User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive01

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

This archive page covers approximately through Jan 6, 2005.

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

---

Meelar's welcome message

Hello KillerChihuahua/Archive01 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

• To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
• Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
• If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
• Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
• Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
• Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Proximity Effect

Hello, KillerChihuahua! I saw your note regarding Proximity Effect. What you can do is to create a disambiguation page, making links to different articles to each subject. If something doesn't deserve an article, you can just write one or two sentences on the disambiguation page. Be sure to add {{disambig}} to mark the page as a disambiguation page. Then you can create the articles; for example, you could create Proximity Effect (band) (if it's notable enough), Proximity Effect (comic), and then Proximity Effect (theory). If the theory is by far the most well-known, then, you can have it at Proximity Effect, and just put a note at the top saying "For other uses, please see Proximity Effect (disambiguation). I sure hope that makes sense. In addition, if you want to get input from other Wikipedians, you may wish to try peer review. If you have any further questions, don't hesistate to contact me (click on the "A note?" link in my signature and edit that page), or ask the help desk. Once again, welcome! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 14:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Maryville Middle School

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryville Middle School appears in danger of being trumped by a conspicuous and concerted effort on the part of deletionists. Please review the nomination and vote at your convenience.--Nicodemus75 06:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Killer - Thanks for you note about my adminship and the note on the Copyvio's page. People are of two minds about these things. Some admins want to remove the copyright violation edits from the history, others are happy to leave them there. If you stumble on a page that is copyright violation and the issues are sorted out you can either: (a) remove the listing from the copyvio page or (b) make a note that the issues have been sorted out and let whomever comes across it deal with it. Given how far behind we are dealing with copyvio's I'd say (a) is better, although (b) is less likely to make someone mad.  :) Always a trade off! Have a good day! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The bad name for the "List of high value detainees" article

I chose a bad name for that article. But I believe the wikipedia needs an article that covers the detainees who are held in "civilian" custody, by the CIA or other intelligence agencies, as opposed to those being held by the military. Really senior elements of the al qaeda leadership, when captured, didn't end up in military custody. The three I listed are not held in Cuba. From my reading I gather there are dozens of others.

And, if Dick Cheney gets his way, their interrogations will be exempted from the restriction John McCain is trying to impose, that detainees interrogations can only use techniques authorized in the Army's field manual on interrogation. I think that alone merits separate articles for the two classes of detainees.

Please let me know if I have addressed all your concerns. -- Geo Swan 18:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. KillerChihuahua

RFC comments

No complaints at all, you're right to wrangle us back to the topic. And thanks for your efforts. It's best to let the evidence speak for itself. FeloniousMonk 00:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Scientific theory

Hi KC,

I just heard an interesting 10 minute piece on the nature of scientific theory on the radio. I think you'll be able to get at it here [1] some time in the next week.

I am curious to discuss why ID is not a theory. But if there's a risk of enflaming the RfC then I suggest we wait, and return to this issue later.

Apologies for not responding earlier.

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Proximity effect

That the effect would increase resistance makes sense to me, especially if the power increases. It is a significant change to the meaning, but I think it's right.

By the way, you can ask questions like this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, where lots of physicists in different fields hang out. It's sometimes more productive than tracking down individuals. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not taking advantage: I like it when people ask me questions. I was just pointing out a larger resource you can take advantage of if you like. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Consensus

While I understand your point about consensus, I think you have to see that my position isn't in regards to a given line but rather the overall format of the article itself, its framework. Think of it this way: Say the Able Danger page, which in its early stages I was intent on keeping from falling into the hands of idealogues, was structured like this: Able Danger

Clinton defenses

Clinton Defense A

Rebuttal

Clinton Defense B

Rebuttal

Clinton Defense C

Rebuttal

Clinton Criticism

Clinton Criticism A

Clinton Criticism B

Clinton Criticism C

I would heavily object to that, as the very framework provides for the inordinant amount of input by (oft misguided) Clinton critics. I hope this illuminates my point. Trilemma 22:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

replied on Trilemma's talk page. KillerChihuahua 00:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

But what makes you think I'm not willing to listen? I've listened (well, read), I just still think I am right :) Trilemma 01:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

replied on Trilemma's talk page. KillerChihuahua 01:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I think the ID discussion page must already be one of the largest on wikipedia, and it'll only get larger...Trilemma 01:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

