User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

poke poke poke

These god awful sanctions are insane. The one or two people who started them off (TS) are heralding them as a triumph but to be honest they are nothing more than an excuse for the battleground nonsense to spill over into another venue. Polargeo (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

So is a well-written encyclopaedia (a virtue, that is, not a patience) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The first is needed to achieve the latter. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

TheDarkLordSeth

Hi KC, if you have a moment could you take a look at User talk:AGK#TDLS AE appeal? He makes some compelling arguments. I'm inclined to think that a topic ban may have been too harsh and/or that a second chance is in order. Regards, AGK 13:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Good call!

[1] was getting off-topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - one comment and response is one thing,but once it wanders off and becomes a debate about another editor alltogether, it doesn't belong on that page, and certainly not in that section. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages

Hello, KillerChihuahua. Your no-talkback edit notice is constantly ignored.
You will remove talkback notices every time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. They will never stop.

LOL, you're not kidding! I've seriously thought about editing my editnotice so it says in huge red caps DO NOT ADD A TALKBACK NOTICE TO THIS PAGE IF YOU'RE ONLY REPLYING TO A POST I LEFT. I AM ALREADY WATCHING YOUR PAGE but given my experience, they won't read that, either. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the link to the Nupedia policy

Thanks for finding that archived 2000 non-bias policy. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, I'm glad I found it! I think its important to realize how fundamental this is to the project as a whole. I agree with Maurreen's restoring that note, and happy we have the archive version so people who are interested can go see the origins. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge Proposal Closure

Could you as an uninvolved admin close the merge proposal here [2] There is a clear consensus for no merge between the three articles on the talk page. [3] Thanks mark nutley (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This was proposed on 22 April, and discussion has not ceased nor does there seem to be a "clear consensus" - instead there seems to be a slight majority. I would consider closing at this time to be premature. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought they only ran for seven days, like an AFD, but does not 12 to keep and only 6 to merge count as a consensus? That`s two to one against a merger mark nutley (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

They run until resolved. Some Afd's are closed early. Some are relisted. Some are left open for extended debate. I am unaware of any time set for Merges, however, even if there is it would be the same as an Afd and IAR would apply. 2:1 is not a consensus, even by Wikipedia standards, which misuses the word as a matter of course. It is a majority. 15:1 is a consensus with one against-the-crowd holdhout. Its not a vote; try to discuss reasons with the other editors; try to understand why they hold their view, and explain why you hold yours. Approach everything from the desire to improve the encyclopedia, not to win an argument. Good luck. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, well i tried your approach [4] The first post was straight after your above suggestion, then another and another. As nobody seems to want to talk about it can we now lose the merger tags? I would like to actually try getting the article up to GA status whic his not possible with all the tags on it :( mark nutley (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

{{Tb}}

LOL. Not kidding. Have giggles at work. Embarassing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Cute, thanks for my giggles! :) Hey KC, maybe using color on "There is no need to place a talkback notice if you are replying to me, as I will have watchlisted your page." will bring it to attention to others. I have to admint I don't read all of what you wrote, just the red caught my eye, sorry. I guess I'm just as lazy as the others. ;) Be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gee, thanks guys - now that you've commented I can't even remove it or it will leave your comments hanging in thin air, as it were. At least this one is reading my posts and not being snarky and condescending, like the other editor[5] in the kerfluffle. OTOH, he's not spamming my talk page with talkback templates, so I suppose its all a mixed blessing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I wouldn't want to ever think of me spamming your page in any way, instruct me how can I know that in the future you are watchlisting my talk page. There is some etiquette here I don't know about. Thanks and sorry. --Biblbroks's talk 19:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry! We are more laughing at the epic FAIL of my editnotice, than picking on you in specific. If you edit this page (or this section) there is an editnotice, right above the edit window. It reads as follows:

Where "REVISIONUSER" is the person about to edit my page. No one seems to read it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I read your posts, too. Also, I like your editnotice, any comments on mine at User talk:Jeff G./Editnotice?   — Jeff G. ツ 05:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh well don't I have hoof-in-mouth today. Thanks on the like; regarding yours... its very orange. Can't miss it, it gets your attention. I've been thinking of going more colorful, myself. I love the HHGTTG bit. Its a little verbose, do you find that people read all the way through it? If I were to suggest anything it would be to add a blank line between points, for readability. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 05:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

@KillerChihuahua. The edit notice is quite big but I haven't noticed it. Sorry. It could use some color really. No problem for the laugh.

@Jeff G. I'm sorry I haven't read yours in the first place. It _is_ quite verbose. If I did, maybe we would've speed up our quarrel. :-) Kidding.

