User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive08

This is an archive of past discussions with User:KillerChihuahua. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Bees and inebriation

I have constructed a somewhat whimsical draft about this subject at User talk:Filll/beedrunk. Do you think it has a chance to survive? I did get the bee expert User:Dyanega to help write it and edit my stupidities and give me feedback. Do you think it can survive as an article on its own? Or should it be part of other articles?--Filll 18:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

replied on your talk page, as you have a section on this article. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing

I'm just writing to let you know that i have begun editing proper. I have spent some time working on the images that have unknown copyright infomration and am beginning to start making a dent in the pile. i think that my time would be best spent in this area as i have had a lot of practice with this on the wikibooks.

Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 20:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That area certainly needs a lot of attention, and I applaud your willingness to step up to the plate and contribute in such a tedious task. That is not my area of expertise, so if you ever need a second opinion or advice, I am not the person to give it - but I can assist in identifying editors who would be able to help you, so if you need some input feel free to ask me to locate someone with the necessary knowledge for you, and I will be happy to do so. I'm glad you've found a niche where you feel comfortable! KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Wight

Another of my articles that was hit with a speedy is Thomas Wight. I have been slowly nurturing it in a sandbox. Here it is so far: User:Filll/Thomas Wight. Is it worthy of WP?--Filll 22:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would like to see more about his activities in the area of copyright - what was his position? How did he influence the development? Its not necessary, but would add a good deal. Is there further information about that? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I might be able to get more later at a better library. If someone follows the reference, we can dig up more. As I understand it, this publishing/draper's guild at the time was were the ideas for copyright came from. But I have to research it better to understand it.--Filll 12:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

AN thread on Troll organisation

Just an alert in case you missed my reply: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Troll_organization. Thanks. Carcharoth 01:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

Thoughts on this? · j e r s y k o talk · 14:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You have hopefully at least clarified that full protection of her userpage will not affect me in the least, yet another example of Bearly541's misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works; however, I have not even been notified of this bizarre case as yet. I am unclear on what you are asking me to comment on: would you please clarify? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you haven't been notified, you haven't been notified. Carry on. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I do appreciate your efforts here. I am simply waiting at this time - so far, she's left "forever", filed a medcab, modified her medcab several times, made a "compromise offer", etc - all within the last five days. I am simply unsure of what she's trying to accomplish or whether she will end up withdrawing. Cheers, KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer, it looks like she "bearly" understands how WP works :) --Filll 21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks for the advice, I got a kick out of it; I'm sure it is just a matter of time before at least one of those things come true.--Isotope23 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciated the humor - I meant what I said about contacting me should you ever want or need assistance, btw! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

What does it means ???

Hi,

I want to know what's "External links - Rm link per EL" means ? Just to avoid the same mistake

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Machsys (talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

It means, Removing link according to WP:EL, Wikipedia's guideline on External Links. Please feel free to ask me whenever any of the Wikpedia acronyms have you scratching your head - there are a lot of them, I know, and we tend to use them a lot, especially in edit summaries. For a humorous look at that, see WP:OMG - which won't help, but might at least give you a chuckle, and let you know we really don't mean to confuse the newcomers! I promise that if you stick with it, you'll learn the lingo. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

No problem - I've seen that RfC had been stressed elsewhere, but though I'd at least try to get my thoughts in - after all, any case when an editor leaves under a cloud is a bad one, and I'd always prefer to see the problems resolved amicably. You are to be commended for your handling of the dispute so far - well done :)! Feel free to contact me if you need any help. Mart inp23 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I concur. (re:amicably is preferable) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a significant complaint to register