US extrajudicial prisoners

Well, perhaps that would have worked, but the correct process for the type of referendum you suggest would have been to vote on it at WP:RFC . I decided to be bold and use the term "extrajudicial" which is the proper term and more to the point. CIA is besides the point, and not entirely correct -- the recent WashPost article (and our black site article) refers to a secretive Pentagon "intelligence" org. Hence "CIA" is overly specific. Likewise titles referencing Guantanamo Bay Cuba are overly specific, as are (as I said on the talk) references to the term "value" are POV. Likewise the use of the term "detainees" is POV. Ive had some success over the years with renaming titles to suit concerned parties -- this move may be agreeable. (crossposted to talk)/-St|eve 22:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network

Hi! As per AfD suggestions, I rewrote the ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network article. Since you voted there, I thought you'd like to know. --William Pietri 03:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert on ID

No worries, thanks for clearing that up! --Brendanfox 03:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic stereotypes

I much appreciate your comments. Ill take a closer look tomorrow. -St|eve 09:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed

...for a puppy you're very subtle. FeloniousMonk 16:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Awards

I rewarded User:KillerChihuahua for his her contributions to Media and ethnicity and its related sociological subjects. I don't know how to make tables, so the awards placement looks quite messy. You could fix it though. -- Ratherford Skills

Duncharris

Hi KC,

Just FYI. Dunc has been RFC'd: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris.

I know we have different views of him, so I thought you might like to make a comment.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for your support on my RFA, I hope I live up to the expectations and honour of the role. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve block (talk • contribs)

Re: Thanks and please stick around! (ID)

Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. Sanity and reason are exactly what I hope I can bring to the table on these pages. You seem to be doing the same thing, so thank you for making the wiki a better place. -Parallel or Together ? 15:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

You wrote:

Ed cannot seem to maintain neutrality or remain reasonable regarding evolution. I agree that he should recuse himself from this subject, and possibly create a website elsewhere if he feels his POV must be heard. WP is not the forum for this - and his abuse of admin privileges in order to push his POV is disconcerting, to say the least.

Please review suggestions at Wikipedia:avoid personal remarks and also the WP:NPA policy page.

Accusing me of the "abuse of admin privileges in order to push his POV" is a violation of civility rules at this web site. If you believe you have a case, feel free to haul me before the arbcom, but don't slander me on an AFD discussion page.

I have NEVER pushed my own POV at Wikipedia, and I challenge you to show even ONE edit in recent months where you feel I have done so. Uncle Ed 22:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think KC's comment was accurate and relevant, and so does not rise to the level of a personal attack. As for pushing POV, your record speaks for itself. FeloniousMonk 22:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Raising a question about POV and admin abuse is not a personal attack: That is legitimate concern. As the quote you use comes from the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Unguided_evolution, I would hope it would be fairly clear that my POV concern is about the creation of the article itself, which is listed on Afd precisely because it is POV. Further, your blocking of Joshuaschroeder due to an edits disagreement has come under serious criticism from several editors, and I was merely concurring with them. Why was I singled out for your accusation of personal attack? KillerChihuahua 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

1. You didn't raise a question but made an accusation. The warning stands: I suggest you heed it.
2. I am also warning you about disruption of this web site: you are implying that an article which describes a point of view should automatically be deleted. If you work to have an article deleted, merely because it describes a POV which you oppose, this will disrupt our project. If you wish to claim membership in the Wikipedia community, I warn you not to do this. Uncle Ed 00:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering that KC's raised valid concerns in a constructive manner, this warning and your subsequent comments are only fuel to the fire of the concerns voiced in the community about you possibly bullying others. By continuing to mischaracterize legitimate questions raised about whether your actions constitute bullying as "personal attacks" that demand "Warnings", you merely confirm the suspicions of those who raise them, Ed. Stop and think about it for a moment. FeloniousMonk 00:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe these comments to be out of line, Ed. It is inappropriate to continue claiming personal attacks every time someone criticizes your actions. Take their advice to heart, instead of making vaguely threatening statements. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to assume that you are a little sensitive to this subject, and pass over your hostile attitude towards me. A POV fork is specifically against policy guidelines, as I'm sure you, with your far greater experience here than myself, are aware. I did not by any measure intend to imply anything even close to your interpretation of my post: "an article which describes a point of view should automatically be deleted" I don't know how you got that from what I posted. I can only say that implication was not intended and if you read it there then I would have appreciated it if you had confirmed that, or tried to assume good faith, or at the very least looked at the remark in context. I am not "working to have an article deleted" I am merely expressing my take on the Afd, as I have done for many articles. I don't "work" to have them deleted, I enter my take and allow the procedure and the community to decide. As far as POV as covered in articles, I am as neutral as I have it in my power to be. I do not think creating POV forks is in WPs best interest, though, and in that I am also following WP policy guidelines as already mentioned. What project am I disrupting by any of this? And what do you mean by your warning? Since I don't agree I did half of what you say I did, and I don't understand the rest of what you're saying I'm doing, warning me not to do "this" isn't very illuminating. And I do consider myself a member of the WP community. KillerChihuahua 00:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Forget about this "Uncle Ed" fellow, he seems to place his preference for not being offended/opposed on an issue over the general right to free speech. --Cyde 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comanche addition

Hey, remember not to try to comment (or add) when you're in the middle of trying to prevent revert wars, being accused of personal attacks on your talk page, and sleep deprived. (Well, you said to remind you....)

