Jump to content

User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


SuzanneOlsson

A couple of weeks ago you blocked SuzanneOlsson (talk · contribs) for a week. Since returning she has continued her poor behaviour, including badgering and insulting other editors on talk pages. Perhaps you could take a look at her recent edit history and see if another block is appropriate, or whether we should consider taking her to ANI for a proposed topic ban. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban; editor is too close to the subject to edit neutrally, having written a book about it and having a website devoted to it, and continuing to promote a fringe POV unaccepted by serious historians, combined with personal attacks on editors who have tried to explain policy, specifically NOR, FRINGE, UNDUE, RS and V. Please feel free to quote me and link to this edit on ANI, I'm going to bed and won't be available to comment there. KillerChihuahua 03:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Apology, explanation of non-malicious intent, and description of resolve not to repeat offenses

I did have two accounts. I had set up one, then later, another with a name I preferred, but with no malicious intentions. The purpose was not ever that one account would manufacture support for the other. I was not doing it to provide support for one account under another account name. The posting on the talk page using the other user name was by accident (as you can see by the use of first person pronouns in that comment) My purposes were not any of the ones listed as "innappropriate uses of alternative accounts." The appearance of such a misuse was an accident, where I believed I was writing under the appropriate account, but was accidently signed in under the other. My wish to maintain honesty was shown by the fact that after I realised I was signed in on the otehr account, I exited and signed in under the other to sign the post with the actual more honest name. The whole thing was a mistake, but I truly did not do it with bad intentions.

It should have been obvious that if I created a second account this could easily happen. I should have thought it through.

I offer sincere apologies and emphasize that I will not repeat anything like this in the future.

I do wish to add that the edits about the American Psychological Association, and the UK Royal College were in order to correct the factual innaccuracy that was and is present on those pages. If you would folllow the links I had read, and read the actual statements by those two organizations, you would see that is the case. This is not ideology, this is about the accurate description of what those two associations actually said. The APA said that there are so many different experiences, that a global statement may be misleading. http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/mental-health.pdf The Royal College explicitly said that the data is inconclusive. http://www.nccmh.org.uk/publications_SR_abortion_in_MH.html The current paragraphs on Wilkipedia are innaccurate. I trust, that you are a person of integrity who will take the time to go to the actual statements and reports by those two organizations and see that is the case. I hope that someone other than me will edit the page for greater acuracy. Rivka3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, you socked, then you lied about it. I sincerely do hope you don't do it again; but if you do someone is likely to block not only this account but all your accounts. Have one account and be done. And don't lie; next time there is a question people will be far less likely to believe you. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt you've seen this SPI about us

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KillerChihuahua. Dougweller (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

BlackHades managed to find an old failed proposal that said accusations of meatpuppetry should be made at SPI, but then devoted the whole thing to me. Now rev/del'd by another Admin. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Why on earth did they rev/del??? Also, pity I missed this. This is what happens when I take the weekend off, darnit. I miss the really weird and fun stuff. KillerChihuahua 00:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, could you help investigate a potential behavioral issue?

Hi, Killer. I have been accused of tendentious editing at Tea Party Movement. I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at my edits and telling me if I am in violation of Wikipedia behavioral policies. Thanks. — goethean 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ack, not tonight (EST) but I can in the morning. KillerChihuahua 00:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
What a mess! Of course, the TPM article is a contentious article, and although I have considerable experience on contentious articles I don't think I have ever edited the TPM one. To which I'm inclined at this moment to add, Thank Goodness. It appears to me the charges against you spring more from the frustration the other editor feels over a content dispute than from any actual tendentious edits on your part. IMO, it is best for you to ignore the allegations and proceed with trying to discuss content. Then again, I'm the last person to block anyone for incivility and I rarely even bother if it is serious personal attacks; if the attacks are against me I don't recall ever blocking, or reporting. I find confronting this kind of hostility is difficult to do without escalating the situation. If the situation deteriorates, you may wish to ask another uninvolved admin for a second opinion. As a side note, I noticed a key bit of the content debate was whether to utilize content about something which did not mention the TPM. If a source can be found which ties the event to the TPM, it can be used in the article. Otherwise, it is OR and/or SYNTH to so use it, however "obvious" it may be to the editors of the article.
You may wish to try a one line statement such as "I reject your allegations, and prefer to keep the topic here on content." and then be done, no matter how much more is said. If you wish, I will attempt a discussion with the other party regarding this. Let me know. KillerChihuahua 16:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would appreciate your help. — goethean 16:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see what I can do. KillerChihuahua 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I tried, but it seems that although he has no compunction about posting paragraphs of vague accusations, including three posts to write and copyedit his reply to me, he can't be arsed to post even one diff, so I advised him to cease with the unsupported accusations. Let me (or another uninvolved admin) know if he starts it up again. KillerChihuahua 20:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. — goethean 20:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome; I hope my efforts were helpful. KillerChihuahua 20:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Notifications That You've Received a Message, if Not Written on *Your* Talk Page

Hey, you "angry barking puppy,"

You recently put a notice on my talk page. I wanted to ask you here why it supposedly had to be you posting that, instead of just the supposed admin. who had already been talking to me. When and why did it supposedly become "your business"?

(But the one thing I'm grateful for about that is that the warning was present, rather than just taking action without one. So for that one thing, thanks.)

But then I saw that you wanted us to post replies to the place where the original message was posted. Well, obviously you get a notification that someone has put a message on your talk page, and I get a notification that someone has put one on my page. But how would you get a notification that someone has responded to something you wrote on my page? You wouldn't just keep checking it and checking it every day for a long time, even if some time went without seeing a response there, would you? So that's my concern about keeping the messages lined up on the same page. Yes, it's definitely easier to follow. But the notification system isn't very good. Right? What's your remedy for that, and how do I get it too?

MaxxFordham (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. If I see it, it's my business. I'm an admin.
  2. I watch your page. Learn how at Help:Watching pages KillerChihuahua 13:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

going back to the original ...

"Meatpuppet" thing. Does this mean we can now refer to you as "Mrs. Weller"? baahaahaa. <Newspaper across the rump, and puppy-Ched yelps and looks for a table to hide under> — Ched :  ?  14:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you just insulted me, my r/l husband, Doug, and hen-pecked husbands everywhere. Oh wait... do you speak from experience? There, there.... just because you're whipped doesn't mean you aren't valued. KillerChihuahua 14:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
;-D ... Wait. You're r/l husband's name is Doug too? OH MY - I do so love irony in life. Actually I did marry very young, but divorced in the late 70s. I've come close to a second try a couple times over the years, but it just never seemed work out. I would like the chance to be a hen-pecked good husband again, but with each passing year I figure it's less likely to happen. Personally I very much admire a strong and intelligent woman (must also have a great sense of humor; given my twisted way of thinking), so being "whipped" wouldn't really be a problem. (I have selective hearing issues anyway .. lol) Anyway - please convey to Mr. Chihuahua that I meant no offense. Have a good one KC. Cheers and "woof" — Ched :  ?  14:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
No, you turkey, you insulted my r/l husband and Doug, not my r/l husband Doug. :-P Sorry your attempt to become hen-pecked didn't work out for you. :-( Mr.Chihuahua doesn't do Wikipedia, so he'll never even know you insulted him AND called him "Doug". So all is well. KillerChihuahua 15:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I did a double-take on "your husband Doug" as well...which was especially puzzling, since I know someone who claims to be your r/l husband, and his name's not Doug :) Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Respond

Hey, hey. :) I responded, but i didnt want to be too broad about this, as it is mostly unrelated to the request in question. Anyway, all best... --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

SuzanneOlson

Hi, the close clearly states "article edits" i.e. talk pages are OK. If they become disruptive then we can re-raise at ANI and look to spread the topic ban further. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, that's how I read it, and that's what I said on her talk page. Just wanted to verify. Thanks - KillerChihuahua 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Nado158

Dear Killer, please wait. Please see also my opinion (and please read my all my comments above and check it). I think that I not deserve such hard punishment. Regards--Nado158 (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. I've read all your comments.
  2. You should keep your discussion about this on WP:AE and not here.
  3. This isn't about "punishing" you; it is about protecting the encyclopedia.