Unbelievable. So (albeit for a tiny % of votes) I lose my RFA because it was assumed I killed song birds. Now I realise there's an admin lurking out there with a murderous canine title. Whatever next. You'll be glad to know I realised the error of my ways! Next time I'm up for RFA, rest assured, I'll hunt you down....... The Rambling Man 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your comments. Hurrah for people that can maintain a sense of humour throughout. I knew my RFA was doomed despite the username, hopefully the two or three who found it utterly reprhensible will be able to cope with my latest incarnation. Still, lovely to bump into a fellow "killer"! Cheers! The Rambling Man 23:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to send all that information to me. I am reading "How to edit a page" now. Sorry for not using edit summaries. I will try to do that in future. I clicked on the link for your name and it took me to a page that had "discussion" in a link at the top. You said to ask you on your "talk" page if I have any questions. Is discussion the same as talk? It says at the top of this page that people who are replying to your messages should reply on their own pages. So I'm not sure whether I should have replied here or back there. Anyway, I appreciate the help. ElinorD ElinorD 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome, but you are giving me too much credit. That was added by a standard template by simply typing in {{welcome}} (follow the link to see the template). Yes, apologies, "Discussion" is precisely the same as "talk" - and if an editor ever asks you to post on the "talk" page of an article, you get there the same way, by clicking the "discussion" tab on the article. You will find that Wikipedians (people like you and I, who edit articles here) tend after a while to speak a kind of specialized lingo - which includes a lot of acronyms, I'm sorry to have to inform you. I'm glad the information provided via the welcome template are helpful to you, please feel free to ask me any question you might have here on my Talk (discussion) page! And don't worry too much about the edit summaries for your past edits, everyone was new here once and we all had to learn all this stuff. Stick with it, and I promise you'll be an expert in no time! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are using the four tildes (~~~~) to sign - good job, see you are a quick learner! Just so you know, you don't have to type your username also - the four tildes add your name along with the time and date stamp. Cool, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help so far. I haven't finished reading all those pages, but I have another question. I was looking at an article called "Josiah Henson". It has a list of "categories" at the bottom. One of them was red, and said "Native america josiah henson". When I clicked on it, it didn't seem to lead to anything. I didn't think it should be there. Henson wasn't a Native American. I opened the edit box for the article, and removed "Category:native america josiah henson", but when I press "preview" to see what I've done, the categories don't seem to appear with the rest of the text. None of them. I haven't saved the page yet: I don't want to mess up anything. Should I take out that bit? Thanks. ElinorD 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (signing properly this time!)

Also, when I was typing that question to you, I put "Category:native america josiah henson" with two square brackets on each side, because that's how it appeared in the article that I was trying to remove it from. But when I looked at my question through "preview", all the words had disappeared, and I could just see "". So I changed it before saving it. And I've added your discussion/talk page to my watchlist. ElinorD 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Categories are a little odd, so bear with me here and if I confuse you, let me know (sometimes I get confused on Categories too!) When you want to talk to somebody about a category, you have to put a colon after the first two brackets, and before the category itself, like this: [[:Category:Native American]] which looks like this: Category:Native American. (If you look at the source, I put nowiki tags on either side of my "how to", which you can do anytime you don't want wiki-markup to work.) When you put categories on an article page, they don't show in preview, unless you messed up. (Usually for me that means I typo'd the word "Category".) My adivice is to go ahead and remove the category, adding an edit summary that explains what you're doing and why (something like "removed category native american, inaccurate cat") and save. If everything works right, all the other categories will be there and the page will look fine. If somehow you mess up, its ok! One of the nice things about a wiki is that you can fix or undo almost anything. To undo something you've done (or something anyone has done, for that matter) Look at the article history, usually referred to as the page history, by clicking on the history tab. You will see the edits done to the article in a list. Click on the Time and date link of the edit right before yours where things broke. Click Edit this page. You will see a warning, in a pink box, which says You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed.. Ignore this message, because that's exactly what you're trying to do - remove changes made since that version. Add an edit summary (I usually just say "Oops" for these type situations) and save page. All will be as it was before - which is not great, since Josiah will still be in the wrong category, but you'll be working from the same starting point when you try again. Or you can try to figure out what you did wrong and fix it without reverting (which is what we call going to a previous version of the page). There are also tools for reverting once you get comfortable doing it, which make it quicker and easier. Apologies this was so long, and let me know if you run into any trouble, or if I can be of any further help, or especially if this wasn't clear to you! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you yet again. I've done it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josiah_Henson&action=history

I feel bad about putting you to the trouble of typing such a long answer, because I'm sure (I know how to make italics!) that the answer is contained in one of the pages you linked to when you welcomed me. I think I understand categories now. So if I had saved my original question to you without previewing it, I would have added your discussion page to the category of Native Americans. Right? ElinorD 18:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. :-) And its no trouble: sometimes I link to wikipedia pages, and sometimes I type instructions myself. If you'd prefer in the future I can always link to pages with how to do things instead of typing it out. I just wanted to be able to add a little commentary on the terminology - which I hope will be useful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Toolbox