You were right, though - it was two (or five, I suppose, but definitely not four). I can see why 64.218.194.120 was confused, though, and I figured it was worth changing so as to avoid such mistakes in the future. TheMadBaron 02:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic stereotypes in American media

ARGGHHH! Nightmare. I'll have a look later. Right now, I gotta go do some real work.... TheMadBaron 03:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben vs Ben

Hi KC,

I suspect you're right.

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mindmatrix scam adminship

I have recently been granted greater access to your systems, and can begin the process of salvaging the sensitive information from my politically unstable land, as I promised. Please accept this loonie as a token of faith that I will conduct myself as required to complete our transaction. (I know it's not the $2.5M you requested, but it's a start.) Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix 20:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Help a newcomer? :)

I remember reading a page about citation policy and practices yesterday, but can't find it now. Mind pointing me? Also, I see discussion of this AfD nomination, but can't figure out where voting happens (or do only administrators vote?). Airumel 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Already answered on User's talk page. KillerChihuahua 21:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Only the second part. ;) Airumel 21:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolution

KC, does everyone who refers to "evolution" regard it as being unguided? Uncle Ed 18:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Replied on Ed's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?

Please comment on Guided evolution, which I just wrote. Uncle Ed 18:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Church of Reality has one Member

I have a problem with Wikipedia making the false statement that the Church of Reality has only one member. This is a false statement locked in here by the admins. Almost 100 people complained about this and their complaints were deleted and ignored. So - how do these clearly false statements get fixed? --Marcperkel 19:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Any statements on an Afd page is kept. That is so people can review the Afd information. Secondly, WP is not making any statement - the editor and admin Fastfission made the allusion "apparently sole member". You can try to change his mind, but that's probably a waste of time, and it certainly won't make any difference to a closed Afd.

What exactly do you want to know how to do? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Chihuahua

Hello Chihuahua, thanx for mentioning these pillars od Wikipedia,I will check it all later. Intersting views on your persona page on releigion.Bye, -Bibo 02:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Bibo

Thanks

Thanks for the appreciation, I'm glad that others share my sense of humor. Avengerx 18:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

You missed quite a bit, but then again, you really didn't miss anything at all. FeloniousMonk 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, its good to be back. It was ice and snow and awful stuff like that in NC. The new niece is nice, though.

Regarding what I missed: Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing?

KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. FeloniousMonk 17:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolution and crap

That's not my article, I'm the one who VFD'ed it. If you're going to write such long diatribes in people's talk pages, make sure you put it in the RIGHT person's talk page. -Drdisque 17:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• replying on user talk page:

Thanks and apologies: I grabbed the wrong name, an obvious lesson to me not to multitask so much. That said, I would have appreciated a little courtesy - surely you have made at least one mistake in your life? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I came off so rude, I'm apparently good at it. I'm not a fan of confronting people about the content of their contributions on their talk pages in general, so when I found it in my talk page for a page I not only didn't create, but that I dislike probably as much as you do, I got a bit miffed. Sorry to come out so harsh, and yes, I make mistakes, I think I've made like 11 ;) . -Drdisque 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No harm done, and thank you for your prompt and gracious reply! I seem to have stepped on several toes at once, no wonder you were a bit terse! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Theistic evolution redirect

Just noticed that you've been doing some straightening out of redirects from Evolutionary creationism. Immediately beforehand I found that the title is currently under discussion following a move without consensus: see Talk:Theistic evolution. It appears to be up in the air at the moment, so I'd leave it alone now until the dust settles: hope not too much wasted effort. ...dave souza 22:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

replied on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?