KillerChihuahua 14:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Your recent edits

I already left a message to Bishonen, asking if the correct word was the one Bishonen applied, Bishonen said yes. The problem is solved. (Slurpy121 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC))

No, the problem is not solved unless you actually read ENGVAR and cease edit warring over UK.US spelling differences. It is not just about that one single word which Bishonen had already told you several times was correct. It is about not edit warring and violating ENGVAR. If you understand that, then yes it is "solved". If you think it's about that one single edit war, then no, it is not solved. KillerChihuahua 20:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I read ENGVAR, the problem is solved. (Slurpy121 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC))
And as I've already said, that is only half the issue. Did you also read WP:EW? KillerChihuahua 22:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes I did ;). (Slurpy121 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC))
Excellent. Now I consider it "solved". :-) KillerChihuahua 23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I took the edit you removed[1] as more or less just a friendly gesture. I didn't think anything more of it than I would a smiley or other neutrally friendly note. KillerChihuahua 03:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Aw, Thank You >.< (Slurpy121 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC))

AE Nado158

With regard to the exact parameters of the proposed topic ban, please see my comment at User talk:DeltaQuad#AE Nado158. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The parameters are already set by ARBMAC; The disputes presented in this case, while focusing specifically on issues related to Macedonia, are part of a broader set of conflicts prevalent over the entire range of articles concerning the Balkans; see, for example, the Dalmatia case and the Kosovo case. Many of these conflicts are grounded in matters external to Wikipedia, including long-standing historical, national, and ethnic disputes in the region. The area of conflict in this case shall therefore be considered to be the entire set of Balkan-related articles, broadly interpreted. - Kosovo includes The locus of the dispute is Kosovo and closely related articles, chiefly regarding the characterization of its constitutional status and relationship to Serbia. - and it is, as you can see, very broad. We can probably specify when we close, I usually do, but then I'm not sure I'll be the one who closes. KillerChihuahua 15:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, if you mean the entire topic area, that's fine. DeltaQuad mentioned just one particular part, and when you replied to them, you didn't discuss that bit. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
We generally tack on the words "broadly construed" when topic banning, and we construe fairly broadly. Back in Oct 2011 I advised an editor who asked for clarification on a Troubles topic ban "You joked about bird articles in the AE case; I tell you now, if you change a category on a bird article from Birds of England to Birds of Ireland, I'm not at all sure it wouldn't be covered. You need to edit something that has nothing to do with Ireland or the Troubles in any conceivable way." You can also read archives of AE to see how it is applied. KillerChihuahua 18:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Does this wording then mean they're prevented from writing about e.g. Serbian football clubs? That would seem excessive. IOW we've gone from too narrow to too broad. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does. They cannot write about anything Serbian, whether football clubs or terrorists or history or anything else. That is what a broadly construed topic ban is. They are free to write about other things. Very little of Wikipedia is Serbian and Kosovo related. Hit "random article" a few dozen times, and I'll be surprised if you hit a single article which is covered under the topic ban. KillerChihuahua 22:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I know that we have the ArbCom rulings to cover it, but the point I was trying to make is that including the whole topic area seems excessive for one article in the topic area when there are articles in that area that the user can contribute to properly. I was looking for something a little smaller than all of Serbia topic ban, because I didn't see enough to feel that the whole topic area ban was justified. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, obviously. Here is the issue (and I speak as someone who has been at AE quite a bit): If we do not outline a broadly construed topic area, then the editors often skirt the fringes, still repeating the behavior which led to the topic ban. Let's look at sports, for example. How easy would it be to slip in an ethnic slur, or bias, such as we saw in the AE evidence? No, we make it broad for a very good reason. This is standard practice. If he does well and learns to keep his personal bias out of articles, and not misuse sources, he'll come back to editing this topic area with the knowledge he needs to avoid further sanctions. This generally does not happen in topic areas which the editor has shown he has very strong personal views about, which he has not kept out of his editing. He can learn this in topic areas which have nothing to do with the problem topic area much better. If he merely chooses articles from Category:Articles needing cleanup, he can edit ten hours a day and still have work to do before the year is out. He can edit. But in my experience, allowing leeway leads to troubles. I prefer to avoid that. KillerChihuahua 20:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I do want to thank you for your response. I do understand as you have explained that if we don't make it broad, its a game of cat and mouse on enforcement. While I may not completely agree with your decision, I do mostly agree with it, and after that point, I still respect it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you get that. Not just a game of cat and mouse for us, but sometimes seems like a game of entrapment to them. And thank you. KillerChihuahua 10:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
May I edit at least sport articles please?Thank you--Nado158 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)--Nado158 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Not Serbian/Albanian/Kosovo, no. You can edit other sports articles, but not if any of the players are from the restricted topic area, and not if the article touches on the topic area in any way. KillerChihuahua 20:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, i wrote about 98% Serbian sport, especially about football, but also basketball etc., I never had a problem with nobody. I improved a lot of articles, wrote about players and stadiums etc. I create also a lot of articles about sport. I get even a barn star. You can all see this on my Wikipedia edit history etc. Please allow me to write about Serbian sports. This have nothing to do with politics and is not a controvers topics. I'm only come because of sports to wikipedia, only the last months I am moved a little bit to other topics. But my main topic, my beloved topic is sport, this is a topic which interrested me 120%. Please allow me to write about sports in Serbia, why so a hard punishment. I made mistakes in politic topics, but I never hat a problem with sports. You banned me because of my mistakes about controvers politic topics, but why i banned also for sport, although i never made mistakes there and although I was never prosecuted there?I think its right to punish for things who someone done wrong, but I never made mistakes there and i was never prosecuted there. Please allow me to write about sports in Serbia.--Nado158 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no other interest area here and I had to wait a year to get back to improve Serbian sporting articles or update.--Nado158 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
You probably should have thought about that before you transgressed our policies so seriously and ended up at AE. Sports can be very controversial, especially if ethnic slurs or source misuse is involved. Tell you what: Pick any two redlinks (nothing which violates your topic ban) from User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks and write articles on the subjects. I expect actual articles, not stubs. Then come back and see me in two months, and we'll discuss it again. KillerChihuahua 21:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

By all my respect, but I have not done with deliberate errors. I was not aware of the consequences of my error. Others get a warning or a ban on certain topics, and I get a ban on everything. That's not fair. In any civil legal system you will be punished for what you have really done and here? There was never porbleme on Wikipedia relating to sports, or business, agriculture, Serbian food or brands, nature etc. I've created stadium sites, player dates updated (goals, transfers, etc.), updated data, where is this controversy? I understand what you mean, but I do not edit the Albanian League or sports. Why do all my work will not be considered positive? Why all this is overlooked? I can not at all in conflict with Albania, because it has nothing to do with Serbian Sports. There is no Serbian-Albanian Football League, etc. Why is it bad if I edit about a Serbian dog, or football data (statistics), or write about a food stamp, or national parks in Serbia? about nature. This is absolutely not about those things for which I was punished. What's bad about it when I add Nemanja Vidić as a remarkable person in Užice because he was born there? Look please here i create for example this small article about Metalac Stadium, improved and create 80% of the Partizan Belgrade article till the section Club records, improved every article about almost evry club and their stadiums in the first and second league (you can ask the users there). I create a article about the Mlekara Subotica dairy. Here, nothing is bad KillerChihuahua. Please, Serbian sport, agriculture, Serbian food or brands, nature etc. have nothing to do with controversial topics with Albania etc. Please allow me, if anything were to arise, I would not take to it and report it to you immediately if you wish, but it will not happen because I think Nature etc. is not controversial. Topics like Organization for Respect and Care for Animals (which is from Serbia), Serbian Spruce, or the dog Šarplaninac and stadiums are not controversial. Please i have good faith intentions. Besied this, what you mean with not stubs? Thank you!--Nado158 (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason we make topic bans broad rather than narrow is so you don't misjudge the boundaries and violate it. The way it is now: You can edit anything which has nothing to do with Serbia, Albania, Kosovo. Simple. Not confusing. Now, you can keep leaving long posts here about how good you'll be if I'll just let you write about Serbian football, or you can take my offer above, or you can wait out the 12 months, or you can go back to AE and contest the topic ban. KillerChihuahua 13:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

KC, I'd like to appeal to you once again to take two factors into account: we already have one Serbian user, User:FkpCascais, who was topic-banned similarly, but after several incidents (three previous smaller blocks over several years), and for only six months rather than a year. I agree that it's easy for them to cross the line, and indeed I was personally involved in a situation where FkpCascais at one point did exactly that, but User:WGFinley was still patient with them and I think the topic-banned user did not transgress further. As I recall, Nado158's behavior was not worse than FkpCascais', so I think it would be best to follow the same standard and at least make the two sanctions match, in order to avoid the impression he's getting treated in a manner that is less fair than someone else in a similar situation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

First you're worried it's too narrow, no you're complaining it's too broad. Well, you can't please everybody; there is no sweet spot which will satisfy everyone's idea of an appropriate sanction. There are always people who think you are too hard or too soft. I have a proposal above which will shorten the time by as much as 10 months, to only two months, but both you and he are ignoring that offer. I'm all done talking about this. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 18:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The scope was narrow; the duration is twice as long as FC. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
What is "FC"? And what scope was narrow? I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. KillerChihuahua 21:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
FC == User:FkpCascais. The scope that DeltaQuad had proposed was narrow, because it only involved Kosovo and Albania. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not ignore the offer, but sorry, I didn't quite understand it, so I asked before what you mean with your statement ACTUAL ARTICLE, NOT STUBS? STUBS? Thank you!--Nado158 (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I must have missed that question. I mean, more than a couple of sentences and one source. I'm flexible, but I want to see some content, say a couple of paragraphs, several sources, an image would be nice. I'm looking for a serious effort from you to write an article, as opposed to slapping up a short description of the topic. You can read more at Wikipedia:Stub - it is an excellent way to start an article, but I'm saying I want to see more. Let me know if you're still unclear. KillerChihuahua 20:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. All right, I agree with your proposal. Thank you!--Nado158 (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, please keep me informed (tell me when you've picked your articles, etc.) KillerChihuahua 21:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a question please. It must just be exactly these from you proposed redlinks, or it can also be used redlinks from the last or coming week? Besides this, may I write an own articles (in consultation with you, of course)?For example an animal variety, airplane model, a machine etc? May I suggest two articles?--Nado158 (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to be flexible, I gave you that list because they're the most requested articles, but I'm not glued to just that list. What two articles would you like to write? KillerChihuahua 16:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Nado158 articles

(I started a new thread because the old one was getting way too long. KillerChihuahua 21:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC))

Well, an article about Transfermarkt.de, one of the largest websites for sports with a focus on football, and the most visited German Sports Page in 2013, International also well known, and the EuroTier, the world's largest exhibition for animal husbandry and management, with over 100,000 visitors from 100 countries. Are you agree?--Nado158 (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I do, sounds good. Nice way for you to get sports in without violating your topic ban, too, so you can use your expertise and edit something which interests you. I applaud your choices. KillerChihuahua 21:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! If I'm done I will inform you! Regards!--Nado158 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You must claim this

[2]  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean register it? Might not be a bad idea, as it is apparently a doppelganger. KillerChihuahua 04:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
And a cute one too  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. A very good idea. KillerChinchilla (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I tagged the new account for you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
And we just cross posted, heh. KillerChihuahua 05:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What about this? A bit of a tautology, perhaps. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC).

