people to contribute. This action of Asterion against anonymous contributor is not justified. Everyone has the legal right to contribute anonymously. The problem is - there is a number of people acting emotively: Starcevic is our guy, the Father of Nation, therefore anything bad said or written about him is POV, offensive, etc. - which we are going ultimately to derail. I am afraid that you sidelined with these guys for a moment.--Purger 12:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I responded to a request at WP:RFPP. If you wish to request unprotection, do so on that page here. KillerChihuahua 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Purger, I understand what you are trying to say, but people can create their own accounts and be held accountable. There have also been ten edit reverts since last night and this is getting nowhere. It is because this I have now requested full protection. I am no taking sides here. As I said, I am not happy with any of the two versions at this moment. Regards, --Asterion 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I am curious what is your role here? As I see - you are only prompted to ask for the article protection when an anonymous user reverted the article. It is obvious that the user tried to support my version. All numerous reverts commited by others before were of no concern to you - which you could clearly see as unaccoutable at all. So - you are taking side!--Purger 12:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Who are you saying is taking sides? KillerChihuahua 13:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reincarnation considered

I'm still considering it. The whole pattern is very, very familiar, but I'm such a conflict-averse admin that I wasn't highly involved in the battles against the candidates I'm thinking of. Let's just say that the insistence on "socialism" being the bane of civilization and the conviction that everything that he (and I don't think "she" is appropriate) is against must be socialist has familiar odors. I'm still considering which of the dead may have reincarnated, but I think it's a dead Nazi with college level writing skills. If I can narrow the list in my mind down to one or two, I'll go for checkuser requests. However, if this is not a spirit rejected from Nirvanna, its obsession with me (when I had never had an edit in common) is truly bizarre. Geogre 14:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Obsession not only with you but with Bishonen and to a lesser extent Bunchofgrapes. I seem to be peripheral. I would suggest checking vectors, however with the three of you, as you edit many of the same articles, there must be quite a few. I will continue to AGF insofar as I am able, which I confess, is not terribly far at this point. Somehow the attitude towards you, combined with attacking Bishonen as a Bad Admin, the truly revolting attacks on Bunch, and characterization of any and all admins who do not support this user's approach as "nasty socialist-nazi admins" leaves me a little short on the AGF. KillerChihuahua 17:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe there was any obsession with me -- or Bishonen really -- other than an impressive inability to take critical suggestions without unbridled hostility. The Edit of Geogre's page was a bit strange. Still, I find it easy to AGF that this is a new user (but much harder to AGF that this can be a good user.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Impressive is not precisely the word I would necessarily have used. I certainly have not seen such instant-reflex hostility since I suggested HeadleyDown peruse NPA some time ago. Similar dependance on excrement, did you know that seems to be a hard-wired primate insult? Apes who speak sign frequently use the potty word to refer to those with whom they are displeased. But I digress. KillerChihuahua 17:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
She/he/it has a website, http://earthhopenetwork.net/, see userpage. Or claims to. If this is truly the website of the user, it should tell you much, Geogre. I don't believe she's obsessed with me at all, or with BoG. Maybe with Geogre, since that's different from her usual pattern: what she typically does is attach herself, limpetlike, to anybody who speaks to her. In practice this has meant, to people who happen to catch sight of her edits round the place and drop by to say "No personal attacks, please". This was the case with me, and with, uh, I suppose her impatience of the word "Personal attack" rising to a crescendo, the case with Bunchofgrapes also. She then insists on prolonging an increasingly repetitive and surrealistic interchange with them. This insistence might be one of the definitions of trolling, but I don't think it is so in intention; I too have no trouble seeing this as a new user, trying to fulfil some emotional needs via the site. Anyway, surely you don't think she insulted BoG? Hey, you can't have been following her much. Those were her mild little pokes. Her serious insults are Democrat! and liberal! If you want to know when she's in a bad mood, those are the zingers to watch for. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC).
I'd point her/him to Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_is_not_therapy, but I'm not so sure it would have a positive effect, to say the least. KillerChihuahua 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

See, with a Venn diagram, I can see an overlap with one of the political warriors. I can think of a relatively recent one, in fact. I do not think this is a new user, myself, or at least not a new net warrior. Perhaps someone who likes photos of girls flashing their boobies at a Vancouver bridge? I don't know, but that's just a thought that it's hard not to think. Geogre 22:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm... that idea may have merit. I will have to look at the archives and compare. KillerChihuahua 22:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The user has posted on Jimbo's talk page (user talk:Jimbo Wales, of course), and I wonder about some of the metaphors employed. If they're not metaphors at all, it would explain much. Geogre 12:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thought; edits like would seem to indicate that it is meant metaphorically. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There goes my faith in the justice system and mental health system. Geogre 00:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, please don't take this too hard... but I always thought you were a fairly intelligent person. Now I find you had faith in the justice and mental health systems? Thats... not indicative of a very penetrating intellect, so sorry. Or perhaps your fever is back? :-P KillerChihuahua 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I had faith that both systems managed to incarcerate the innocent, but not that they let the guilty and damaged go free, unless the guilty and damaged were also embued with excessive cash. To think that they'd miss a person of average means with raging paranoia is disillusioning. Geogre 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The New Church