You beat me to it

You beat me to reverting the latest distortions on evolution by a second or two. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 14:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

if I counted the number of times you beat me to reversions, I... well, I'd be counting for a while. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Haha, are you a general Wikipedia vandalism fighter or only on the evolution articles? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 14:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I do RC patrol, and have several "much vandalized" articles on my watchlist. Capital punishment always gets hit whenever there is an execution, Abortion gets hit from both sides (murdering hell-bound whores vs. right wing male bigots perpetuating female oppression), Evolution and Intelligent design, and oddly enough, Tupac Shakur keeps me very, very busy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oddly enough Chuck Norris gets hit a lot too. I don't even bother with vandalism on George W. Bush or Wikipedia; those are such high-profile topics that 90% of the time I "revert" only to find that someone else has already gotten it through. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 14:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Same here - Don't have any of the official "top 10" most vandalized on my watch list SFAIK. Chuck, huh? Weird. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Goodandevil

I don't think it's come to that just yet, but its getting towards there.--Tznkai 17:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

If you are in, could you check your e-mail and get back to me by e-mail. Much thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to straight-up vandalism.

Please note, the 3RR is for legitimate content disputes - it does not apply to the reversion of nonsense additions, page blanking, or other such vandalism. Revert away! Cheers! BD2412 T 15:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

such a simple concept

"Please refrain from conjecture about the religious beliefs of editors. This does nothing to improve the article, Intelligent design, and wastes space. Depending upon phrasing, it is often a violation of WP:NPA as well. Please be civil. The near-constant accusations of "athiest" and "fundie" and variations thereof are disruptive"

KC, I've tried explaining that, FM's tried, Guettarda's tried, Dave's tried as well, but to no avail. What the heck is so hard about understanding such a simple concept? It's getting quite frustrating. Jim62sch 17:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bob Roop

Great job on the article. The version I speedied had only "Bob Roop is an American wrestler, retired from his career in 1980." So, I don't think anyone would speedy your version. WP:CSD stipulates you should delete articles that give no assertion of notability. When users create such small articles it's hard to assert notability. Don't worry about yours, and keep up the good work. gren グレン 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks - I just notified you out of courtesy, in case you watch articles you've speedied - I actually wish more Admins would, because so darn many of them are immediately re-created.

Your name is Glen? In Kanjii? Curious, why? KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Try to be civil

Please try to be civil. When multiple people are editing, comments can disappear without any intent. You assume bad faith, which as you know is un-wiki.Goodandevil 14:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You deliberately deleted Tznkai's post [[2]], that is all you did with that edit, and your edit summary read "do not archive comments selectively - archiving is done when the comments are old, not when you don't like them - play nice" when all Tznkai did was state, quite correctly, that if nothing happened in that section for 24 hours he was going to archive. Your deletion of his very polite announcement of his intentions was completely unacceptable. If you felt it should not be archived, the correct way to handle that would be to post an answer to Tznkai's post asking him not to archive yet. There has been a breach of civility, but it was your deletion of that post. KillerChihuahua^?!?

I find it strange that Goodandevil is willing to plead, "Play nice," when he or she seems perfectly willing to endlessly engage in senseless edit wars, and to continue pushing the issue even after multiple users have said, "Enough!" It's like 214 all over again. I am really, really having a hard time maintaining AGF. -Kyd 14:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What I find even stranger is that all I did was put back Tzn's post, tell Goodandevil not to delete other user's posts, and his response is to tell me to be civil. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Please See

Have I been feeding a troll? Maybe I am being too civil? :) Or did I somehow messing something up with an edit conflict? It has been known to happen. -Parallel or Together? 14:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

all I can say is, view history on article. GE has started a massive edit war against consensus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I can see it. I hope you don't mind me jumping in to help reinforce that consensus! -Parallel or Together? 14:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all. Actually, I was the one who first ran afoul of Goodandevil, and I was rather convinced that I, in my own stubborness, had stepped out of line and started the edit war on November 29, 2005. However, now I'm not so sure. Goodandevil is proving to be rather uncooperative in nature. The fact that I'm not backing down isn't helping, I know, but it's at least reassuring to know that I'm not thinking this way. -Kyd 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

WP is clear about this - you are bold, fine. If someone reverts you take it to Talk, per WP:BRD, you don't start a revert war. You and I asked GE to take it to talk, GE ignored us both. This on a subject that GE knew was already on talk. No, its a violation of WP:EW and WP:CON. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I do feel slightly guiltly for being pushed to fight fire with fire (i.e. to revert the constant mass-reversions). However, I'm otherwise quite a timid editor, as the fact that I submit almost every major revision I make for editor approval on Talk first will attest. -Kyd 15:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Time to RFC? I don't see GE stepping into line of his or her own volition — not after a deliberate act of vandalism. -Kyd 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate doing that, but it really is beginning to look like it. Let's give it another try, on GE's talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, GE is back for another round in the edit war, this time under the IP 84.146.213.254. I accused of sockpuppetry, but, apparently, he or she is at another computer. I'll AGF on that one. However, this user is persisting in an edit war, and previous requests for cooperation have proven ineffective. -Kyd 18:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Biology