Well, if we don't have a KillerChinchilla, we certainly need one. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Bish: I have yet to see you register User:KillerZilla or User:KillerShonen ... no wait, you have enough socks, your drawer must be overflowing.
Mangoe: Well, we have me. I'm two, two, two Killers in one! cheesy Certs commercial reference, for the confused.) KillerChihuahua 17:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

RFCC

Regarding your comments here, I would like to invite you to consider RFCC as an alternative.   — C M B J   02:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

No, but it might be worth taking to RFAR. KillerChihuahua 02:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration isn't much more than polite way of forcing specialized contributors into semi- or full retirement; it shouldn't ever be on the table unless all other options have been exhausted, and they haven't been here.   — C M B J   06:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not opening four different Rfc's on editors whose responses to an uninvolved admin warning them was either insults or in one case, asking that I be desysopped. It would be an excercise in futility. An Rfc presumes they care what people say; they clearly don't. I have, however, taken it to RFAR; it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics if you wish to make a statement. KillerChihuahua 06:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I really don't have much else to say 1:1 since I'm as uninvolved as you are (aside from previously having to deal with one party's shenanigans both as an editor and informal mediator) but I can't see how I'm expected to reconcile this edit conflict in a subsequent comment. There's literally no additional information to reiterate — I just wanted to preclude the off chance that my words might be misinterpreted as anti-ArbCom when they were never intended as such. That, and I noticed a grammatical mistake.   — C M B J   07:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not following your point, I'm afraid. KillerChihuahua 15:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Which?   — C M B J   15:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, do you have the link to the AN thread? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
To which? Are you asking for the link to the ANI thread I started a couple of days ago, or ? KillerChihuahua 20:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the one you posted on ArbCom that said the thread had been reopened. I keep missing it when I look for it there. Need new glasses I guess. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No, your glasses are fine (or at any rate not the problem here); someone moved the thread to a sub-page last night. It is now to be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Tea_Party_movement;_looking_for_community_input. KillerChihuahua 20:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh that's what happened. Thanks! Malke 2010 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. KillerChihuahua 20:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Since no one else commented on the RFC yet, I've gone ahead and reset the terms to reflect your criticism. If you're not OK with that, feel free to revert me. I just think it's a better way to start off.   — C M B J   00:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that's fine with me. In the future, though, don't remove someone else's post. You can simply reply to it, saying "I have changed the verbiage to match your suggestions" or "I have edited the Rfc to reflect your criticism" and leave their post in place. Removing someone else's post, unless it is a personal attack, is almost never a good idea. KillerChihuahua 00:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was going to do, but we've been interacting so closely that I figured you wouldn't mind with full disclosure.   — C M B J   00:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
And you figured rightly! KillerChihuahua 00:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

ygm

Hello, KillerChihuahua. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NE Ent 02:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

K, thanks. Just wanted to confirm I was looking at the section you were referring to. KillerChihuahua 02:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You know I didn't mean nuttin

I understood what you were doing when you added Collect, Rubin et al to the list. Others may not have. I threw my hands up in the air you were added as well. This isn't even drama. It's Jerry Springer.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I didn't view it that I added them at all. Others added them, but failed to format the additions correctly. I felt if others were calling for topic bans, then it should be clearly organized so people would see and be able to voice their opinions. It was clerking. That's all. But yes, I know some people did not realize that was what I was doing. Thanks for leaving this note, nice to hear it was clear to at least one editor... and yeah, Springer wishes he had episodes as messed up as that ANI thread. KillerChihuahua 04:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Precious

benign, forgiving creature with a bite
Thank you for continuous quality contributions not only to articles, but mediation, editor retention, help to ignore incivility, allow human editors to believe they are in charge, and to begin something new, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 June 2007, 17 May 2009, 25 November 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

ps: typically I call it my PumpkinSky Prize, but for you it's the Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!!! I love barnstars, and yours is all shiny and pretty!!! KillerChihuahua 11:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, Phaedrial's first run at this sort of thing was shiny and pretty too, she did Today's Star Shines On [Username]. So, yay to shiny pretty! KillerChihuahua 11:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec) I miss the puppy photographer.
Yeah, there are a lot of people to miss, and PS is one who is very much missed by many. :-( KillerChihuahua 12:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
(after ec) that's where I come from (look at the awesome list), she started and he did it for the longest time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know - but did you know she did "today's star shines on..." before she did the Awesome Wikipedian one you're continuing ? It had a lovely star, silver on a deep blue background, now deleted. You can see it at User:KillerChihuahua/barnstars#Today.27s_Star_shines_upon... and you can see the Awesome Wikipedian she gave out at User:KillerChihuahua/barnstars#Happy_Puppy.27s_Day.21_.28Phaedriel.29_2_June_2007. The Today's Star was the precursor. She didn't give one out every day, and I don't think she kept a record. That came later, with Awesome Wikipedian. :-) KillerChihuahua 12:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Puppy for you

Waiting for your return...
I'm sorry to hear that you are not feeling well. Hope you are feeling better soon. — goethean 19:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I love it! It is even a chihuahua! Thank you! Puppy (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for RfA conduct clarification

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA). -- Trevj (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Gerda Arendt for pointing out the above. This notification probably has little relative importance, and I hope you make a good recovery soon. Best wishes. -- Trevj (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Did you mean this?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Behaviour of Zad68

The user has placed a personal attack by threating in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Medical_uses_of_silver. "This would be helpful with the likely upcoming WP:ANI discussion about Ryan's tendentious editing. Zad68" I have removed it as a personal attack by threatening. However the original editor has restored it. I also think even if there is a doubt as if its a personal attack per content, being placed on the DRN talk it looks like a personal attack even more. It just came out of nowhere, irrelevant to the current DRN discussion. Thank you.

This user has posted the same sentence on multiple talk pages 'by stalking me' including the irrelant ones like the DRN discussion "FYI I have commented on the relevance of the Leeds in vitro study to Quackwatch's characterization of ingested colloidal silver here. Zad68"

And despite that editor TransporterMan has said: "This DRN talk page is not the venue to further argue the dispute." and my comments that it's not the venue, he continues to engage in the DRN discussion regarding the article context and other editors. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. KillerChihuahua 16:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi KC, here's the story: Ryan's involved in this DRN discussion with myself and a few others, the case wasn't going his way, but the case got archived due to inactivity before resolution (Ryan fell ill), Ryan came back and asked for the case to be un-archived. The DRN volunteer, Carrie, was unwilling - see her comment to Ryan here, highlight: "it's now very clear that not one other editor agrees with you or is willing to agree to your request ... This was going to be your final shot, and it hasn't worked. You are not going to get a consensus for this. It's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass." I said to Carrie I'd support de-archiving the case for the purpose of closing it, as "This would be helpful with the likely upcoming WP:ANI discussion about Ryan's tendentious editing." With that, Carrie agreed and dearchived the case. (Exciting tune-in-next-week cliffhanger: In his closure !vote, Ryan agreed to the proposal but also stated "I'll challenge it in formal mediation process.")