The New Church is not a protestant denomination first of all. It's views are quite distinct from any traditional Christian group. It should be allowed representation because it has had significant influence in History and the development of ideas. It is does not fall under the categories listed, and the lack of info about it makes it seem like there are no people who believe in the particular doctrines it holds true, which is misleading to the public. It should be known that there is a church which believes that Jesus Christ is the One God. It is simply an idea that deserves to be represented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonschnarr (talkcontribs) 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please make any case for this inclusion on the Talk:God page, as requested. KillerChihuahua 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OR on cold fusion

Since you seem to understand/be very familiar with the rules governing OR could you maybe pop by Cold Fusion and tell me if the section "Allegations of suppression of cold fusion research" has OR in it? The second paragraph citation is based solely on a copy of the relevant letter in the possesion of the editor who wrote the section. Thanks, JoshuaZ 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking indefinitely

Just a quick note to say in cases like this, it is probably best to block indefinitely, as the account was created for vandalism purposes only. Thanks, — FireFox (υ|τ) 17:02, 27 April 2006

Yup, was checking contribs and coming to that conclusion myself. Shall you, or shall I? (Don't want to have conflicting edits.) KillerChihuahua 17:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I see you have already done so; thanks. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem :-) — FireFox (υ|τ) 19:45, 27 April 2006

Please

Killer, I can't stand it, please look under your heading Thewolfstar above for a recent message. No, I know it's not your block doing it, but something seems to be wrong. Bishonen | talk 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC).

Removing warnings

Since there are those of us (myself included) who believe removing warnings should not be considered vandalism at all, and the issue has been disputed at length over the last several months since that clause was added, I would prefer not to mess with it right now. However, you might want to contribute to Misplaced Pages talk:Removing warnings poll where we are trying to devise a community driven way to decide the issue. Dragons flight 18:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, I agree there needs to be stronger consensus on this one. I have placed the poll on my watchlist. KillerChihuahua 18:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jed

Thanks :-) William M. Connolley 18:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

For being handy when someone flagrantly abuses you? No problem, anytime. KillerChihuahua 18:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Since you don't have one?

This user is a rouge admin
YES! Thank you sooo much! I cannot tell you how I will treasure this. KillerChihuahua 23:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
You can't tell me???? Or won't? Oh well... :-) Glad to help just the same. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Can't, I lack the vocabulary. Words fail me, even. KillerChihuahua 00:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hate it when that happens! For me, though, it doesn't happen all that often... or so I am told (as you shall see soon enough!) ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Unbelievable that no one gave you one before. If I could have remembered the file name (yeah, I made it, but that doesn't mean I remember it), I'd have handed you one. Geogre 11:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I cheated. I just remembered someone that had one and cribbed it, box, tagging, etc, from their page. Why remember when you can steal? ++Lar: t/c 11:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Statutory Instruments

Hi. I notice that you have previously voted or commented on the proposal to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 23:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

personalized rfa thanks

KillerJackRussellTerrier (the kind that are charming, but never give up when they sink their teeth into something =D )...thanks for your at first support, then constructive opposition on my RFA. Your comments, as always, mean a lot to me, and trust me that there are no hard feelings: I appreciate the criticism. I was indeed not ready for adminship. Hopefully in some months time, you'll be able to support me in the future. SWATJester Aim Fire! 00:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In some months time, I also hope that is the case. I think if you apply yourself, you would make an excellent admin. Thank you for the graciousness of your response. KillerChihuahua 00:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For you

Go ahead and make yourself a copy of the toolbox and Wikilinks that are on my userpage. Martial Law 05:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Passive aggression

Hi. Regarding your comment on Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Passive_Aggressive_Behaviour, I am guessing you were thinking about Sam Spade when you wrote your comment. However, User:ElectricRay is actually talking about me. He has accused me of this for a while now, and I have found it incredibly hard to respond to his accusations - this is the best I can come up with. Ironically, his accusation is incredibly passively aggressive; the very thing he is accusing me of.