All the best to both, --Biblbroks's talk 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's only existed here on English Wikipedia for 15 hours, so time will tell if it has the desired effect. Its source on Commons, Commons:User talk:Jeff G./Editnotice, has served me well for nearly a year, and the original idea has served me well on my user talk page here since July of 2007 and on Commons since June of 2007. I considered adding blank lines, but that would make the whole thing fill the screen, and I haven't seen wikitext for adding a fraction of a line (like a half of one) or some number of pixels, although I might be able to do that with borders.   — Jeff G. ツ 20:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I've replied to your criticism of me on the NPOV page. I'm sorry that my wording was sufficiently unclear for you to take my comment as an insult, when in fact I was agreeing with your main points about process. You can see this from my NPOV policy edits, which generally were to improve the new version, and make it more similar to the original. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you, this is much appreciated, as I was very hurt and taken aback by what I perceived as your intent; it is good to hear that I was in error - I am going afk for a bit and do not ahve time to modify my statement, please do feel free to strike my queries about thsi on the talk page, and I will confirm and reply when I get back online. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OK - Have a good break! Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Darwinist hip-hop

You're a member of the ID cabal, right? :P I thought you might appreciate this. CBC Radio has a collection of Brinkman's Darwinist hip-hop here. I forget where you're located - probably not within shouting distance of Manhattan - but apparently he's performing off-Broadway this week. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

How nifty! thanks for telling me about it, but alas, I am too far to go. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

→ stolen for my FaceBook cabal. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's the ID "cadre" these days ;-) May I just mention that Brinkman's hip hop developed in conjunction with (or was peer reviewed by) Mark Pallen of The Rough Guide to Evolution, a rather splendid book which features this pic to illustrate discussion of James Hutton, and gives due mention under Picture Credits. <looks modest> . . dave souza, talk 22:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in. If rap didn't drive me bananas, I'd get that CD. Dave, in my other, more trivial life, I asked a question about exactly that spot. Nobody gave the right answer. That's gorgeous; I hadn't realized you were such a photographer. http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question112197.html Yopienso (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

An entertaining trivia question, but it starts from a false premise as geologists in Hutton's time were already convinced that the earth must be far older than Bishop Ussher's calculations indicated. His own proposal of an infinitely old earth was published before he'd seen a decisive example, though he'd noticed grey and red rocks while improving his Berwickshire farms. He himself found proof in the junction of greywacke and red sandstone at at Inchbonny, Jedburgh, a year before he convinced his friends of that proof with the same junction at Siccar Point, as featured in the photo. So, not the right spot, but the most famous example. . dave souza, talk 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I knew you were an artist, and I'd seen some of your photos, but I didn't realize you'd had one of your pics featured in a book! I'm thrilled and impressed suitably blasé. Please do brag lots whenever something of yours is used in a publication, otherwise how will we know to be unimpressed with your fame? You're denying us the opportunity to be sophisticated and indifferent to your expertise. :-D KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

<blush> It's the only one that I know of, though some pics have been used without giving credit in some local leaflets or brochures. It's all down to the sunshine and Berwickshire scenery, I just pointed the camera. . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay then

I'm back... tho' I can't promise I will have much time to spend here. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

However much time you can spare, I'm sure WP will be better for it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for lifting of restriction

Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an involved party.[6]Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"The late"

Hi, KC. Sorry to bother you on quite an arbitrary subject, I just thought that since you have more experience on Wikipedia and may be more familiar with policy and guidelines, you might be able to help with this. Is there any policy or guideline that deals directly with the use of "the late [person]" in describing a deceased person? I was having a discussion with another user, and he asked me to point to a relevant guideline. All I could come up with was WP:RECENTISM, which isn't an official guideline and doesn't mention "the late" specifically. Is there anything in the MOS or otherwise that deals with this? Thanks. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 23:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response; I have been, as noted, busy IRL and not on WP much. I cannot locate any mention of "the late" in Wikipedia's MoS. It seems more Emily Post than encyclopedic to me, though. Surely a reader can tell by the date of death that the death was recent (or not)? - which used to be somewhere under "do not spoon-feed". But that is merely my opinion. I hope you were able to resolve this to both your satisfaction. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"Right to vanish"

Hello Killer. When a user exercises his or her "right to vanish", has him/herself indefinitely blocked, and then returns under a new user name, is there any way to access the contribution history and/or block log of the user's prior account? Writegeist (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's merged into the contribution history and block log of the new account.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

When is consensus bullying?

I feel as though I am being bullied out of Wikipedia when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would need more information before I could be of any use to you, I'm afraid. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Patriot Bible University

The person who was warned four years ago about white washing material is at it again. I noticed you protected the page before and should probably do it again. Reeler48 (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reeler et.al. The article was developed properly and followed the wiki rules. View the edits history and the justifications. Your modifications constitute extreme bias against Patriot, Hovind, and unaccredited Bible colleges. Wikipedia is to be encyclopedic not a trash piece. Mdis (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I see Orlady has added this article to the new "pending changes", which will hopefully prevent whitewashing as well as undue criticism. Mdis, Wikipedia is not for hagiographies and brochures - negative information is encyclopedic also. Consider mass murderers. Would you have us mention only their good deeds? Likewise, Patriot is a diploma mill and should be presented so. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Puppy!