Go ahead and make yourself a copy of my toolbox. Martial Law 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! I like the way it is organized... Welcome, Warning, etc. I didn't even know about {{thanks}} - I use {{welcomeip}}. I'm not sure where I'd put it - I'm going to have to think about that. I will certainly reccomend it to others as a nice toolbox for often used templates. I have a suggestion - why not put it higher on the page, where people will notice it? Where you have it now, it might be missed by people might want to use it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you arrange that ? Been on a UFO case. So far on it, the locals believe that The Devil, The Anti-Christ is comming, while I have a witness who has said that the incident was either a training mission or a hoax via aircraft (I have a report of ultralight/microlight aircraft used in a UFO hoax in another UFO incident.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martial Law (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Forgot sig. Been busy on the case. That happens. Must be getting old. Martial Law 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Award

This one is for your offer to mentor me.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For making Wikipedia a better place for all. Martial Law 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

and this one

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For making Wikipedia a better place for all. Martial Law 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks much for the barnstars - and you're already on my watchlist, but sometimes I'm not online and other times someone else reverts a page before I do - but I will keep watching! KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

as well. You like ? Martial Law 00:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you place me on your watchpage, in case I get another vandal ? Martial Law 00:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RfM, RfA, big mess...

Sorry to bother you. Concering the latest with Ilena, I'd like your perspective. If you don't have the time, let me know and I won't be offended. The RfM was nonsensical from my viewpoint. I've gone into detail on its discussion page, but in light of the RfA, I think one thing needs to be pointed out: Wizardry Dragon was unclear in the RfM on what specific issues he thought needed moderation. His adding Breast implant to the RfM two days after initially writing it only made it more confusing Jance is the only party that has actually edited the article (other than a single wikify edit by Fyslee, and a single edit by Ilena that added a sentence and reference). From my perspective, he made multiple mistakes in writing up the RfM, and then did not take the time to resolve them himself and didn give others enough information to assist. The RfA is clearer, but writing it because the RfM was refused only ignores his mistakes. He should rewrite the RfM, be clear on the issues he sees, explain what Breast implant has to do with anything or remove it, and ensure that the RfM actually makes sense. Additionally, the RfA makes it clear the he's ignoring Ilena's behavior, specifically her inability to learn and respect wiki policies and guidelines. How can you moderate with someone about neutrality, external links, and inflammatory content when that person shows no understanding of any of the relevant guidelines. --Ronz 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen! The RfM was ill-timed, misplaced, and on the wrong article. It shouldn't have been about any specific article at all, but should have concentrated on her behavior, so an RfC would have been better. -- Fyslee 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been named in an RfArb

I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb here. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your extremely kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-kiss to you!

I was in naughty mood... --BorgQueen 21:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Grins, I'm glad you were, and that you decided to share it with me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved incoherent post from user page

please dont block the rightest non biased group consisting of 2,000 members and 300 ip adresses. this is rude and illegal. have a nice day —Preceding unsigned comment added by rightwing09 (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what this means but here it is.--Filll 16:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, already posted on user's talk page, thanks much. I don't know what its about either. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-committal

Hi, yeah, I know I should put work into the Kriss Donald article and indeed mediation, but I'm currently barely on Wikipedia and not likely to dive back into nasty stuff when I do return. I certainly don't have the patience to work between Ldxar, the anon who is a major contributor and Guardian Sickness who, last time we interacted, made a completely unfounded accusation and followed it with "You are a joke!"[1] (I see s/he is now screaming incivility for much less: ho hum).

So I'm more likely to slap them than contribute constructively, I'm afraid.

In fact this article is always going to have some of these issues, regardless of whether Ldxar and GS are on it, due to the nature of the crime, so some publicly stated agreement on contents would be jolly useful. JackyR | Talk 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

How could I go about deleting this account and getting a new account? Or better yet changing my username License2Kill?

You cannot delete your account. You can change your username if you wish; your history will follow you. Or you can register another account. I suggest you think about it carefully before making any decision. If you decide to change your username, the procedure is at Wikipedia:Changing username. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your soapbox

Hi, I have a couple of comments on your Soapbox. You say "There seems to be a strong bias in WP to show the Christian view always, often divided into Roman Catholic and Protestant; followed by the Judaic view and/or Islamic view..." Are you sure? I know that some views are under-represented, but Islam is surely not one of them. Judging from the discussions on controversial talk pages, everyone's getting to shout his POV, often creating a painful cacophony.

Then you move on to "I am merely suggesting that the major religions of the world are poorly represented..." and "At the very least Islam and Hinduism should be presented..." You have said above that the Islamic view is often given, second to the Christian view. This correlates with your table, so how is Islam poorly represented? I don't understand your logic.