It may be a problem, but his suggestion of the cure only leaves open possible abuse - like the abuse I am being subjected to at the moment by him - false accusations of passive aggression which are impossible to respond to without seeming to be passive aggressive. -- infinity0 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is a problem, and the cure may be worse than the disease. As I said on AN/I, the idea may have merit - but it may also have serious problems which outweigh any good it might do. Thanks for taking the time to post here. KillerChihuahua 19:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The list is legion. KillerChihuahua 19:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm only trying to make known what I myself have experienced, that's all. :) -- infinity0 11:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the question

Hello KillerChihuahua : ) Thanks for asking the question so I could clear this up. I left my answer on the RFA. When I read the oppose vote about blanking instead of archiving, I was confuse because I had in fact archived my talk page. I saw that the page where I blanked Amorrow's sock puppet post removed my archive. I vaguely remember starting a 2nd archive and being distracted. I fixed it today. Very sorry to raise concerns. FloNight 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was losing my mind, I could have sworn I'd seen archives on your page before. Thanks much for your prompt response. KillerChihuahua 18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the words of wisdom. Keeping a sense of humor around this place is a must. :- ) FloNight 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please delete my talk page

Just a reminder: Please delete my talk page. --JedRothwell 16:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA, your nomination and advice message.

Thanks for joint nominating me and all the help you have given me at Misplaced Pages. Let me know what time the official cabal welcome ceremony is scheduled. JoshuaZ 14:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wait for the usual secret handshake and you'll be escorted to the party. The drinking of expensive champagne laced with cocaine from ivory cups is of course entirely optional. Secrecy is not. :P --kingboyk 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
You are more than welcome of course. You are not yet, however, a member of the Cabal - didn't they tell you Adminship is only the first step? Now you must become an official KillerChihuahua wikistalker, be called a Rouge admin at least once, and preferably have an Rfc opened against you because you actually block for vandalism and 3RR violations. Then you will become an Acolyte. All of this can be skipped, of course, if Jimbo posts a compliment to you on your talk page. KillerChihuahua 19:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Meme Transmission

Please read my comments on the meme talk page. No one is replying to my comment so how do you expect me to get support? The current wording of the article is wrong. Kernow 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

Please explain what you mean by "vandalize", as I did no such thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blainetologist (talkcontribs) 15:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

These edits: , , , , and now I see you have made this edit in which the edit itself may be a content dispute, but the edit summary itself "(no justification for calling that filth "art")" is most certainly your personal point of view delivered in a hostile manner. I suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V prior to editing further on topics on which you have a strong opinion. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ . KillerChihuahua 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
oh come off it. I suggest you get a life and/or clue. 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
And now I suggest you add to your recommended reading list WP:CIVIL, and for good measure (you haven't violated it but its always good to know policy!) WP:NPA. KillerChihuahua 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Signatures are four tildes, not five, btw - five only adds a datestamp. KillerChihuahua 15:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It's obvious you did that just to harass me, so I don't care what you think. I'll read whatever when I get around to it. Blainetologist 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your threats and harassment

Leave off already. I'm tired of your harassing me and threatening to use your admin powers against me in violation of the policies on admins. You're just trying to provoke me and I've had enough of it. Blainetologist 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I point you to applicable policies which you are violating. This is not harassment. I am violating no policy; on the contrary, you are. KillerChihuahua 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You're making threats and following my edits around and trying to twist what policy says while trying to provoke me. Not going to give you that satisfaction. Leave off. You're the one violating your own precious policy. Blainetologist 16:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

FeloniousMonk does not seem interested in either formal nor informal mediation regarding the Von Bertalanffy (crediting him with an early concept of irreducible complexity) matter (I think I've waited long enough for his response) and the RfC's do not appear to have resolved the matter either. I have thus been considering arbitration. FeloniousMonk has by far been the most vociferous opponent to my charges of original research etc. regarding this disputed claim. Would you consider yourself a significant objector to this discussion? If not I won't put you on the list of involved parties (should I choose to go ahead with it).

--Wade A. Tisthammer 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, Wade, it has been some time since I've looked at that - I posted some info during the original discussion, but have not really visited it recently to see where things are. Give me a little time to go back and see where things stand and I will get back to you - thanks. KillerChihuahua 17:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You may find the mediation cabal entry a useful summary of the current situation. --Wade A. Tisthammer 18:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again, I'll start there. KillerChihuahua 18:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like currently the text reads "An early concept of irreducibly complex systems" not that Behe's use of the term and concept were a descendant, direct or otherwise, of Bertalanffy's concept. Under Discussion in the mediation appears the following statements:

2. It appears that there is no dispute as to the accuracy of Bertalanffy and Paleys' writings or citations.

3. It appears that there is no dispute that both Bertalanaffy and Paley both promulgated ideas that are, to some degree correlative to Behe's and were promulgated prior to him (it is disputed that Behe's ideas are derivations therefrom).