Ryan felt my statement about taking this to ANI was a "threat" and edited my comment, I restored my comment and pointed Ryan to WP:TPO for the list of conditions where it's acceptable edit someone else's comment (this isn't one of them), he disagreed, but we then both agreed that an admin should handle it from here, full discussion here. I think Ryan's request is for you to review what's happened and take any action you deem necessary. It would have been nice if he had notified me he was contacting you about this. It's unclear to me why Ryan came to you in particular with this request, maybe you've helped him out with something before? Anyway, sorry to hear you're one sick pup, hopefully the trip to vet did you good. Take care... Zad68 17:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear to me as well, but it has happened before that editors have come to me and I have no recollection of them. Sometimes we've participated in a discussion somewhere I just don't remember, sometimes they've just seen me around. This case seems a little more unusual - I checked our interaction, and we have had one encounter before - in Dec 2012 I warned him I would block him if he continued making threats. It seems you have the situation well in hand; if there is zero support for his view then the DRN should probably remain closed. Thank you for taking the time to explain this situation to me, and for your kind words regarding my current illness. KillerChihuahua 17:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Hi, I'm contacting you because you have recently contributed as a reviewing administrator to WP:AE. I've made a suggestion relating to the management of that page at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Structural improvements to AE threads, and would appreciate your input. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks, I've commented there. Much appreciated. KillerChihuahua 01:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews

An edit war has once again broken out on this article. I think we need to upgrade the protection level. The controversial nature of the topic makes it a magnet for people with agendas.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really have too much on my plate right now. Please ask at ANI or DR or RFPP, whichever is appropriate. KillerChihuahua 20:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Single-payer healthcare

Hey I know you're busy with the TPM article but some of the same people are causing problems in the Single-payer healthcare article. In the talk page there was a consensus for a particular edit and 3 users (North8000, Thargor Orlando and Arzel) have been edit-warring against it. If you could take a look it would be much appreciated. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, when I started the RFAR[3] I listed it as "Tea Party movement / US politics" but an Arb changed the name for brevity. Please add a statement to the RFAR with this. KillerChihuahua 19:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm guessing that you are about the 12th place (including Arbcom) that CD has taken their mis-representation of the situation. At the last few I have been asking for an admin to replace me in my efforts to bring sanity to the talk page. (I don't care about the outcome of the debate there, just trying to get a normal sane process in place) Although CD chose you for obvious reasons hoping for certain things due to our recent interactions, I would welcome and request a close thorough look at the article by you. Although this has been scattered amongst about 15 venues, a close review of the last approx 2 months of the talk page gives a thorough feel. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
And you're welcome to take that to ArbCom too, but don't be surprised when it turns around and you're not just topic banned from the Tea Party as AGK is suggesting but meet with other sanctions as well, for your continued BATTLEground behavior, exemplified by this post here. Please do not reply here. KillerChihuahua 19:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Done, although I'm not sure if the scope of US Politics still applies. If its found to be a separate issue any comment in the single-payer page would be welcome. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
@KC, Forgive one more post, but I just basically said that I trusted and requested your judgement to make a thorough review of the activities at the Single Payer article. There seems to be a misunderstanding, possibly the one wording which I clarified (which I was tweaking but ec'd by your post) contributed to a misunderstanding. My apologies if anything in there was or sounded wrong. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not the problem. You following Cartoon Diablo here and accusing him of forum shopping is the issue - and no, it does not matter to me whether you saw it because you had my page watchlisted or whether you were watching his contribs. I also note the irony that you did not trust my judgment in what is appropriate action about your actions or Goethean's on TPM. I fail to see why you suddenly would trust my judgment on another article with the same list of editors. I rather suspect I'd come to the same conclusion. KillerChihuahua 20:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
This is different than a somewhat (possibly pedantic on my part) tussle on a couple of narrow points which occurred at my talk page.(which snowballed). I trust any thorough review that you make and invite it at the SP article. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
@KC would it be better to contribute to the AN/I discussion as well? It seems like people are waiting on both ends for one to conclude. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I am asking for the same thing that you initially asked for....a thorough review of the item which you wrote about.....why are you changing now? North8000 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
@North8000. "Forgive one more post, but.." (my italics). KC asks you to please not reply here and you post three more times? This when you know she's trying to deal with a lot of hassle while unwell? Don't post here again, under any excuse, or you'll be blocked for harassment. Bishonen | talk 11:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all your constructive edits. You are one of our most logical admins and i appreciate your all-round work! Keep it up! Pass a Method talk 22:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much!!!! Puppies love barnstars; and I appreciate the thought and kind words which you have given me. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

KC is in the hospital

This is Mr. Chihuahua. KC is in the hospital for testing... she may have had a heart attack. She said to tell everyone she will be back as soon as she can. She apologizes for the bad timing. 71.43.28.155 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The best to you KC. Including for a quick and complete recovery. All else lately is small stuff and secondary. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hope all goes well. Best wishes, Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Take care - I had my quintuple bypass a few years back now and appreciate the stress you are also undergoing as well. Collect (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes for a fast and complete recovery! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Wishing you all the best and a speeding recovery! Guettarda (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
All good thoughts, Puppy. Could it possibly be in a way good timing? Your body's clever way of getting you away from stressing about RFAR? Oh.. and stressing about illness instead. No, I guess that won't work. :-( Bishonen | talk 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC).
Hope you're back with us soon, KC! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, get well soon KC; the priority is your full recuperation. . . .dave souza, talk 20:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • My sincere hopes for a speedy and complete recovery. I am quite shocked and distressed by this turn of events. My best wishes to you and your loved ones in this challenging time. Jusdafax 22:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
@ KC - wait. Tablet? Details damn it .. we want details. Droid? IPad? Kindle? Windows 8? ... Inquiring minds want to know. Hell - I gave up my "bit" over a damn tablet ... fantastic cursed little things. ... Seriously though KC. I really do appreciate you going to the effort to stay in touch. Obviously you have a huge fan club that cares a great deal. Taking the time to talk to us says it all - WHY you have such a following. You take care of yourself girl - let Mr. KC spoil the heck outta you. — Ched :  ?  00:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I was actually a little upset that your husband was "enabling you" while you were in the hospital.....but then I would have demanded my spouse's tablet within the first 5 minutes myself! LOL! Now...seriously, get some rest. Also, ignore my reply to you on my talkpage. You need not concern yourself about it. Knowing that you are ill means a great deal more than my opinion of your involvement in any disputes. Just get well and use the tablet to watch "grumpy cat" videos. they are hilarious.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy "Baby does faceplants": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS3dHKWVP7Y Malke 2010 (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Very best wishes to you, KC, and I'm glad to know Mr. Chihuahua is staying out of the doghouse and fetching your tablet and so on. Yopienso (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Update: it is 4:30 am here. Wish I could answer each and every one of you but for now I will just make a start. Malke: the connection here is dog slow, but that was cute. Mongo: I still can tell bad jokes. I have not lost that skill. Ched: it is a Samsung Galaxy 7, which means TinyScreen. It runs on Android. Wishing now that I'd gotten a 10. Collect:thank you sharing something so personal, it means a lot. Everyone else: thank you, so much! Puppy (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Get well soon! Tom Harrison Talk 13:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that is my plan!Puppy (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hope you are feeling better. Get well soon! Syrthiss (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I, too, wish you all the best and a speedy recovery! I hope the doctors don't ban you from Wikipedia, because it may well be on some list of things contraindicated for people with heart problems :-)  Sandstein  14:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

New update

At home, on meds, will be going to more tests and lots of follow up visits for a while. Thanks again to everyone who was so kind as to leave well wishes on this page, it means a lot to me. I'm still sick and will be irregular in my editing but at least I'm off the little tablet. KillerChihuahua 15:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear you're back home. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Godspeed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Happy you've improved enough to come home "Sam", see ya in the pastures (ANI? AC?) "Ralph" NE Ent 16:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much. They have me on meds that have the symptoms tamped down while they do the testing/diag/treatment of the causal issues. I am glad to be out of the hospital and back home and back on a real screen instead of the tiny screen of the tablet. Once you open the keyboard on one of those things, you can barely see where you're editing, and navigation was a pain (my touchscreen is a bit wonky.) I'll be off an on, but will muddle along until they get it fixed. KillerChihuahua 16:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear that you're home. Guettarda (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Grand news, a much better place to convalesce or do whatever's best to get yourself well. Keep up the good non-work! (or even keep working if that suits better) . . . dave souza, talk 22:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, Puppy. . .and not just being off the tablet, but having real food. . .Happy for you! Malke 2010 (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I had seen someone refer to your possibly being away for a while, but frankly am more than a bit stunned to see, from finally actually looking at my watchlist, that the possible cause for "being away awhile" was what might have been a heart attack. We are talking serious understatement here. This is what I get for spending a lot of time plonking away on building lists of articles on Word, I guess. Strange as it might seem, Mr. Blather-on-incontinently here is honestly at more than a little loss of words for what to say, other than I, unlike others who pay a bit more attention than I do, will luckily not to have to worry as long as more responsible editors had to. Thank God the news seems to be comparatively good since then, and I very sincerely hope, invaluable as you pretty much are to a lot of things around here, that we don't do anything which might make things harder for you for a while. Puppy as Puppy is worth a great deal more to the world than Puppy the editor, and considering how basically irreplacable around here you really are, that's saying a lot. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your very kind words! I am flattered and humbled. It was very kind of you to leave this note. KillerChihuahua 14:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding parties to arbitration

It is not strictly necessary to list every party. If somebody's name comes up in the arbitration evidence and they are given notice, they can be subject to findings and remedies. For good order sake you may want just add them to the list of parties now, and leave them a notification. Jehochman Talk 15:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I know clerks sometimes add parties after opening; wasn't sure the protocol for me adding one at this stage. KillerChihuahua 15:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry about protocol. Just do whatever seems fair and productive. Jehochman Talk 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi KC, do you know of an ArbCom case I could look at as an example? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/All has closed cases; click on any link which ends with "final decision" to see the case page and navigate to the associated evidence pages. Depending on your connection, it may take a minute or two to load. KillerChihuahua 23:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Malke 2010 (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi KC, hope all is well. On the ArbCom thing, it may be that editors are waiting for you to post so they know what to respond to. I know I am. Not to rush, just wondering. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Update