Finally, let's remember that many people believing in something is not a reason to give it more weight in an encyclopaedia. NB I have just reread my words, I often look aggressive in print, this is not the case, I'm just terse by nature. :) Antgel 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually wrote that about three years ago, when it was Christian always, almost always Judaism, and only every now and then Islam - but almost never Hindu or Buddhist, or any other belief system. Much has changed since then, often due to my efforts. It is becoming dated, though, and far less an area of concern. I have thought of replacing that section and just haven't gotten around to it. Thanks for reminding me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kriss Donald Mediation

Hi KillerChihuahua, sorry for my delay in stating my position in the mediation process. I usually visit Wikipedia everyday, but I am having computer problems and am therefore using someone elses computer. I am doing my best to sort this out, but will try and reply to any post as soon as possible.

--Guardian sickness 00:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks for letting me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That vertical line

Hi, I have another question for you. Jkelly has been very kindly helping me with image copyright problems. (I had registered an account at Wikimedia Commons, and had uploaded some photos I took myself of figurines, but I didn't realise that the maker of the figurines might still hold the copyright.) S/he suggested that I should try to improve the rather poor Fontanini article, since I'm interested in figurines. I looked carefully at source code for other articles before I tried it. At first I just linked to vaguely relevant articles, or didn't link at all. For example, there is an article called Biblical magi, but in the Fontanini article, I wanted to call them the wise men. That article links to a general page, from which you can find the Biblical magi article. Having looked at other articles, I see that editors use a vertical line like this | between the name of the article they link to and whatever they want to call it in the article they're writing. So you could write either "[[Prince Charles]] and [[Queen Elizabeth]]" or "[[Prince Charles]] and [[Queen Elizabeth|his mother]]".

Where can I find that vertical line on my keyboard? When I was editing Fontanini, I copied it from the source code in another Wikipedia page, and pasted it in wherever I wanted to use it. But there must be a simpler way than that! I have a British (QWERTY) keyboard, by the way. I don't know if that makes any difference. (Certainly, the French keyboards are different.) I don't think I ever saw that line in my life before joining Wikipedia. I've looked at my keyboard, and I don't see anything that looks like it. Thanks. ElinorD 16:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have an American keyboard, and on my keyboard the "pipe" (the vertical line character) is located above the backslash (\), which is abobve the right shift. Depending on your keyboard, the pipe is probably above the windows key and to the right of shift (on one type of Windows keyboard), as shown in the image in British and American keyboards, or possibly next to the space bar. Let me know if you still cannot find it, and we'll look further - and maybe update the article, if it doesn't cover standard current layout. Btw, when people talk about "piping a link" that's what they are talking about - having the words show one thing, but being "piped" to an article with a different name. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've found it. As you said, it was to the right of the Shift key (between Shift and Z), and I have to press Shift at the same time, but on my keyboard, that particular key doesn't look exactly like the keyboard in the image. In the image, that key has two signs: \ and |, but | is in two bits, like - - if you turn it ninety degrees. It's great to know that. Thanks again. ElinorD 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Morfik

Killer, I see that you deleted the page I created on Morfik. The note I see states that it is "Tagged as A7 but it is G11"). I'm not sure what the tag means, but Steel359 originally deleted the article then restored it and asked me to work on it to ensure that it conforms with all policies. I logged in this morning to work on it, when I saw that you deleted it.

Again, I don't understand what the rationale is, but I would ask you to restore it so that I can work on it and get it into compliance. As the article is already being monitored by another admin, I request that you let this process continue. If you have feedback on what should be done to improve the article, of course I welcome it. MikeyTheK 16:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The article was tagged as speedy deletion category A7 (see WP:CSD). A7 is Article/number 7, Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. G11 is General/number 11, Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. The article meets speedy criteria. I suggest you work on the article offline, or in your userspace, prior to attempting to load it again, as the speedy tag was almost immediately placed on the article after Steel359 undeleted it. I don't know why he deleted it as G11 three times and then undeleted it to Main (article) space instead of userfying for improvement, but the article as it is will be deleted again, by someone. Combined log shows three deletions, and five instances of a speedy tag being added. It doesn't matter if it is "being monitored by another admin", it does not meet criteria for inclusion and is speedyable. If you want Steel359 to userfy it for you, ask him to do so. If you do not understand the criteria on the CSD page, feel free to ask me and I will do my best to help. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just reread this and realized I may sound terse, if so apologies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to get all the help anybody's willing to offer. Since I created everything within Wikipedia I don't have the source anywhere, so if you could do something to help I'd appreciate it. So basically if I have it set as a user page then I can work on it and resubmit it after it's all fixed?