I'm not sure why there is still an issue? Thanks much - KillerChihuahua 19:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There are limits to which #3 is true. From the cabal entry:
Also, (as another editor pointed out) the somewhat novel interpretation of von Bertalanffy's writing that he originated an "early concept" of irreducible complexity appears to be original research, since the claim can apparently be found nowhere else besides the Misplaced Pages entry. The viewpoint that von Bertalanffy did indeed come up with an “early concept” of irreducible complexity appears to be an extremely small minority (namely, a few Misplaced Pages editors) and would thus not be suitable given Misplaced Pages policy on what viewpoints to include.
When the citation is examined (see the beginning of the entry) the concept just isn't there, and calling what he described an "early concept" of irreducible complexity is not only extremely tenuous, but original research. JustinWick, an editor who dropped by from the RfC and who is actually an opponent of ID, said "A quick google search shows that Misplaced Pages is the only place on the web where these accusations are made ." I did some googling myself and confirmed that the assertion is only made in Misplaced Pages (and sites that copy it, e.g. this one). There is also, as I indicated earlier, Misplaced Pages policy on what viewpoints to include. Hence my attempts to remove the apparently unsuitable von Bertalanffy claim (or at least modify it in a manner that is more fitting with Misplaced Pages policy; see the compromise I put forth in the the cabal entry). --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I am, quite frankly, rather distraught that I did not get a similar invitation. Wade, buddy, after the many months we've spent collaborating on various articles, working out POV kinks and assuring that our citations were the acme of the summit of reliability and verifiability, how could you neglect me? I'm deeply hurt. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you recall you raised heck when I included you in the mediation cabal entry, apparently because your contributions were "specious." I didn't think you'd be interested in arbitration. But if you are, let me know. --Wade A. Tisthammer 20:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Abortion intro

Dear Killer,

if you have checked the link you sent me (Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph), and searched for my nick, you would see that I already participated in the discussion once and I can assure you, that I did read some things on it. Not using the definition that is clear, simple and obligatory to follow for healthcare providers worldwide and replacing it with some weird intersection of ideas of pro-life and pro-choice editors, who are naturally attracted to the article is wrong, as the result is not Encyclopedia - doesn't present facts, but some intersection of individual beliefs. This is what Misplaced Pages shouldn't contain. Plus - wikipedia is not democracy. I will change the intro once again. Then I'm going to bed. ackoz 22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

O'Reilly

I did not address you on this issue.Thanks--Bairdso66 23:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You're on a Wiki - you are discussing in a open venue. KillerChihuahua 00:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I stole your line

At the end of this comment. Figured you weren't using it during your break. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just passing by...

File:Mistletoesok.jpg

...for no other reason than saying hi, since we have not talked it in while. Hope you're doing fine, KC! Big big hug, Phaedriel tell me - 00:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC) PS. Nobody has left you a message in a week? Poor thing, you must feel so lonely - have this flower on me, and visit me anytime you wish - xxx, Sharon

Human Edit ... Participate...

Sorry I forgot to leave my four tildes on the discussion of my proposed change to add "participate" into the sentence since I'm still not convinced that Religion can be bottled up by "explain" - although this is much better than "manipulate". I don't think that people who are participating in many sorts of religous ceremonies would at all agree that they are much learning like in school... of course sure at the Unitarian Universalist, but would a Sufi or some mystic (mystics I hope are allowable) that is "participating" in some sort of communion with "higher beings" say that he's getting an education ?! - this seems somewhat absurd, to me.

thanks for your kinds considerations. Phillip 19:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

pl.

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi my cute little doggie friend, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, fellow admin (and maybe someday I'll be flying the red banner too)! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...


Arf!