Test came back, not a heart attack. There is a mass on my thyroid, and my levels are waaay off. They're doing more tests, I'm going to be in the hospital at least another day. Puppy (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good news ... puppy is heart healthy! Hoping for more good news re your "mixed up chems" (that "waaay off" bit). Vsmith (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Impressed with your commitment here, editing at hospital lol. But then it's better than TV and I know how boring the confinement can get. Hope you can avoid aggravation and get out of there soon! El duderino (abides) 19:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Yay! That's a relief. Glad you liked the baby video. Put your feet up and enjoy the food. Maybe Mr. Chihuahua could bring in doctor approved take-out. Feel better. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dunno about heart healthy, they're doing a stress test in the morning. But not a heart attack. El D, I probably wouldn't be except I did just file an rfar. Malke, GMTA, butthey won't let me. And the soup I had the first night was the last good food I've had. :-( But I hope to be out of here soon. Puppy (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsolicted advice Get Mr. C to bring in your comfortable walking shoes, and stretch your calves an hour before.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks but they've decided it is too risky to give me the stress test before they take care of the rhyroid. My heartbeat is running fast and they're afraid the stress test will give me a heart attavk. So that's off the table for now. Thanks for the advice tho, I'm sure theyll get back to it. Puppy (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Add me to the list of folks that are very happy to hear it wasn't a heart attack. Perhaps just your body letting you know it's time to start taking good care of yourself. Thank you very much for the update Puppy; may your leash be long, and your treats plentiful. — Ched :  ?  21:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Great to know it's going as well as could be expected, KC, keep on mending and get yourself fit and out to where the food is good! Your recent edits show devotion beyond the call of duty. I'm impressed by your plunging into the tea party morass, and very much hope that this is your idea of fun and relaxation, or at any rate a welcome distraction from the hospital environment. However, while getting the editing there detoxed feels beyond my currently tired brain right now, you've flagged up the issues and others will have to come forward and help resolve the problems. Including me, if needed. Will sleep on that, and hope you'll do whatever gives you useful recuperation and rest. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Please avoid that nasty place called ARBCOM till you're healed up. Even mini-death-dogs are bound to have increased metabolic issues after venturing into that black hole. Get well immediately though!--MONGO 00:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you take a look?

Here? In reviewing the user's contributions (less than 50, exclusive focus on the MRM article), I can see that they are deeply problematic. But to add an unreliable source that mentions the MRM only once, make something up and attribute it to that source, and then change content that is supported by academic references, so that the text no longer matches the references, is an entirely new level of unhelpful. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have not been on Wp in recent days - is this still unresolved? KillerChihuahua 22:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a long list of...

participants @ Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Yours was the first name I recognized so I came here. I just updated the article Active shooter. I wonder if you have time to take alook and update the rating. It is currently @ Start. Thanks in advance. ADD: Just noticed your health issue. Hope ypou are well. If you want to send me elsewhere, I won't mind.```Buster Seven Talk 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; given my health and the ArbCom case I'm in I would much appreciate you asking another editor who will be able to give this the attention it deserves. I am very sorry I am unable to help you right now, and appreciate your confidence in asking me. KillerChihuahua 22:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

General sanctions clean up

Hi, could you take a look at User:Timotheus Canens/GS draft and leave comments on the talk page? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely; thank you for this kind notice. KillerChihuahua 22:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

When you get a chance

Hi KC. Sorry to bother you but if you get a chance take a look at this. The recent intemperate threads on talk:men's rights movement aren't helpful. I tried to cool things off by closing off topic discussions but it's gone beyond what I can do as an involved editor--Cailil talk 13:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thanks. KillerChihuahua 02:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I see Drmies is on it; hopefully no more will be needed. I'll try to keep an eye out. I am so sorry I have not been online as much as usual; please do take such situations to other admins or ANI if I do not respond quickly. I will be back to normal editing levels as soon as I can manage. KillerChihuahua 02:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Remember those guys

that you warned me about being mean to, here is their latest posting, footnoted, of course. " We have forgotten that before we called this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.” [71] Pretty neat huh? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff, please? Thank you. KillerChihuahua 22:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; I will take a look as soon as I am able; I wish to give this due consideration prior to making a decision. I am honored you have invited me. KillerChihuahua 22:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party ArbCom

Hi KC, you put this diff [5] under my name but I don't see where I'm involved there. Maybe you had another diff in mind, or am I not seeing the forest for the trees? Malke 2010 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you're dead right - that was a leftover from the Darkstar1st evidence. I must have not copied when I thought I had - I'll fix it, thanks much for letting me know! KillerChihuahua 01:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Malke 2010 (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
No, no, thank you! That was my mistake, and it was very gracious of you to come here and let me know, especially given the section it was in! KillerChihuahua 02:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

ARBCC clarification request

Hi, Due to our conversation at Dave Souza's page I mentioned your name here.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made a statement, possibly a little more wide-reaching than you were looking for, but I think rather than revisit this for every case a little more standardization might be in order. KillerChihuahua 22:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and I replied. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi KC, thanks for chipping in, good to see you back and looking snappy about it! The whole logging of notifications and logging of warnings seems a bit of a muddle, in the longer term it will be good to have it sorted out with better guidance to editors. In the short term, the immediate problem seems to have been sorted out with no harm done. . dave souza, talk 09:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Ha, does it look "snappy" from that side of the keyboard? Cool. If someone adds me to a case touching on the overarching issue of Notifications vs. Warnings, I'm not gonna pass up the opportunity to climb on my little soapbox. I see AGK received the message, and I assume others did as well. KillerChihuahua 09:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Snappy as in quick, like your nippy response, not bitey! Hope you're well rested and recovered, look forward to the grand review of notifications vs. warnings, dave souza, talk 10:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Not only am I not recovered, we don't even have a diagnosis yet. Still on meds to tamp down the symptoms, still doing tests. I have more tests Monday (the 18th) and then the next Monday (the 25th) I go back to the specialist, and hope to get a diagnosis and a plan of treatment then. KillerChihuahua 11:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so early days yet. Trust keeping this daft project in order is suitably therapeutic, and hope all goes well. Am failing to keep up with all these goings on myself, but will keep looking in. All the best, . dave souza, talk 22:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Continued edit warring

Hi KC, a few days ago Yhwhsks (talk · contribs) added new information which had considerable WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE issues and was subsequently removed by three editors [6][7][8]. There seems to a consensus on the article talk page that the information should not be included, see Talk:Men's rights movement#Inappropriate edit warring and Talk:Men's rights movement#The paragraph re: Fiamengo talk. Yhwhsks is currently blocked for edit warring. Today, Memills (talk · contribs) reinserted the disputed content. Memills knows that the article is on article probation, he was topic banned from the men's rights movement article and then blocked for violating the terms of his topic ban. This is yet another violation of the terms of the article probation. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears another editor has reverted Memill's choice to restore the contested edit. I'll watch to see how the situation develops, and I may leave a note for Memills, but I don't think a bad content decision violates any probation, unless there is evidence he was acting as proxy for the blocked editor. Should he edit war as Yhwhsks did, that would be a different matter, of course. You may wish to ask TParis and/or Drmies for their view; they may have a different take. Feel free to simply link them (or any other admin whose opinion you solicit) here so as not to spread the discussion across multiple talk pages. KillerChihuahua 19:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi KC, no, Memills' edit today was not reverted. See the revision history. The edit was reverted by WLU as I was typing this. Yhwhsks was blocked for reinserting this content against consensus, he was blocked, and now Memills continues where Yhwhsks left off, also against consensus. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
My view is that there is parallel edit warring going on and it's very difficult to tell which one Memills is involved in. Yhwhsks was blocked for both edit wars. I think KC has the right idea, let her leave a note for Memills first and see if that stops it.--v/r - TP 19:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Alright and thank you both. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I have left a note. Let's hope that bears positive results. KillerChihuahua 20:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't find it

KC, I know B.Wilkins made a comment, I just can't find it. Maybe it's on a user's talk page? Or maybe I didn't take enough Ginko this morning. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't find it either; I suggest you ask Bwilkins himself. KillerChihuahua 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm giving up on it. I don't need it. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Posted evidence

KC, I posted on the evidence page. I hope it's not too long. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, you're a named party; you get 1,000 words and 50 diffs. You aren't even close to that. If you know of any background issues with the article (why you left, or previous history of edit wars on the article, for example) you might want to add a section on that. It doesn't have to be about your actions. It needs to have a bearing on the case as a whole - the editors and article(s) involved. KillerChihuahua 01:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I was going to do that but I didn't know if it was my place to comment like that. I wanted to especially comment on why I thought the page needed ArbCom and why I thought you were right to go there. We discussed this a bit on the AN/I thread. I'll go back over the archives and pull out some of the same old arguments. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Usurp

Hi, Do you object to me taking that username? Or were you just letting me know? I would be happy to note on my userpage informing we aren't the same person. If you have objections I will think of a different name. Thanks! TempName1 (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you can see on this page as well as elsewhere,[9][10] - I could find hundreds of examples but for now just check out this search where every single instance of "KC" refers to me - I'm frequently referred to as KC. I'm not going to object, but wanted you to know that there may be confusion in your future (as well as mine and others) should you choose KC. I would appreciate a note on your userpage, I think that would certainly help clear up potential confusion. It's your choice if you want to go ahead with usurping KC. I personally think you'd do better to pick another uName, but that is entirely up to you. KillerChihuahua 10:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Health!