MikeyTheK 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what userfying is - developing an article in userspace, then the article is moved (not pasted) to article space. Steel359 and I are discussing this here on his talk page - please add your input there, thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Killer, It appears that this discussion is losing steam between you and Steel. Can you please do something to help me get it userfied so I can work on it again? I am going to have time this weekend to work on it. Thanks. MikeyTheK 01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Killer, I also posted a message to Steel, and he took care of it. Thanks for the help. Do you mind getting a request to review it when I'm done? MikeyTheK 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can request this yourself, at article Rfc. Let me know if you are at all confused on how to do this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

looking for a moderator and/or contributors

Physics is being rewritten and we are looking for contributors and/or moderators at Talk:Physics/wip Do you have any suggestions? --Filll 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem edit summary at Talk:Abortion

I am currently sick as a dog (not a chihuahua, mind!), but, I browsed briefly through Wikipedia and checked my Talk page out. Thought you should know about this edit summary on Talk:Abortion. -Severa (!!!) 02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeking to be adopted

Bluestripe 00:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please ask someone else. I am not currently accepting adoptees. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What do I do if I think an article is bad but can't fix it?

Hello again. I'm finding my way around Wikipedia very nicely now, and have even, at the suggestion of Jkelly, joined Wikimedia Commons.

I discovered that if I enter the name of an article into the box at the left and press "search" instead of "go", I get taken to a list of all the articles that have that word. So I decided to look for some spelling mistakes; correcting such errors would give me a chance to get familiar with Wikipedia before I try creating articles. (I'm also reverting some vandalism.) So I used the search box for things like "geneology", "seperate", dissapoint", etc. Sometimes it might lead me to an article on a subject that I have no interest or expertise in.

What should I do when I find (what I think is) a really bad article? When I first found Fontanini, it looked like this. I didn't want to barge right in, so I just corrected the spelling, but then Jkelly suggested that I should try to rewrite it, as I'm interested in figurines, so I did. I'm not saying it's wonderful now, but at least it looks more like an article.

When searching for the spelling "dissapoint", I found LO Zone and Pogo Island Hands-On. They seem quite bad as articles, but I don't have any expertise that would enable me to fix them, and I'm not sure that they should even exist. In fact, I'm even a little embarrassed just to go in and fix the spelling of disappoint, since that might seem as a tacit endorsement of the rest of the content. What am I meant to do when I find articles like that? Thanks. ElinorD 19:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Filll has already placed these articles on "Prod", which is Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Other options, depending on how bad the article is, would be to tag for Speedy deletion (for truly unfixable) or nominate for Afd (for questionable.) Another option, if it is clearly fixable, is to tag for cleanup. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know that. I've really settled in now (thanks partly to you). Sometimes I feel that I've been here for ages, and then at other times I find there are still things I don't know. ElinorD 18:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I felt sort of bad for doing it. I wanted to make sure I gave the authors notice that I was doing it, to give them a chance to hopefully fix the articles if they could. Which I did when I put the prod on. However, it did look like those two articles were just test articles and not really serious. I thought I would learn a bit about how the deletion process works by taking matters into my own hands. Hopefully I did not overstep any boundaries.--Filll 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Its a wiki; anyone can add such tags so long as it is done in good faith. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Kriss Donald mediation

Hi KillerChihuahua, I'm am not sure whether I should be posting in the mediation page only in response to your requests there, or whether I should engage in discussion on the mediation page with Ldxar. Maybe you could let me know as the discussions can become quite lengthy.

--Guardian sickness 01:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to my requests at this time, and thank you for asking! I know how hard it is to not respond, and appreciate you trying to stay focused. You two discussed things yourself for some time with no resolution; I do not see how moving that debate to another page will help move forward to resolving this. I know Ldxar1 has been unable to stick to this so far, but if you do not engage then we should be able to keep the mediation page focused. Thanks again - KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, It is difficult not to respond, especially when it is regarding a policy issue. Please let me know if and when you require me to reply to these posts. --Guardian sickness 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Will do. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note and the advice. I had a pretty good laugh about it last night when I protected the "wrong version" of Barbaro, my first page protection. Anyway, sorry for the late reply - I've been very busy with the new tools - but I just wanted to let you know I appreciated it. Kafziel ^Talk 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome for any laughs I was able to provide. It is the element of truth that makes it funny, of course. Do let me know if I can ever be of help - KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