Arf arf! Very nice to see you editing again! Bishonen | talk 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for the welcome back. I was beginning to wonder if I'd wandered off for so long that I'd been forgotten. :) KillerChihuahua 15:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You returned too discreetly, that's all — everybody missed the yapping! Bishonen | talk 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC).
Welcome back : - ) FloNight 15:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
And from me too! :-) AnnH 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Drat, I noticed the return, and didn't say anything. The pup deserves better. -- Ec5618 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to all of you! Happy puppy here. KillerChihuahua 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. The place has been dead(ly) in your absence. Geogre 16:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice pun... In attempting to read the usual gossip columns and dirt rags in an attempt to catch up on Current Events, I find it has indeed been a treacherous place whilst I was away. I hope none of the carnage is lasting or terminal. KillerChihuahua 16:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You were away far too long, KC! A few weeks is how long in dog-slash-wikipedia years? The site's turned ugly; we're going to all go to a new fork that only has the obscure, uncontroversial topics that nobody cares about. You know, history, literature, art: that sort of trivia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Knowledgecruft, in other words. Geogre 17:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You foolish humans, how little ye know of how the world actually works. We're headed toward our one-millionth Pokemon article faster than our one-millionth knowledgecruft article. Even non-notable bio-cruft grows faster than actual knowledge in this realm. I support your brave endeavors to actually add well-written knowledge based articles, but fear you are outnumbered. Once more, into the valley of death.... KillerChihuahua 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Some of the "better" Pokemon articles do at least try to put their topic into some kind of perspective, but I've yet to read a single article (not even an FA) which answers this fundamental question: "Why should I - or anyone - care?!". I truly don't grasp wtf it's all about. In the past I made the mistake of noming a Pokemon article for deletion. The character is part of the "elite four" apparently. Like, whatever! --kingboyk 14:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm fiddin' to add a paintercruft nn-bio: Tilly Kettle. He was the first professional painter of British birthtrainingetc in India. That ought to get the Indians fired up or down, and then I've got this John Keogh guy who the Irish might want to know about, and then I'm going to try, try, try to help out the Barbara Palmer, 1st Duchess of Cleveland article. Geogre 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't all that book-larnin hurt yore haid none? I declare, I aint got no idee how yew manage. KillerChihuahua 20:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm 5 hours late to teh welcome back party! Syrthiss 20:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, the party's just getting started! Grab a drink, pull up a chair, join in! KillerChihuahua 20:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I was going to turn those two links blue, but then I had to stay off the phone all day. Oh, well, tomorrow we'll see Tillie Kettle and John Keough, and don't none of you people think of trying to get there first! I only write these things to see my name in lights. It's a close horizon and a dim honor, but it's all I've got. Geogre 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh, as though I had time. And why denigrate your truly impressive additions/improvements? I swear, you sound like you were a Brit, with that self-depreciating tone. Be American! Be arrogant! (rofl at the thought of you being obnoxious and arrogant) KillerChihuahua 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Florida and G. Patrick Maxwell Rfd

Hello! Thanks for the vote of sanity on this Rfd. I have one other question and a comment for you. One, is there any way to stop Midgely's personal attacks on me? He has been warned by other admins to be civil, and I have asked him repeatedly to do so. This is way beyond any reasonable debate about this Rfd. Secondly, I live in Boca Raton, Florida. I love your photo of 'where you live'. That's Andrew, right? We are still waiting for tile for our roof replacement after Wilma. I would be interested in the Florida Wiki project. I will take a look at it. Thanks!MollyBloom 22:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

if he is not being civil, please provide a diff (or diffs); you may wish to try WP:CCD also. KillerChihuahua 23:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe you have seen some of this. I would very much appreciate some assistance.

I don't know what else to do. I have already submitted a Mediation (?) request, but he continues to insult, misrepresent and malign. MollyBloom 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Without diffs posted, I can do nothing. Apologies for the brevity of these messages, I am just back from an extended wiki-break and am trying to catch up. If you wish, post to WP:PAIN, and provide diffs; your assertion that there have been violations of NPA is just that - your assertion. You are unlikely to see a response without diffs. KillerChihuahua 13:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:

I believe there is evidence that Homo erectus used fire. — Knowledge Seeker 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

KS, your belief is good enough for me; however as you know, not enough for WP standards. If someone wants to clarify with "now living" a cite is needed. IMHO is unecessary as Homo erectus was a proto-human, but I have no strong feeling whatsoever. Good to see you posting, btw. :) KillerChihuahua 23:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
See and associated footnotes 69 and 70 (at the time I write this). I'm busy now but will add it back with citations later if it seems appropriate. Thanks, I'm still around, just busy...working and studying and all, you know. Sorry for the terse messages. — Knowledge Seeker 05:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
NP, I am right there with you on the limited time issue and message brevity. Still, concise is good, yes? As I said, I see no reason to clarify Homo xxx vs. Homo sapiens, as Homo xxx -sapiens is not SFAIK extant and was a precursor to H.s., if you follow. If anyone wants to add with the cite, I have zero objection. KillerChihuahua 13:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can assist...

I've been spending some time over at the John Wayne article lately and removed the "Draft Controversy" section. The reasons are, that after reading the talk page it became apparent that it was added and mostly sourced based on heresay and the individual thoughts on the contributors, many of whom have an obvious dislike of John Wayne. Further, is the fact that colorful language such as "wayne's cowardice" and the like is very non-encyclopedic. I removed it and then added a note on the talk page (note that i was not signed in at the time) saying that I think the section needs a source according to WP:CITE as its likely to cause some uproar. IP user 195.93.21.74 immediately reverted saying i have no right to remove fact just so i can "rewrite history." I removed it again and called for a source, to which he again reverted and said basically that he'll keep reverting because Wayne was a "Coward who dodged the draft while better men died." You can obviously see where his loyalties lie.