I am so distressed as I have only just been told of your ill health. As though I don't have enough to worry about already, I now have you too. Have you thought of changing your diet and lifestyle? I have a very healthy routine. Never drink anything other than dry sherry before lunch, no more than three glasses of wine with your lunch and only a small cointreau after. In the evening two small Martinis, and then red wine which is extremely good for the heart - the more red wine you drink the healthier you become. Before retiring to be bed, a glass of champagne is very good for the digestion and keeps things moving during the night. If you are overweight (not that I am) try slimline tonic water with your gin - that's very slimming too, try to drink as much of it as possible to have the full benefit. My doctor insists that it's important to drink plenty of fluids - so I do. I hope to hear of a speedy recovery. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I think perhaps that specific regime would have some adverse affects. Thank you for the kind suggestions! Tell you what; since I am barred by my doctor from drinking alcoholic beverages currently, why don't you have a light aperitif and perhaps a glass of wine or two for me? You could be my proxy route to good health (or at least a more benign view of the world.) KillerChihuahua 20:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to inform you that from what I understand IP 87.232.1.48, 134.226.254.178 and 87.232.101.49 have been confirmed to have been used by one person and has been blocked for three months each. With IP87.232.1.48 being the main one used. Perhaps a second look at Maxxfordham is needed as the IP87.232.1.48 had possible connection to that one. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm drawing a total blank. What is this regarding, please? thank you - KillerChihuahua 20:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

AN/I edit history

I was looking for a diff for 24 February at around 18:18 but the history doesn't seem to go that far. Did something get lost in the page move? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You should go to the main ANI page and search the archives. Another option is to find a username that you know that posted and use the "what links here" and you should be able to see the ANI archives from there as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Little Green Rosetta. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, LGR. Love me some Talk Page Stalkers. Much appreciated. Malke, another thing you can do, if you know who made the edit in question, is view their contribs, and select Wikipedia namespace only. That will make it easier to scroll and locate the correct diff. KillerChihuahua 23:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Just a heads up: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Problematic_editor; I'm not really into dealing with this sort of thing, and I best thought I'd contact the few admins who I can remember by name. If you wish to deal with this. Thank you. --Scientiom (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Questions: 1. What actions will be taken if the hounding continues? 2. What do you think about this: [11]? (I'm not entirely clear on the procedure here). Thank you. --Scientiom (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    Well, if a WP:SPI finds that he's a sock he'll get indeffed. If he's not a sock and he keeps following you, that's a little less clear. He might get a few more warnings, he might get an interaction ban, he might get blocked (but not indef). It really depends on which admin handles it. If he does continue following you, then take it to WP:ANI. KillerChihuahua 11:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You can certainly take this to ANI, but I'm afraid you aren't going to get the results you seek. There is widespread consensus that some of your edits are problematic, notably violations of NPOV via the use of so called scare quotes. Bb23 explained this to you months ago.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Comparing the intersection history of both Acoma Magic and Govgovgov indicates there may be enough evidence [12]to request a CU at SPI. While both of these users, (and indeed Scientiom) are all SPAs in the field of non-heterosexuality, I find it odd to see the Oprah Winfrey article on both editors contribution history. Oh Oprah, why did you ever leave us?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I found enough evidence to open a SPI  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
And the sock is now blocked. Go about you business, but please lay off the scare quotes, k?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Evidence

I hope you don't mind some constructive advice, but in regards to this particular subsection,[13]Arthur Rubin isn't (as far as I know) being accused of abusing his admin tools, so this evidence isn't relevant to the issues at hand. Bringing up unrelated deeds of past misconduct can be considered bad form. I suggest you remove the section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. However, I am thinking that his appearance at ANI calling for sanctions against me was a factor in how quickly the situation spiraled into chaos - and I don't think that would have happened were he not an admin, whose views about sanctions are generally given more weight. I am not saying he misused his tools this time, only his status. I do think it is relevant. Had he spoken in favor of more reasonable discourse, I think others would have been less apt to jump on the bandwagon calling for sanctions against any and all comers. As it is, he encouraged the free-for-all. I'll add a comment to the link. KillerChihuahua 00:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it went out of control when Bink proposed a slew of topic bans without providing evidence. Rubin's proposal is when we crossed into the twighlight zone. You might recall that is the precise moment i went batshit. And no offense meant to you KC, but this isn't the sort of editor (Bink) we need as an admin who would make such a proposal. Sort of falls along the "status" argument you make above.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall you going batshit. I have no idea what you're talking about there. Binksternet's contributions were not those of an admin of what, 8 or 9 years standing? And he was at least calling (once) for consideration of sanctions on those who actually edited the page - unlike Rubin, who repeatedly called for an uninvolved admin to have wide-reaching sanctions. I see your point, but I disagree the two are equitable. I think as an admin, Rubin's statements had more weight; and they were so far from anything reasonable as to have opened the floodgates. Feel free to criticise Binksternet's posts; I'm not happy about them myself. If you call for sanctions, you must be prepared to offer evidence and rationale. But Rubin's transgressions are significantly worse. Over and over he repeated his call for sanctions, and I asked and asked and received not one reply until it was in front of ArbCom. Admins are required to be responsive to queries. Rubin has been anything but, until forced into it by being placed on the hotseat. Binksternet said something once, then dropped it. Not admirable, but not on the same level at all. And again I remind you that Binksternet was speaking of editors who were unarguably involved, and Rubin was speaking of someone who is equally uninvolved. KillerChihuahua 05:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think my response was a profanity laced "shut it down" section. I was most offended Rubin's proposed sanctions. The only thing that gave me solace is that no one took it serious enough to !vote there. Frankly the whole mess disgusted me that I stopped watching this the moment Arbcom put this on their plate. Unfortuantely I visted it last night after reading this section, I should have stated away.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Line

Hi, is this edit summary in line with policy? Pass a Method talk 22:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

STATUSQUO is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. That said, the edit was not against policy. There does seem to be a bit of an edit war there. Since there is an Rfc in place, I think it would probably be best to spend your efforts there and try to persuade others to come to a resolution. KillerChihuahua 22:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, KillerChihuahua, I know you've been involved in many religion-related discussions in the past, so I was hoping that you might be convinced to comment in the RfC at WT:WikiProject Religion#RfC on weight given to religions. (It's partially related to the dispute mentioned in the post above.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Great name!

I ran across your name while corresponding with someone else. I'm still chuckling at the mental image I got from it. I figured the least I could do was say "thank you"; it's been a long day on this side of the pond.

I do hope you feel better soon. Take care! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 00:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I am pleased you got a moment of amusement from it. KillerChihuahua 00:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Not as cool as KillerChinchilla if ya ask me (you didn't, but you should have)  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Now the mental image is really good. KillerChihuahua, along with trusted sidekick KillerChinchilla, fighting for truth, justice, and a big bowl of kibble. Thank y'all for that! Have a great weekend! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename question

I saw your note at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations#TempName1_.E2.86.92_KC and was wondering if you objected to the rename on the grounds that he will be confused with you or if you were just warning him that he would be. MBisanz talk 21:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

As you can see above, at #Usurp, the editor asked me the same thing and I at that time said no, not objecting - although I strongly suggested s/he choose another name. That said, the more I think about it the more I do object. I really think there will be a lot of confusion, and surely we're not so hard up for names that s/he needs to stick with that? I don't want to be a jerk, but I had hoped s/he would choose another, and not force me into either objecting or dealing with the ensuing confusion. I never bothered with KC before because it is registered, to a non-English speaking person. So the answer to that is... I dunno. :-/ Would you be so kind as to try to encourage that editor to choose another name? I would very much prefer it. KillerChihuahua 22:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Carptrash