Thanks for neat work on the Biology part of the Ark entry.Carrionluggage 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitol punishment

Well, a spellcheck (even the kind that holds a witch's spell in check) can't catch capitol punishment vs capital punishment. Capitol punishment is what the U.S. is undergoing nowadays, one might say - anyway it parses. I find that spelling checkers turn things like "turnkey operation" into "turn key operation" and "he used to copy right and left" into "he used to copyright and left." Carrionluggage 05:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem

My apologies as well if I took that wrongly. Let us relegate this incident to the dustbins of history. --DocJohnny 21:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Hello. I stopped with the Ark because I felt you had it under control. I don't usually fuss with Intelligent Design because it is argued in so many fora, and I felt I would be lost in a sea of endless bickering. I have dealt to some degree with Irreducible Complexity on the talk-page (see item about cats vs mousetraps - maybe I will move it to the main page there if I did not already. I think I had put some stuff on a Freudian analysis of the Flood legend someplace - it is a desire to return to the womb - I had an analysis of Rock of Ages which is amusing when you hear and watch (as I have) a congregation of fundamentalists with polished pates or fancy hairdos sing it on Sunday, not realizing that they are expressing a desire to re-enter their mother's womb ("Let me hide myself in Thee") ("Cleft for me" obviously refers to the female cleavage). I also related Christian Rebirth to Shamanism (acolyte's ceremonial passage between shaman's legs). I think someone took both of these out - I can't fuss everywhere with reversion wars. I devote most of my more lucid attempts to dealing with one of the rational members of the Kansas School Board and a small contribution to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, as well as to the ACLU, etc. Finally, as you pointed out, I was putting all my eggs, so to speak, in one Ark - it's better to diversify. I tried to look at the POV/NPOV link you suggested and it takes a lot of background to make any sense of it. Maybe someday. Thanks - also for the jibe about luggage on the Ark. .... Carrionluggage 19:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I seldom say "thanks" when I don't mean it - the jibe was funny and it took me a while to connect up ark and luggage I think, which made it even better. You wrote: "You might want to at least take a look at the poll itself. Sorry about the luggage on the Ark joke if you were offended - KillerChihuahua?!? 11:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)" but I do not really know how to find the poll. If you e-mail me back a link, I'll peek - but it may that thing I tried to read and got lost in. It was at [3]

Is that what you mean? It might take a passel of space lawyers, partially sedated mental health therapists, and retired Lance Ito's (if they come in the plural) to make anything out of it. This is moving from Ad Hominum to Ad Hum-Hum. Carrionluggage 23:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Capital punishment

There seems to be a consensus to move stuff from Capital punishment to Execution (legal) (or at least, no-one's arguing yet), so, er, what's the protocol? Can I just copy, paste and delete, or is it a complex and tedious procedure involving the use of weird and wonderful admin tools to move relevant parts of the history? TheMadBaron 18:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Copy, paste delete works best when leaving part of the article in the original location, and moving part to an existing article. Sorry, there is no mystical and magical tool which will work in this instance. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Miracle

No problem.. Thanks for the alert!! --Pranathi 23:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I be glad to oblige. If I can't I can maybe point to other editors more knowledgeable on the subject. I agree with you on the imbalance but there are many factors assignable to it. --Pranathi 23:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem here either. Tell me if you need any more help in contributions. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Galicia

KC, a thousand thanks (in keeping with the Galician spirit :) ) Jim62sch 01:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. Let me know if you need any further help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

There is a neutrality dispute in the discussion page for Faith and rationality. Why are you removing the emblem/tag for the entry page that indicates there is an ongoing discussion? --Jason Gastrich 20:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

One person (you) pushing a POV does not a neutrality dispute make. Considering that you've taken this to the Mediation Cabal here and already received a resounding "nope, no POV here!" response from more than one mediator editor, why do you contine to place that tag on the article? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You're incorrect. Zero mediators have commented. Look again. --Jason Gastrich 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You're incorrect about my POV pushing. I want to make the article nPOV and I want to discuss it.

You're also incorrect about removing the nPOV tag. It is designed to indicate there is a discussion underway. You have no business removing it. --Jason Gastrich 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida.

I noticed from Category:Wikipedians in Florida that you are a floridian and I have created a state wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida. So far is it very small but it could be expanded later. Join it if you want and help set tasks etc. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Best Wishes

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2006, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher." P.S. Jesus loves you more than you can know. See John 3:16 for more info. RossNixon 00:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas. It's been fun working with you the last couple months. I'm looking forward to more fun in the New Year. All the best! Guettarda 14:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to say best wishes to the lady as well Ratherford Skills

Mediator response: Faith and rationality

I have to admit that I endorse Sarek's view. There is nothing objectionable in there. Like other user said it seems a pretty balanced statement of the subject.