ANYWAY...if you could help out and let me know the best way to deal with this, obviously when he reverts again he'll likely be in violation of WP:3RR but how do I get him to stop mindlessly reverting and look for good sources? Batman2005 13:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will take a look at the situation. KillerChihuahua 13:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.....

LOL. Thanks, I will contact you if needed. -- Kim van der Linde 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I really am annoyed I missed it - I would have added my support as well - not that you needed it. KillerChihuahua 15:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh (I am assuming Kim and I are referring to the same topic) - the amusing spin on it was really good to read! :) -- Natalya 15:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. You are welcome for the laugh, and I meant what I said about contacting me if you ever need assistance. KillerChihuahua 15:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

re: advice

Thank you for the advice. Anything can be construed as a personal attack by those who have no integrity or oversight. — goethean 16:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And some things are attacks, plain and simple. KillerChihuahua 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome message

To answer your question, I keep mine at user:kylu/welcome. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 22:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! KillerChihuahua 22:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: RfA

Thanks for the reminder. I've replaced your {{unsigned}}. Kalani 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. FYI, to refer to a template, all you have to do is add tl and a pipe, like this:
{{tl|unsigned}}
Which produces: {{unsigned}}
This is shorter to type and has the advantage that people can follow the link if they are not familiar with the template you are referencing. KillerChihuahua 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the tip. I'll try to remember that =) Kalani 00:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Musical Linguist

Cross-posted from KillerChihuahua and User talk:Musical Linguist: But, did she place such a warning? I honestly do not know. And it seems there should be some process for removing the AfD notice other than a reversion which offers no explanation. I think that making the AfD in the first place was an attempt at harassment on the part of a user who is intent upon being a disruption. But, there has to be some kind of conversation about the issue, yes? ---Charles 16:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

answered on user talk page. KillerChihuahua 16:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare you

How dare you block Eternal Equinox. I have not been trolling on any pages. I posted a message for Bishonen to read because I wanted her to acknowledge why I had been so upset and somewhat uncivil these past few days, but you brilliantly rude and unorthodox administrators reverted me for no reason. Even if Bishonen asked me not to post on her talk page, I felt as though this was important since it would be my final message there (well, second-last after a "final goodbye"). This "trolling" is ridiculous, especially on the featured article page of S. A. ... whatever it's called. I merely placed something alphabetically (which I'm obsessed with) and I was considered trolling. Nonsense. I'm allowed to make such edits and yet I'm reverted under the edit summary: "say it out loud. It sounds better". Exactly when did this become Misplaced Pages policy?

I was going to message you on your talk page regarding the comment I left for Bishonen. In my most-honest opinion, you were far too critical and blocked my account before I had the chance to tell you of this edit. I believe this is an unfaithful notion and request being unblocked immediately. —64.231.75.85 00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare I? What a silly question. I'm an admin. We block, we unblock, we protect, we unprotect, etc.; when indicated. I warned you, you ignored the warning, you are blocked. 1, 2, 3. We don't have many rules here on Misplaced Pages but the few we have are very simple. I note that rather than placing {{unblock}} on your talk page as directed, you have chosen to evade the block by posting here, including a blanket personal attack. You have earned yourself a block extension for that. Try to spend the time productively by contemplating your behavior. KillerChihuahua 11:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Just unblock me. I WILL NEVER EDIT AGAIN AFTER THIS. Ever. NEVER. I will leave you all alone forever. Just unblock me so that I can fix these pages up for two days — then I'm gone. I promise I'll never return. I don't care! I'll never come back. I'm sick of this place anyway. We Belong Together is too close to risk at this point — just unblock me and I'll go away after tomorrow night — forever. Please. 64.231.154.77 20:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg of you please. 64.231.154.77 20:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfC

I'm sorry if I am misunderstanding the rules to an RfC, I'm trying to learn how to handle it because I've never seen them in action. I am following the rules and guidelines as best that I can gather from what it says on the pages. Is it common for people that are actively involved (and certified that they have "tried and failed" to resolve the dispute) in the dispute to add seperate sections underneath the Outside Views section of the RfC? It looks like the format of the RfC is pretty clear.

1) Statement by members involved in the dispute that have tried and failed to resolve the dispute -- then endorsements 2) Response by person in the dispute -- then endorsements 3) Response by outside parties that are not involved in the dispute -- then endorsements

However FeloniousMonk has included his views in both the 1st section stating that he is an active participant that has tried and failed to resolve the dispute and now he has made up an entirely new section that isn't even for outside parties -- its for an active participant to get another say-so in after he already has had the opportunity and space to make his case in section 1.