Could you take a look at the parting gift Carptrash has left me here [14]. It is repugnant. CSDarrow (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that suggestion was meant for both you and Memills, as you were speaking of writing a Men's Rights movement page elsewhere. Memills had mentioned Scholarpedia and Citizendium (I assume that's what he meant when he wrote Citizenium); Carptrash suggested Conservapedia. I fail to see the "repugnant" bit here, unless you find Conservapedia repugnant, in which case you should speak with Andy Schlafly not me. Or I suppose you could try talking to his brother Roger, but I don't think he has much to do with Conservapedia and he isn't on Wikipedia all that often either. Still, it's closer to the mark than telling me. You could also try Uncle Ed; I think he's still an admin on Conservapedia. Whoever you talk to, you should move it off Wikipedia ASAP, as we're not here to facilitate communication about other projects. KillerChihuahua 00:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, you guys aren't even making a pretense of being even handed anymore. I've got the idea now, and won't waste time in trying to contribute to these areas of Wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia needs better quality people.CSDarrow (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your post doesn't even make sense to me. KillerChihuahua 01:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Funny ha ha. CSDarrow (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you just trolling now? Your posts are making no sense to me. You can explain what you mean, or not, but stop with the "ha ha" rudeness. KillerChihuahua 10:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A penny for your thoughts: User talk:TParis#Topic ban. It's quite astounding, really. Looks like they got what they've been angling for for days. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the admins who warned Carptrash about insulting redlinked editors; I support TParis' action. That said, it's not really appropriate to frame it as "what they've been angling for" IMO. I agree Carptrash has been pushing and failing to follow policy as well as clear direction from two admins; but there's no need to make snide remarks. OTH it may be a language thing; perhaps that phrasing doesn't parse to you as it does to me. Did you have a specific question? KillerChihuahua 03:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

a fierce, and very clever, chihuahua

Thought you'd get a kick out of this KC. [15]. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I love it, thank you!!! And she's such a cute chihuahua too! Way to represent! KillerChihuahua 17:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

User:Sluffs

A bit late stepping in there, surely? The comments by Sluffs - on his talk page and elsewhere - were made several days ago. Yes, they were inappropriate, but so far as I'm aware no-one complained, other than in responding directly to him - I certainly didn't - and on most matters Sluffs is a very positive and productive contributor. Allegations of racist behaviour by editors need to be taken seriously across Wikipedia, and I sincerely hope that your action in templating him doesn't lead to further outbursts. If it does, I'll quite likely be defending and supporting Sluffs, rather than objecting to his comments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No; if I thought it was too late I obviously would not have left the note. He needs to know this is not acceptable. From past experience, I know he blows off concerns from non-admins. Had I been online before I would have left the warning before, but a warning within the week or even month of the behavior is within a reasonable timeframe. If he chooses to double down and act even worse because he now has heard from an admin, then he's just trying to poke me with a stick to see what I do. Not a bright move, and I doubt he'll do it. If you want to help him, you'll convince him that the NPA policy is not optional, rather than enabling and defending his actions. That would serve him best, as it is the course of action which will prevent further warnings and/or sanctions. KillerChihuahua 12:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

<

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

I am getting a little tired of this

I am getting a little tired of your accusations against me like this. "You're part of the problem here, you and Arzel and Arthur Rubin". Xeno jumped all over me for my resposne and you defend him. Your non-bias bias is getting harder and harder to contain. Arzel (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't defend him, I told him he was dead wrong. You need to read more carefully. Your umbrage is misplaced. KillerChihuahua 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

AE case

I have reported you at AE regarding your conduct in the Race and Intelligence topic area.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

R&I revert

Look, the problem is that no one else should have to comb through a revert of over 100 edits to fix the obvious problems it created and then be forced to re-hash multiple different disputes when you aren't even taking the time to check all that you are reverting or even meaningfully identifying your concerns. It is pure disruption and it is really quite astonishing to me that you act like it isn't a big deal. That is the problem here. You seriously need to recognize why that revert is a problem and commit to not doing it again.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We disagree on what the problem is. I also suggest you try to limit the venues you add this to; you've now started an AE report as well as the article talk page and now here. Try not to fragment this any more than necessary, especially as we are speaking of content which is more appropriately discussed on the article talk page. KillerChihuahua 13:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I am trying to appeal to you personally regarding your recent action in the hopes of reducing any potential ill will, something that is not easily done elsewhere. Just imagine if it was the other way around. Would you really be pleased as punch about someone undoing a bunch of copy-edits and other reasonable improvements made over a period of two months because that person had some vague disagreement with some other unidentified changes?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Have I stopped beating my wife? Yes, some time ago, thanks. KillerChihuahua 18:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Look, on a more serious note, you keep repeating "over 100 edits" as though it weren't largely back-and forth editing. I thought, oddly enough, that if I started from BH's preferred version it would encourage you and BH to work with me. And compare how you handled it when you disagreed with some of what got changed to how Atethnekos handled it. --Atethnekos: Hey, what about this bit? -- The Devil's Advocate: OMGWTFAE Rogue Admin Help help restrict her!!! See the difference? KillerChihuahua 18:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Atethnekos has been only minimally involved and is thus more patient. The problem is that no one should have to be confused about what you were doing or forced to look over such a sweeping revert to identify possible concerns because your revert should be targeted and explained. It was neither.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Again we disagree. It was both. KillerChihuahua 19:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You explained much later, after discussion about your revert was already ongoing, that you thought the brain size section added at the beginning of this month was "unfixable" due to OR and SYNTH. None of what you have said actually explains why you reverted the article all the way back to a version from the middle of February.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I defend you?

Puppy darling, I see your name is being sullied on one of the Arb boards [16] and I am here to defend you, send me an email with the details and I will get you off, and only charge a fraction of my normal fee. It's going to be hard; you've not helped yourself "As far as KillerChihuahua is concerned, TDA could be nursing a grudge since he was dismissive when she gave him an official warning about calling Sandstein an "officious little jerk", but we can plead insanity, drugs and alcohol combined. Lady Catherine is currently holidaying at Passages Malibu (with a bottle of gin in her handbag), book yourself in for a fortnight and keep her company, and I will advise you there.  Giano  17:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, thanks, Gianosweetie, your kind offer is... helpful (in that laughter is always helpful.) You're probably right, what on earth did I think I was doing reminding someone that calling Sandstein an "officious little jerk" was an NPA violation? KillerChihuahua 17:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh my dear; do come and join me; it's so deathly dull here. Darlingest Giacomo told me it was a health farm like Champneys, but it's full of the most ghastly people. There's an odd man saying: "Hello, my name's Jimmy and I'm a sex addict" at every opportunity and knocking on my bedroom door after lights out; I said to him you can be Napoleon dear, but there's no way I'm Josephine. Then, there are other odd people wandering around in dressing gowns looking for noxious substances claiming to be former Arbitrators, and there's poor, dear Mrs Risker jangling an empty cocktail shaker in the corridors, pleading with me for a spot of gin from my handbag. I need you dearest Puppy. I shall be hear until Wednesday, when I fly to London for poor, dear, darling Margaret's funeral - apparently the dear Queen wants me by her side - I expect those dreadful Trotskyites will be marching down from Jarrow bringing all manner of germs with them, and I shall have to be hospitalised yet again. Oh the perils of old age that you, poor Mrs Bishonen and I have to share. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I hope you enjoy it dear, and I hope they went with Mr Loach's pious and appropriate suggestion for the kind of funeral arrangements she would herself have wanted.[17] Bishonen | talk 19:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC).
Indeed it is disappointing to see the squandering of taxpayer's money on a matter better dealt with by private enterprise, however Mr. Bell's cultured reference to the depiction by Gustave Doré of Farinata degli Uberti in Dante's Inferno has, I think, considerably improved the tone of the occasion. . dave souza, talk 20:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I rather think Mrs Bishonen, I am in a better position to judge poor Margaret's wishes than Mr K Croach. I remember how impressed she was by my own funeral, which naturally she attended. one can only pray that she has my powers of recovery. The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I would advise 1) Scotch over Gin (or mixed) and 2) Should your guilt ever go to trial, open with "I object your honor. This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of two mockeries of a sham. I move for a mistrial." This almost always works. Should that fail, as it almost always does, try getting the judge removed via character assassination (e.g., pay somebody, like the mayor, to go to the press and say, "He's got a record, he was always being picked up at one demonstration or another. He's a bad apple, a commie. A New York, Jewish, intellectual communist crack pot. I mean, I don't want to cast no aspersions." Of course if the all the evidence is against you and it's glaringly obvious that you're the perp, then simply use the Chewbacca defense. In some of most cases it never always almost fails. Caveat emptor: The advice contained in this post is for advisement purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Quote source. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Tim Curry in the Library with a blunt instrument. KillerChihuahua 20:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

AN

Have you seen this, specifically this? Bishonen | talk 11:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC).