rfa and law school

Hey puppy, I can't believe I forgot to mention to you that I got into American University! I've also been provisionally accepted into University of South Carolina but since I haven't actually applied there, I'm not going to call it a full acceptance (they just mailed me and said "If you apply you'll get in!"). I've been assured I'll be accepted at University of Florida which is a big deal since that's a really good law school, but I've always wanted to go to law school in D.C. so I don't know exactly what I'm going to do yet. I'll let you know as the process goes on. As for the RFA, heh I didn't want to campaign, but yeah! Looks much better this time. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ooh congrats congrats... that's a tough one. DC is expensive and crime - ridden, as well as cold in the winter. OTOH it is the nation's capitol. What type law do you plan to specialize in, or have you decided yet? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea yet. I want to do trial advocacy and litigation, and I think I'm pretty interested in labor law, so DC is a good place for the trial advocacy part. It's great in the theoretical realm for the labor law part too, but not for practicality, but that's ok too because American is right on the MD border and it's 20 minutes away from the capital section of DC, so it's more likely to get more practical labor law experience. It's in the top 40 law schools in the nation so I'm psyched about that too. Anyway, I have quite a while yet to make the decision. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I just got accepted to University of Denver Sturm College of Law, which is one of the top schools that I wanted to get into.....keep you posted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, choices, choices. I'm so pleased for you! KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comment

Amen Raul654 19:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Future research? Possible applications?

In a roundabout way, Talk:Intelligent design#Future research? Possible applications? was a genuine enquiry by Thedewi – as discussed at User talk:Thedewi... However, I fear that our voluble IDist friends will never actually come up with a programme of research, confining themselves to their usual modest ambitions to change the world and overthrow science. Just thought you might like to see the context of the discussion. :) .... dave souza, talk 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to know a little more of the larger picture. Upon reflection, however, my answer still answers. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your answer's fine, just I'm never quite sure how well ideas of humour travel. From here it can be hard to take some of these ideas seriously, though finding that creationists are lecturers in a few of our universities is pretty scary. .. dave souza, talk 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Hi, I saw your revision on Elaragirl's page regarding WP:NPA. Since you are an administrator, can you tell me what your interpretation of WP:NPA is, because I clearly saw a personal attack on her page. Also, I am semi-new to wiki rules. Real96 05:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That would take a lot of discussion. Perhaps you could simply tell me what in that post strikes you as a personal attack, and I will respond to that. I should note that is a side issue, anyway - the real issue was someone deleting comments from a talk page which was not their own. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can a user warn another user if they placed a NPA attack on another person's page? In this case, since the user clearly violated WP:NPA and the user still violates WP:NPA with other users, then the incidents should be reported to a proper administrator, and led to banning for a certain duration of time. This same situation occurred to me, and an administrator banned the person violating NPA. However, I think Elaragirl took the comments with laughter, and replaced the comment. Real96 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You ask another question, and do not provide the content which you feel was a personal attack. I will answer the question, but please specify what you thought was a personal attack in the post under discussion.

Any user may speak to another about personal attacks. Boilerplate templates are generally used only for very new users, who are unaware of the NPA policy. No administrator "banned" anyone in your incident, almost certainly - I believe you are speaking of blocking, unless the editor was a sockpuppet of an already banned user. No one administrator can ban. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I was talking about the blocking/banning of user for a certain duration, in this case, Flameviper. However, this conversation is moot since the person who violated NPA was blocked, and later banned. Thanks for your input! Real96 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

I'm sorry. There's never been an urgent need for contact outside Talk pages so I've never got around to setting it up. There's an explanation in the edit history of my user page. Thanks again for everything. :-) -Severa (!!!) 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I never pressed to know you better than I needed to for on-Wiki, but I have to say that although I am able to repress my desire to pressure you to stay on and keep going with your incredible, and largely unappreciated, efforts to keep the Arbortion related articles accurate and unbiased, I truly like and admire you and feel personal loss if I am to be unable to keep in touch. Selfish of me, but there it is. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You can try now, if you want. I honestly didn't know you had to manually activate the user e-mail thing before. There's a lot of levels to Wiki with which I'm still not quite familiar. -Severa (!!!) 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, you're not being selfish in any way. :-) -Severa (!!!) 09:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah, you don't know me that well. If you go away, I'll have to ride herd on the ~~BABY MURDERING~~ Abortion articles and I will get all cranky and not be able to do much else, because it is a full time job. Then I'll get really cranky and get hauled before Arbcom and de-sysopped, and go down in flames, and the articles will turn to utter crap and the World Will End!!! OMG! KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

-- Donald Albury 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Do I at least get wooden shoes? -Severa (!!!) 14:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Wooden shoes! Adds a pleasant clomp-clomp-clomp to (sometimes) unpleasant tasks. Also goes well with a good book on Vermeer and a nice cup of Rooibos. I just hope they have them in size 9 1/2... -Severa (!!!)