Is this really how it is commonly done? Vivaldi (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He endorsed the Statement of the dispute, which he did not write. It is not common but is completely acceptable for him to write his own view. See for example Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Cyde where Cyde wrote a View and a Response; and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SPUI where there is a Statement, a Response, a "Fair and balanced view", an "Inside view" (which is basically the same as what FeloniousMonk wrote), an Outside view, Another view, Yet another view, and a 4th Outside view. All of these are views. The issue is to not edit other people's views, except to Endorse. An endorsement can contain brief comments as well. You seem to be focusing on the rules and not on the points, which is not helpful. Please try to focus on the statements made - this is a Request for comments, after all, and the comments are (hopefully) to your benefit and the benefit of Misplaced Pages. This is not a trial. Several people have opened Rfc's on themselves, in order to get community input on their behavior/actions. KillerChihuahua 20:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Block log

The sound of three people snapping. Bishonen | talk 20:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

GMTA, and I'm the "nice" one with 3 hours. Think about it, though - I didn't do a lookup, but s/he's probably editing from a library, possibly a school library. ah well, if any of you want to un- and re- block, I won't say a thing - none of the ip's being used by EE have ever been used by anyone else. KillerChihuahua 21:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider unblocking EE on certain conditions?

Killer, would you consider offering to unblock EE on condition that she only, absolutely only, edit 1) We Belong Together and 2)Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/We Belong Together for as long as your 72-hour block would have lasted? Of course you would block her rock solid the moment she edited even ONCE somewhere else during that time. Please just think about it? Bishonen | talk 21:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

But what about her great expressed need to continue edit-warring over images on Cool (song)? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Better yet, what about her threats and dares, such as "just try it, bitch" and "you're dead."?
Bishonen, why would I unblock this person? EE has broken every promise s/he has ever made, including to not pester you on your talk page - surely you have not forgotten that you received a Brick for doubting the last "never again" statement made. EE posted an unblock request, then less than 10 minutes later replaced it with a Fuck all of you message. So far as I can tell EE is either a spoiled brat or a troll, or both. I see nothing to indicate otherwise. KillerChihuahua 21:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, just because of the FAC. I didn't see that last edit you mention, but I already knew she flails about when she's blocked, that's no surprise and doesn't make that much of an impression on me. It's up to you, of course. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC).
EE knew about the FAC when I posted a very clear warning on his/her talk page: Do these things and I will block you. EE did two of the three I listed; I blocked. Rather than taking the time to cool off and think things over; EE responded with vandalism, threats, personal attacks, and trolling. You are arguing Special Pleading; I view this as worse than irrelevant. I am open to persuasion if you have arguments you feel are valid. KillerChihuahua 21:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
On re-reading what I posted, it does not mean what I meant to say. I did not mean to say your view or question was invalid, I was asking if you had thought of reasons I might not have, which had not yet been posted. Apologies for incredibly bad phrasing. KillerChihuahua 09:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Shucks! Bishonen | talk 10:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC).
That still-born FAC is what got him or her in trouble to start with. As HW, vote stacking on that stupid song got the first block, which s/h/it evaded non-stop, which got new blocks, and that led to the new identity, the next new identity, the next one, and now this one. I don't think the user ever served the first block, and that's what's important. Take the medicine. At least this time the creature is asking for an unblock: that's progress. Geogre 11:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Beer

Here's another glass so you don't miss out. Next time I'm at the pub I'll get a photo of Fursty Ferret the best beer in the world and share that one too! Sophia 00:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! ...Fursty Ferret? I'm not sure I could order that with a straight face. KillerChihuahua 08:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In over my head

(From my talk page, a while ago:) please let me know if I can ever assist you, and do not think you are "wasting" my time!

Well... perhaps there is. It all started with a minor disagreement which set my nose off, raising some questions and prompting me to put an article up for deletion, where someone pointed out a previous ruling which is relevant if the editor is who some other people think he is (I'm not sure).

Is it possible for someone with fancy adminny detective tools and no interest in the actual subject (and I assume you are such a one) tell me whether my nose is correct? I'm not asking for any intervention here, just maybe a direction (give it up, or stick to it, or have a biscuit...) If you have some time, it would be appreciated.