Don't put the neutrality dispute tag on the page, you may have your discussion about the things that are POV also on talk page. Bonaparte talk 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I just wanted you to see my answer from the Cabal room. That was my original answer. Wish you all the best. :) -- Bonaparte talk 17:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Intelligent Design category

Thank you for your support. :) Staxringold 01:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I was eating dinner or I'd have helped sooner! KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD

Is there any reason that you accused me of trying to delete the article while it was on AfD? I'm the one who made sure it was {{protected}} during the vote, so travb (talk · contribs), would stop trying to blank it--Petral 03:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh bother, I misread... too darn many posts close together. My apologies, I will go correct. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I NEVER tried to blank it I tried to move it, does "blank it" including adding a redirect, and a link? which the record is clear. I deserve an apology from you, for being accused of being a liar by you.Travb 04:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is the troll?

Sorry for being dense, but are you calling me a troll, or calling the other guy a troll. If you are calling me a troll, Why? And if you are calling the other guy a troll. I know.

Do you know how to redirect an afd? Travb 04:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Its a pain. And unfortunately, I need to go to bed - its late here. Ask for help on the help desk, maybe? WP:HD KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL you are an insominiac too, so much for going to bed.

I appreciate your comments on my talk page, I just want to put this nasty episode behind me.

No hard feelings--was I the troll or the other guy? I am just curious. If it was me, please explain why--no hard feelings. Maybe I can change my behavior if it was me, but I gotta know the problem before I can change it.Travb 11:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

He was trolling, you bit. If you'd been the troll, I would have told him not to feed. This is basic logic, you didn't have to ask me. Why would I tell you not to feed a troll, and not tell him, unless he was the troll in my assessment? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember the mix up[4]? That made me scratch my head.

It appears the other guy was confused[5], after your post he started calling me a troll on several pages, thinking you were calling me a troll.

I thought all along that you were calling the other guy a troll, but I wanted to make sure. In edit/flame wars I have learned the hard way never too assume anything, or it comes back to haunt you.

Unfortunatly I have seen many of that are voting for deletion, they are right wing folks who I have seen in passing before.

Anyway, thanks for your support, comments, and answering my question. I appreciate it. Travb 12:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

RE: Catholic Alliance

I removed your comment from the talk page, as I think its uneeded, and is likley (if accidently) to cause some strife.--Tznkai 18:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I debated myself; as I was uncertain about the comment, I am happy to accept your judgment on this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much

When I think of all of us who worked together so hard for so long, I think of the line from Henry V We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

It was a fun ride, wasn't it? So thanks you guys, that meant a lot to me.

Who did the Thelonious with a mop artwork? Brilliant! FeloniousMonk 08:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Trophies

No problem, I've had those pictures on my hard drive since Thanksgiving... I kept meaning to upload them and finally got off my lazy ass tonight :)  ALKIVAR™ 13:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator response

The edits on Creationism should be put in other places. Mainly this is on physics topics and there are a lot of other possibilities to create new articles on Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics. I am waiting your response.

• I suggest you create new articles for Creationism and relationship with/or/and second law of thermodynamics and let the article of second law of thermodynamics free of ambiguous links. -- Bonaparte talk 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Religious Bias

Nice reading on your User page. I would like to note that in an article on Buddhism in a recent edition of National Geographic, it was stated that Buddhism is, in fact, on the rise in both Western nations as well as China (where its practice was suppressed for quite some time.

Just some thoughts. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 14:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Request

want to help my articles? --Jingofetts 18:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I will help with specific requests. Currently, I have over 200 articles on my watchlist, as well as several projects, templates, policies, and guidelines. Please read all the links in the welcome message, and if you have specific questions ask them here and I will be glad to answer if I can. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What did you have in mind Chihuahua? --Jingofetts 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Me? I didn't ask to help, you are asking for help - if you have a question, please ask it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ESPN NFL 2K5 needs some cleanup. thanks. --Jingofetts 18:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I suggest you clean it up. Have fun, and let me know if you have specific questions about how to do something. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

point taken

thanks for removing it--Petral 20:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, and thank you for taking the removal in the spirit in which it was meant! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Yo, KC. It's "progenitor". Graft 23:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I did mention the whole spelling-disabled thing, did I not? Please feel free to fix any spelling errors you see me make (with my thanks.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Watchlist