I think the worst thing about the Abortion articles is that it takes so many editors to hold it together and just one to pull it all down. I wish we were better staffed, or at least organized, because sometimes I feel that there's very little recourse against such forces, particularly lately. -Severa (!!!) 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rfc is a recourse, but that takes time to put together. FeloniousMonk deals with similar stuff on Intelligent design, except that they actually issue "calls to arms" to come edit the wp article in biased fashion. He's filed more Rfc's than I would ever be able to have patience for... so much tedious work. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Check your e-mail. -Severa (!!!) 16:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Check it again. Sorry. -Severa (!!!) 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

my e-mail

I have un-protected the page. I did not think more talk was going to help, and by unprotecting hte page people now really must work with one another. One person has already asked for page-protection again, but in my opinion this is just a way to ensure that no one else will ever work on the article. I am willing to give it a week to see if they can learn to cooperate and collaborate and compromise. If they do not, they will surely either have to request formal mediation or go to ArbCom. Is the problem with my e-mail address? I can give you an alternate if that is the problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is probably with my server - I should know by end of day, thanks much. I will watch the page and try to keep abreast of the conflict. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Look here - if you have the interest and will, you may want to nominate yourself to mediate between Jere Krischel and WRN. If you do so it whould be as a formal process rather than the informal way I did it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to see if Jere Krischel and/or WRN follows the advice you gave on his/her talk page, at least for a bit. I see no desire on either party's part to request formal mediation; unless they both enter into mediation with a desire to achieve workable consensus, mediation is almost certain to fail. If my adding my voice to support your very good advice and observations might help, I will do so, of course - at this time I think inserting myself into the dispute in any more active way will merely continue the non-progressive edit warring we have seen thus far. I realize this is frustrating, and of course I may be wrong in my assessment, but I cannot see that mediation being thrust upon the editors will meet with any strong desire on either part to compromise or consider the "other side's" position. This must come from the editors themselves. If stalemate and edit warring continues, one or the other will surely either amend their editing patterns or seek resolution, via formal mediation or Arbcom. I prefer to allow them to choose that path themselves, and take the consequences. Please, if you see an error in my thinking, let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no error in your thining. But I do think you ought to voice your opinion concerning requests to protect the page, and also the current protected status of a content-fork page, Race and intelligence (explanations). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already voiced my opinion on the RFPP, by timestamps as you were typing your message. GMTA. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! I'd appreciate it though it you could continue watching these articles. I suspect one editor who will keep calling for protection rather than deal with mediation and it is a cop-out. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I assume you have surmised from my post on RFPP, I agree. Pages are watched (along with about 2k others... sigh.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Provencher

Tnx for your disposition, upon yr concurrence, re his bio. I note with pleasure that yr summary once again justifies your choice of user-ID. But i also wanted to share w/ you my sense that those comments are separate form a function that i see as crucial: the clarification that the deleting admin cares that the nom'n was a "valid A7" (or whatever other specific CSD applies). That is, i think that

-- your and my statements with the thrust of "there's no way this sick puppy would pass AfD" serve (beyond our joy of piling abuse on the abuse-worthy) to reassure those who review deletion log entries or undeletion pages that the CSD aren't so loose, nor the deleting admins so harshly deletionist, that CSD is getting useful stuff trashed, but

-- nevertheless, it is also important to go thru the motions of saying, in effect, "and i haven't forgotten that our policy is that besides speedies having to be (subjectively) non-controversial, they also have to meet the tight and relatively objective CSDs".