Thanks! --Dan 17:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Try WP:RFCU -Admins in general do not have CheckUser tools. Otherwise, I see no errors you have made - it is a good-faith Afd nom, and the community will decide on the article. It does not appear to be faring well. Was there a more specific question which I am failing to answer? I'm not quite sure if I have addressed your concerns. KillerChihuahua 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I see! My mistake about the detective tools, then, sorry. Thank you for the pointer!
From the RFCU page:
1. ...checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first.
6. Evasion of bans or other arbitration remedies: may be listed where the problem is ongoing. Include a link to the closed case.
9. Vote fraud: only where (a) there is reasonable doubt as to whether or not the votes are valid (b) the vote or discussion period has closed, and (c) the possible sockpuppet votes actually affect the outcome of a decision. Provide a link to the closed vote and discussion.
9 makes it sound like I should wait for the AfD vote to close and see what the result is. 6 makes it sound like I should go there right now -- people aren't going to care about AfD, people will want to address the ArbCom ruling. 1. makes it sound like I ought to do something else entirely, or perhaps nothing -- people aren't going to care enough. (Coincidentally, this is roughly my own feeling about it already: a) I ought to take up the general case, b) forget the general case, I ought to deal with the one or two articles I care about only, c) forget it, this isn't at all what I signed up for.)
Understanding now that you have no special access to info, might I still trouble you for an opinion? Policy pages can say one thing or another, but without experience it's not easy to tell the relative importance people are going to attach to them in practice. I have been around a while, to be sure, but generally I'm minding my own business and not even logging in most of the time. I have no experience with ArbCom remedies, AfD, checkuser, or anything at all like this. I rather blundered into it.
Thanks again for your time! Cheers, --Dan 16:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Equinox

Just thought I'd let you know, Eternal Equinox continues to dodge the block you issued against him/her. HeyNow10029 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's EE. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It's probably him. The IP address' contribution page has an edit made to User talk:Eternal_Equinox on May 30, edits to We Belong Together and his usual sunny comments in several edit summaries. Plus it fits EE's M.O. to constantly revert changes I've made to pages. HeyNow10029 21:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It's possible, of course, but this is quite out of character; in the past, when she's talked to herself one-puppet-to-another (which I've seen quite a few times) the tone is quite different. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe s/he was trying out a new tactic? Who knows. I gather most of what s/he has done anyway is mostly a ploy for attention. ::shrugh:: HeyNow10029 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It just seems more plausible to me that the anon is simply someone who likes neither EE nor you, though. And if someone thinks it's to early to archive a talk page, you should probably just go along with that, or archive only the older items. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
What puzzles me, HeyNow, is that your beef with E.E has nothing to do with her being uncivil. You are simply against her because of a stupid edit war you had over Kelly Clarkson, in which you were clearly in the wrong. And what's also stupid is this cat-and-mouse game you have where you list all of E.E's images for deletion because she/he was against you placing 4 images in kelly clarkson (and even though Admins see this, they do nothing. After all, its EE right? She deserves to be treated unfairly because she has been a pian to some). You all prance around here like some civilized upstanding citizens, but believe me, there is such a thing as karma, and if you ask me, both Heynow and EE deserve to be banned permanently. This type of behaviour does nothing for both of you, nor for WP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.196.21.5 (talkcontribs) .
Thank you, "anonymous" user (who just happens to have an IP address in the same range as Eternal Equinox and just happens to have coincidentally made an edit to Eternal's talk page) for that "unbiased" account. And for the record, the 3 images that I listed for deletion were not uploaded by E.E. but by two other Wikipedians. Lastly, no one has treated you unfairly Eternal; frankly, it's shocking the amount of patience the admins have had when it comes to your special case. From your your threats to sue, your 3RR violations and trolling websites you have no interest in to make edits purely out of spite, your continuous blatant disregard of the ban that's been imposed on you or calling people bitches and telling them to fuck off -- they've bent over backwards to assist your childish behavior. ::shrug:: I have plenty more to say, but why bother? HeyNow10029 04:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what, HeyNow? You really need to just exclude yourself from things that really do not concern you. Since you are so adamant in your claim that the IP is Eternal's, I thought that I'd let you know that its me, User: Journalist (and if you don’t believe me, just get a check user to prove it). It's good to see how you watch Eternal and point out every one of her mistakes, like you have been peachy since you came here. Believe me, I do not condone her behaviour. She has done some horrible things, but these things have not been unprovoked by you (see Talk:Kelly Clarkson, which you continue to revert in an attempt to hide (and haven't you also violated the 3RR at least twice?)) and many others here. Yes, the two images that you nominated were not uploaded by E.E, but she was using them in her articles (like Image:Weddingdress.jpg from WBT. (By the way, I will be re-uploading it).), and you chose to 'get back at her' by nominating them. None of what you have done have been in good faith.

I'm not here to make a case for E.E. Frankly, I want nothing to do with her, as was clear by my edits (you know which ones). But I find it hard to just sit back when self-righteous people like you (and everyone else involved in this whole matter) treat someone unfairly because he or she is helpless. And for the record, E.E probably wasn't trolling S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897. Having worked with her, I really have to admit that she really is that picky (, , , , ). However, none of you would see that. Afterall, you all were looking for the first chance to institute a block. (I was about to protest it, but E.E made the situation worse by cursing).

You have plenty more to say HeyNow? Please, let loose, 'cause so do I. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 17:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)