No, I've been too busy going to the doctor, having blood drawn, taking pills, and this - how is it I can go eight years with no ArbCom cases and then have two in two months? But they'll probably toss this one. I'll go look at your links now... KillerChihuahua 12:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh, yes that is interesting! If MastCell is correct (and he generally is) then FL's not just been retiring on a regular basis, he's been socking too. He needs to get another online hobby I think. You know, some people I'd rather we kept - excellent editors and admins - have left this place after a year or so, with no looks back - and some people seem to not be able to tear themselves away, even when they try. KillerChihuahua 12:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I think MastCell may be mistaken this time. Certain turns of phrase I am finding dissimilar rather than the reverse. Still, I suppose if one were trying to avoid detection, one might try to sound a little different. KillerChihuahua 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Never worry about TDA's AE nonsense...he's already brought two topic bans against him and at least one interaction ban, that I know of. I really hope your health improves.--MONGO 15:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow. I agree with MONGO on the AE page, the filing user is exhausting my patience, and I haven't even had to do with them. (No opinion on "ban evader", I don't know anything about that.) I remember when I was trying to fit some difficult wiki stuff into a hectic going-to-the-doctor period and ended up resigning the tools. It was primarily because I didn't want to be in the same club as a certain <personal attack removed>, especially when I didn't have the strength to hold my end up. But, anyway, it turned out to be a rather practical move. My wikilife became calmer. Though admittedly it gets very frustrating for a nosey person not to be able to see deleted pages. (Hello MONGO, how are you holding up with that aspect? Irritating, isn't it?) But you might want to think about temporary de-adminship? Doing a little laidback wikipedia stuff goes rather well as a hobby during illness, I find… but adminship and patrolling controversial areas, not so much. Well, anyway. You certainly haven't had any luck with the timing of this stuff. I'd like to see the filer take it to RFAR, as Sandstein suggested! I bet they've exhausted the committee's patience and all. Bishonen | talk 16:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC).
As my tools didn't have anything to do with this mess, I don't see how taking a break from them will keep me out of problem situations. It was feeling guilty about the pleas of a dead man that got me here. :-/ Well, that, and not letting NPA violations slide without mention. KillerChihuahua 17:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I can see you know that ridiculous AE thing has been closed. I completely concur with MastCell that some editors seem to thrive on "wiki-litigation". Good thing it was closed...MONGO was going to do massive mushroom cloud. Someone once said, "MONGO doesn't go small"...no, MONGO don't know small, only big booms! I really, really, really really....really hate time wasting crap like that. Grrrrrr!--MONGO 19:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I know, I have mixed feelings myself about it being closed. I argued for that, of course, but there is a case to be made, as Sir Fozzie and Sandstein did, that this needs to get to ArbCom sooner or later; but I really am not up to it right now. :-( But save your nukes in case they're needed. OTH there has been a small influx of experienced editors since the request was filed, and I think there was a thread on ANI, and so we may not need to go to ArbCom after all. :-) -- KillerChihuahua 19:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

TDA

I warned him at 3RR.[18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I added that to the report. Please feel free to edit it if you wish. KillerChihuahua 02:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Integrity

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Integrity. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Project Appleseed

Please take a look at Project Appleseed, and let me know if you feel there are still any issues with this article. Hope you are feeling/doing better. Apologies if I offended you previously. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging the issues in this article. Have attempted to address all the identified concerns. Please take another look at this, and see if these concerns have all been addressed! Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I will take a look as soon as I can manage, thanks in advance for your patience. I want to be able to give this the time it deserves and go over the article carefully. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. It deserves the time necessary to go over the article carefully. I know you will do a good job in identifying any issues. Thanks! !!!! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

the struggle

  • Chihuahua vs Carp
    Chihuahua vs Carp
  • They shot out of the open gate like two rockets from hell.
    They shot out of the open gate like two rockets from hell.
  • Nose to nose they duked it out.
    Nose to nose they duked it out.
  • The advantage seemed to go one way,
    The advantage seemed to go one way,
  • and then the other.
    and then the other.
  • Down. No, up.
    Down. No, up.
  • And who emerged the victor in this titanic struggle?
    And who emerged the victor in this titanic struggle?
  • You be the judge.
    You be the judge.
ROFLMAO, thanks, I needed that!!! But don't get any ideas.... KillerChihuahua 16:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Laughing is good in (almost) every way. No ideas. Carptrash (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Project Appleseed

Please take a look at Project Appleseed, and let me know if you feel there are still any issues with this article. Hope you are feeling/doing better. Apologies if I offended you previously. Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging the issues in this article. Have attempted to address all the identified concerns. Please take another look at this, and see if these concerns have all been addressed! Thanks! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I will take a look as soon as I can manage, thanks in advance for your patience. I want to be able to give this the time it deserves and go over the article carefully. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Certainly. It deserves the time necessary to go over the article carefully. I know you will do a good job in identifying any issues. Thanks! !!!! Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

the struggle

  • Chihuahua vs Carp
    Chihuahua vs Carp
  • They shot out of the open gate like two rockets from hell.
    They shot out of the open gate like two rockets from hell.
  • Nose to nose they duked it out.
    Nose to nose they duked it out.
  • The advantage seemed to go one way,
    The advantage seemed to go one way,
  • and then the other.
    and then the other.
  • Down. No, up.
    Down. No, up.
  • And who emerged the victor in this titanic struggle?
    And who emerged the victor in this titanic struggle?
  • You be the judge.
    You be the judge.
ROFLMAO, thanks, I needed that!!! But don't get any ideas.... KillerChihuahua 16:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Laughing is good in (almost) every way. No ideas. Carptrash (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Woof woof, whimper

It's been quite a while since you edited. Worrying! You might be interested in this, if you were well. But I'm afraid you're not. :-( Bishonen | talk 17:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

No, not terribly well, I'm afraid. Thank you so much for posting the link to the AN discussion here, I deeply appreciate it; as you surmised, I'm not keeping up with things but do check in occasionally. KillerChihuahua 10:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to her that dawg. :(  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  11:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
More best wishes for your recovery from Heim. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Heard about your health troubles, KC, and I wanted to let you know I hope you're better soon. Best wishes, thoughts, prayers, etc. from me for a speedy recovery! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 14:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you all so much! It is very kind of you to leave such encouraging and caring messages. Unfortunately, my doctor informs me it will be some months before I'm actually on the road to recovery. It's one of those long tedious things. KillerChihuahua 13:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

arbcom on TPM

hi. i've been following the arbcom proceedings since the ani dispute started, and i thought i might point out something which i think deserves a response (but i choose at this time not to officially be counted, as it were, at the arbcomm level)... In his prelim statement, Arzel said "I fail to see how questioning whether the actual movement should have first say in their agenda is problematic." This elevation of primary source/voice seems to be a pro-TPM advocacy position which adds fuel to the fire of talkpage incivility. An example of his specific contribution to the latter is his "juvenile" comment on the workshop page, which you rightly addressed but unfortunately has been set aside as 'extended content.' Moreover, the agenda pushing is clearly a root cause of entrenchment and ownership issues. For more of the same I would suggest looking at the Fox News talkpage archives, and compare those disputes to incongruous arguments at oppositional subjects like Media Matters -- I can offer specific thread links later, if time permits. Personally I believe experienced editors like Arzel encourage others like North8000 to be the frontline defenders. Perhaps I will return to the issue if/when an RFCU on Arzel is conducted, as suggested by SilkTork. Also of some concern: North8000's proposal to de-sysop you is not mentioned in his section of Silktork's workshop drafting.. and it seems like it should be, especially as it contradicts North's apparently newfound efforts at congeniality and reconciliation, which come off as disingenuous at best. El duderino (abides) 10:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me, I'm not sure what I can do with them at the current time. Evidence closed some time ago; SilkTork is planning to close Workshop soon. You may wish to make a comment in an appropriate section on Workshop under "Comment by others:". However, I note that North8000 calling for my desysopping has been noted, under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop#Locus of dispute 2. KillerChihuahua 12:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ferenc Szaniszló. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Puppies

Thought you'd like this [19]. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I never knew there was a "running of the chihuahuas". KillerChihuahua 08:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I know. Seems it's the puppy version of 'running of the bulls.' Malke 2010 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Only with less terror, abuse and blood. KillerChihuahua 12:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Running of the urinals  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I could have lived my whole life a happy woman without knowing about that one, LGR. :-/ People think up some odd pastimes! KillerChihuahua 02:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


Arb report

Thank you for your kind words about the arb report on my talk page. I am always surprised that anyone reads it. Hope you are well after your hospital adventures. —Neotarf (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's an ongoing saga. I have been getting blood taken and seeing my doctors once every 5 weeks, and have a biopsy scheduled for next week. In another month I should have a definitive diagnosis and plan of action. It's a patience game.
Your column serves a valuable purpose and is clear and well written, and I am certain many read and appreciate it. KillerChihuahua 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Good luck with that. The one thing worse than a biopsy is a biopsy where they send you home without any prescription for when the anesthesia wears off. —Neotarf (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not getting a prescription for home, and I'm not even getting anesthesia. I'm getting a Xanax. This does not promise to be the Most Fun Day Ever. KillerChihuahua 15:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh. Always good to see you making an edit, but Xanax sounds less reassuring. Hope all turns out well and a reasonably fun day after all, dave souza, talk 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like some dentists I have known. Root canal, then they go home for the night, along with the people who answer their phones. Worse if you go alone, much worse if you have no health insurance, and much, much worse if you try to have a discussion about such things AFTER your mouth is shot full of novacaine. —Neotarf (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, we had the discussion. Them: You'll be awake for the procedure, we're using a local. Me:Can I have a Xanax at least? Them: Yeah ok, one Xanax.
Mr. Chihuahua is going with me, we have ok insurance, and I won't have a mouth of Novocaine (although I will have a stabbed throat, also probably bad for talking.) I'm really, really sorry if the root canal story is from personal experience. I've had root canals, and it wasn't fun. KillerChihuahua 15:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
In that case, it probably won't kill you. I'm sure they will give Mr. Chihuahua a phone number for any followup. —Neotarf (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive_21&oldid=1151016702"