I think it's rare for admins to abuse the process by executing CSD delns w/o meeting the criteria, but it does happen and i believe the community deserves the reassurance as to how overwhelmingly the deleters pay enuf attention to the criteria that mention the specific criterion for the case at hand is an insignificant burden: a transparency measure i'd call (whether per CSD, Prod, or AfD) "no deletion without a process, and no such process without a policy", ala Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali. Thanks!
--Jerzy•t 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing except in my delete summary, which was "NN; NOT Crystal ball; being arrested for vandalism and being the author of a non-published comic does not make one notable. Please go to MySpace)" - what are you talking about with the sick puppy passing Afd comment? Where is that? What are you talking about? Clarify, please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see you said thrust, nn is A7. Does this answer your comment? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

arf

Arf. Arf arf ruf. Bark bark bow wow, which I think translates to thanks for the kind words of support. I really appreciate it, especially coming from you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance tags

Hi, best not to subst: most of these, or {{stub}}. See WP:SUBST for details. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 17:19 16 February 2007 (GMT).

A diff or specifics would help, more than this boilerplate message. Did I accidentally subst a cleanup tag somewhere or something? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

bot rollback?

Hey puppy, I can't get that whole bot rollback for mass vandals thing to work....I went to the contribs page and added &bot=1 to the end of the URL but then it just listed it as having 0 contribs. Am I doing something out of order? The link on the admin how-to guide has a different style URL than mine too, it has a phtml and &target= tag in the URL that mine didn't. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, link? Diff? What? ConfusedPuppy 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[2],

In cases of large scale vandalism that flood recent changes, you may use "bot rollback". Add &bot=1 to the end of the URL used to access a user's contributions. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Vandal&bot=1. When the rollback links on the contributions list are clicked, the revert, and the original edit that you are reverting will both be hidden from the default Recentchanges display. See Wikipedia:Revert.

. That's what I can't get to work. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that. I have never used that. Adding &bot=1 to contribs gets something like contribs for User:KillerChihuahua&bot=1, which is useless. Hacking the sample url gives something which looks workable: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=KillerChihuahua&bot=1 but please don't rollback any of my contribs. Why do you want to use this anyway? Just being thorough, or did you have a specific situation in mind? (KC shows age here, bot rollback wasn't available when she was a pup.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering how it worked, and got curious when I couldn't figure out how to do it. Seems super counterintuitive if you have to hack the URL each time, no? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

One presumes it works with some browsers, or certain setups, or something. URL hacking may indeed be the only way to do it. As I said, I have never used it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree

Hi just wanted to say even though i think that kent hovind is one of the most evil people ever born i complety agree with your objectivity thanks for your honesty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovefestguy (talk • contribs) 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

KillerChihuahua,

I have recenetly been thinking about it, and i would like very much to myself adopt a user as you adopted me. Though i have not got the recomended number of edits, I have been told that as long as i okay it first by posting on the adopt site, it will not be a problem. Before proceeding with this, i wanted to know whether or not you would approve of me doing this, as it would require a termination of your adoption of me.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Urbane User (Talk) (Contributions) 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel up to it, do it! I'm afraid I wasn't too terribly much help to you as your adoptor, so don't use me as an example of how to do it! Remember you can always ask me any questions - being an adoptee is not necessary. Let me know what you decide - KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Stasov

You misunderstood. I asked for Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov to be moved on top on Vladimir Stasov. Vladimir Stasov was tagged for db-move, not for deletion. The patronymic is not necessary for disambiguation, and the naming convention requires the article title be simplified. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Then don't use a speedy deletion tag for a move request. I'll move Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov to Vladimir Stasov. In the future, make move requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves - shorcut, WP:RM. Don't clutter up CAT:CSD with stuff that isn't speedy deletion, ok? Its always backlogged. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and FYI, you used db-move|Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov which basically read as speedy delete, move to itself, which made no sense at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm... db-move is a fine tag for uncontroversial moves, such as this. I used "db-move|Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov" on "Vladimir Stasov", which is to say, "The page to be moved to this name is Vladimir Vasilievich Stasov". Pretty clear I thought, and quite properly under CSD. Anyway, thanks for performing the move+delete. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

db move is a crappy solution, IMO, and I personally prefer people not use it, because CSD is always full, as I have said. That it exists doesn't make it the best solution. One puppy's opinion, feel free to convert others but you will not convert me. If anyone nominates that template and methodology for deletion, I will support. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Baboons are a superior, more evolved life form than Puppies. See also my opinion to the same effect at RfA/Bishzilla. Cheers! - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The concept that certain lifeforms are more evolved than others is a fallacy. -- Ec5618 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition...cats are the most advanced (not evolved) lifeforms on the planet, and, iirc dogs are more closely related to cats than are baboons... Guettarda 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also note Baboon opposed Bishzilla being admin: hardly proof Baboon is more intelligent than puppy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Response of last resort: fallacy shmallacy - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)