Hehe yes, I stalk many people. Actually I have my preferences set so that every page I edit automatically is added to my watchlist. I must have reverted vandalism on your user page or left you a message at some point. Actually come to think of it, it was probably when Ed Poor was trying to harass you and I was getting annoyed. Having this preference set is great, as I can keep track of pages I edit. It also means I can keep an eye on vandalism of the user pages of users I've talked to, as well as stay up on some happenings as well. But it also means that my watchlist slowly increases in size, and when I come to Wikipedia after a long time, especially after a 24+ hour shift, way too much has happened on my watchlist. So periodically I prune it...should probably do that soon! — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I started that a month or so ago, I think. I really dislike when people reply on their own talk page. I'm of the philosophy that if you want to leave me a message, leave it on my talk page; I have neither the time nor interest to hunt down replies. It comes down to courtesy, really. Though the page is on my watchlist, I don't always remember whom I've left messages for, and if there's another edit after their reply I might not see it. On the other hand, only placing messages the recipient's page has problems too with fragmenting the conversation—placing it in both places seems logical. Anyway, yes, Ed's comment was way over the top. It's a shame he was desysopped although I'm convinced it was a good decision and will lead to less stress for him and for everyone else. I'm sure he'll return with fresh views on how to tackle these matters, and I look forward to his return. Ed's problem is that he really wants what's best for Wikipedia and he's convinced that his ideas are what's best for Wikipedia. I don't think he really intends to act so inappropriately, but he's been here so long and invested so much into Wikipedia that he has some strong ideas about what's best (I have to admit, so do I, and they don't always concide with the community's ideas—though I try to keep that under control). When he returns hopefully we can do a better job of respecting all he's done for Wikipedia while gently steering him away from too much trouble. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiThanks

WikiThanks from Dalbury^(Talk) for your help over the last couple of days.

Oh, thank you for the flower! Anytime I can help, let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 03:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

disorientation

Thanks for your comment - no problem with the late reply - I have limited patience for tomes anyway. As a disoriented ambisinistrous astro-klutz, I suggest you add any late comments - or any at all if you like - at the bottom of my talk page. I fished for a while to find your note. Have a safe and sane New Years, and Jan 2, and Jan 3 - and keep it up. Carrionluggage 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Tut, Tut, Mr. Carrion - I figgered "what's the diff" and missed the diff link. From now on, forewarned is forearmed. Thanks Carrionluggage 07:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Kwanza

Noticing a lot of activity over there. On a short break from that particular mess, as no one seems to be willing to listen to what I have to say, but willing to get back in the mix if you need help--Tznkai 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There was a revert war with Goodandevil yesterday. It is over for now, but certainly has enough data in edit history for an Rfc. The third time G&E pulls this I may well ask for help putting one together, that editor has brought nothing to this project but strife. Thanks for the offer - I will call on you if a sane head is needed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

KillerChihuahuas in the news

[6] :) --Syrthiss 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

hehehe, glad you liked it. I had a thought only after I linked it here that perhaps you had chosen your username after an incident where you were attacked by chihuahuas, and I would be inadvertently causing you undue stress. :/ --Syrthiss 21:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No, no trauma concerning small rodent like canines in my history. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Bizarro World

LOL, thanks, and happy new year to you also. Yes I am working with Warner for a 2007 release of "My Talk Page: The Movie" lol. Thanks, but I'm cool. Anyway that guy's been referred to the admins now. Um what was on your mind? Herostratus 22:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Right, Goodandevil. Yeah, I happened to be down at Vandalism and I saw that she had reported one of the users who was reverting her as vandal (!). Which was out of line. So I checked out Kwanzaa quickly and got a pretty good idea of her case. So yeah I was giving her a kind of wrist-slap on that, mild because I don't know the situation and I was kind of just butting in, but definitely a wrist-slap, you know, saying Hey don't do that. (I felt like adding "I assume you're African-American. You'd better be." Can't do that though...) Herostratus 22:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, swell. A freeper? Just what we need. If she is Notwithstanding, that's a serious thing -- calling for 100 people to vandalize! However, no way to prove, I guess. I'll ask her, though. And people aren't liable for anything they do outside of Wikipedia, I guess. She's not going to GET 100 vandals so I wouldn't worry too much. I can't think of anyone else to do, really, except watch. I'll put her attacked pages on my watchlist, too, to help out. One thing, though: I noticed that she violated 3RR. She should definitely get a warning template on her user page whenever she does that or any other vandalism. The templates (listed here: Template:TestTemplates) are Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you., followed by You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on an article. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. , followed by an immediate entry on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, followed by a block, rinse and repeat. You have to place the warning templates before you can ask for the administrator to block. As she's outnumbered, she'll have to either triple-revert or give up. Herostratus 08:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Betcha I've placed more of those than you have.... KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

med 2

So, uh, what's up with the below? Hell, I've made more edits to that page than you have. I mean the bottom line is simply that some people just don't know the scientific definition of entropy. If they did, they wouldn't proceed with their specious arguments. Boy, all this talk about entropy sure creates a lot of chaos, huh? Jim62sch 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A brief history: Request made by: Ignignot 18:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC) on Request for cabal mediation, naming myself as well as others. I filled out my comment, FeloniousMonk filled out a comment, Tisthammerw filled out a comment (not necessarily in that order.) I was never much of an editor of that page, although I have attempted to help out on this one issue, trying to determine a consensual version which addresses the two different views in a sensible manner. Bonaparte, without waiting for any other comments, gave his Mediator response, and his suggestion met with approval from no one, on my part because it did not address Wade and Dunc's position that this (creationist 2LOT argument) would be looked for on the 2LOT article, and did not address mine, which was that if there are to be links, it should not be linkspam and there should be something in the content to explain the darn links or else nothing should be added (per Ignignot), and Bonapartes solution was a POV fork. His solution also did not address Ignignot's concern about the validity of the creationist stuff on the 2LOT article. In short, he did not mediate. He read 3 comments and issued a decision, which was acceptable, so far as I can tell, to none.

Then he started the questioning below, as you can see.

At 19:22, 5 January 2006 Bonaparte added a tag to the article, completely inappropriately, as it would lead readers to believe the accuracy of the article was in question and it is emphatically not in question (at this time, I cannot speak for the past or future.) I removed the tag here. Please note that the content in dispute is not even on the article at this time, and it is not an accuracy issue (except for minor quibbles by Wade), it is a placement issue. Look at the tag, it says "This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed. Some statements may be disputed or incorrect. The Mediation Cabal invites you to participate in the discussion. Please assume good faith, refrain from name calling and observe Wikiquette. "

As of 20:40, 5 January 2006 I have asked to be dropped from the mediation. It is not helping, it is in fact hindering. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Something tells me the mediator might need a lesson in mediating. As I know you know, mediation is not the simple Draconian handing down of a verdict, it requires careful thought, careful research, careful analysis (an ability to understand the subject matter might be a plus, too)

Alas, to me this is all, Mult zgomot pentru nimic. Jim62sch 23:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

mediation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_12_2005_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics

Have you all finish your comments? Did you reached an agreement yet? Bonaparte talk 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to tell me when exactly both parts think that will be over the agreement? Bonaparte talk 14:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That cannot possibly be a serious question. We will be done when we reach consensus, and not before. I have no crystal ball to predict when we will reach consensus on a complex issue which has caused edit wars and taken up an entire sub-page of the talk page over several months. This apparent desire of yours to cross something off a list, without investing any time or assisting in any way, is annoying. You're not helping. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't explain myself until the end. I was talking about the agreement on the issues that you still have to debate. I am talking about the list of all the issues that you have identified as the problem issues. When you have the list complete, by agreement of both parts I can mediate you. I don't want to begin until it's clear all the issues that you want to assist you in mediation. That's all. Thank you. You have to trust and assume good faith. I am sure you'll find a good, neutral solution. Keep in touch. Bonaparte talk 17:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I comprehend. Again the answer is no. Dunc and Tisthammerw have not entered comments have they? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. But they didn't edit either. Bonaparte talk 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't edit what? Are you looking at the right page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I'm looking at the right one :). Dunc and Tisthammerw haven't edit since 26, and 27 Dec. respectively. Bonaparte talk 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So you meant they haven't posted comments on the RFM or the article in 10 days, not they haven't edited the article? I confess your meaning is not clear to me.

1. Since you have been informed this issue has been going on for over a year, I would think you would realize 10 days is not a very long time.
2. Did you also check Talk history? Because Dunc at least has posted recently there regarding this issue.
3. If you meant you knew about those edits and entries (prior to 10 days ago), then why are you asking me if everyone is done entering comments, when you know full well they haven't?

KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I hope one year was enough don't you think? It's time for you to move on. Bonaparte talk 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Who, me? I have not been involved for a year. I was dragged into this by my heels. I also didn't open the RFM, although I have been trying to contribute to that. I have no idea why you are acting like I am central to all of this. I have over 3,000 edits and less than a dozen of those are to that article and its talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR and vandalism

Thanks for the explanation. Jim62sch 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Hello KC. Thank you for supporting my Rfa! :) I will try my best to be a good administrator. Please ask me if you need any help. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 06:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)