Hey hey! Bishonen | talk 23:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

Awww, sorry to hear you has stuffies, please don't be upset by harsh comments from person who seems to be the sort to pat you on the back in front of your face, and cut your throat behind your back. You has true frendz here, dave souza, talk 20:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Shantu berry buch. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For your username, what you've posted on your userpage (including but not limited to the 'AGF is not a suicide pact' and the Abraham Lincoln quotation), and just on general principles. I considered using the Surreal Barnstar but decided I preferred this one, mostly because it's supposed to rain soon.

Thank you so much!!!! I will treasure this! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
• If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

• You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Ashbery

No worries. Best wishes for the weekend. Spangle (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you as well! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Skanderbeg's review

Hi there. The reason why I brought for deletion Talk:Skanderbeg/GA1 is that this user (Euzen) inappropriately took upon review this article which I had brought to GA last month [7], without stating that it is upon review there. Note that his number of edits was around 20 (twenty) when he started to do a review on a very complex article, such as Skanderbeg. When he started to make a mess in the review, I responded to his concerns and asked some questions [8] while letting him know about it [9]. Euzen not only completely ignored my comments but deleted them [10]. This was disruptive and I asked him to revert himself [11]: In the meantime I retired the nomination [12], it's too early anyways, there is lots of writing, copy editing and referencing to be done. I asked for a speedy deletion because the person is deleting my comments, completely ignoring me and most likely he is a sock anyways. In fact I would like to ask you, how do I go about asking an SPI: I've never filed one: And I have no clue whom to ask for a checkuser. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You cannot simply go on a fishing expedition for a sock. If you have no editor you think Euzen is a sock of, then its a waste of time to file a sock report. However, removing your talk pages posts is serious: warn with templates {{subst:uw-tpv1}} thru uw-tpv4, each time linking to the dif of him removing or re-factoring a post - this would be new posts, not ones he's changed int he past. If he's been warned before, skip ahead to the appropriate number. If he persists, then post on AN/I - be sure to provide difs of each removal or re-factoring he's done, plus difs of the warnings/attempts to talk to him about it that you and others have done. Let me know if you have questions or feel this is not addressing the issue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I warned. About the SPI, that's exactly what I was concerned with. However, now that I have retired the nomination of the article, shouldn't the page by default be deleted? The review was hastily done and under heavy conflicts. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of questions: you nominated the article for GA and then withdrew, is that correct? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, but what's the second queston? --Sulmues ^(talk) 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Second question is, are submissions normally archived if the submiter withdraws the nom? I'd check and see how precedent is - we rarely delete such pages, but I don't spend any time around GA so I'm not sure precisely what their procedure is. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about who would have the rights to be a reviewer. I have seen an article fail GA and then realized the the reviewer was a sock. Take a look at Enver Hoxha's review (Talk:Enver_Hoxha/GA1): If anybody can be a reviewer, then the page should not be deleted, but the current reviewer is not behaving like an experienced wikipedian, which is what a reviewer should normally be. Besides technically Euzen never started the review, because he should have notified the community by putting the entry "on hold" or "under review" which was not done as per this version, one edit before I retired the nomination. As a result I don't think he can claim he ever seriously reviewed it for the two above reasons: never formally put the article on hold or under review, and deleted comments to his review. That's why I ask for deletion of that page. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

[Enif ko]

Could you please look through the deleted history and find out who created it? It was created and deleted twice, so I figured that whoever recreated it could have been a sock of the original creator. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha, close - but even more blatant. It was created both times by the same user, User:Freshbrownies - who apparently has done nothing else. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

KillerChihuahua, I've proposed some minor tweaks to reduce the length of the text. Could you drop by and have a look? --JN466 21:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks, brt. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by, and for your comments. --JN466 15:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: NPOV discussion

With respect to this section - Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#.27equal_validity.27_warning - you still have not provided a valid reason for reinstating this section or issuing me a warning. I'll give you a day or so more to justify your actions, but if you refuse, I will be forced to begin a discussion about having you de-sysopped. That will probably fail, granted (we both already know the list of editors who will spring to your defense, and they will probably prove sufficient to prevent a consensus forming even if there are a number of other editors who agree with me), but I think it's important abuse of sysop powers (even mild as this is) gets appropriate community attention.

This is your choice: do the right thing and make a reasoned argument for the section's continued inclusion, or don't, and we'll take this mess up in other arenas. --Ludwigs2 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. I'm not in that fight. You made a significant change to a key policy and were edit warring to try and make it stick; I restored the consensus version and warned you. Your transparent attempts to reframe this as though I were involved will hold no water. You're being disruptive and edit warring and I was nice enough not to simply block you. Posturing and threatening me now is not helping your case with me, Ludwigs. I am patient but my patience is not endless. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, for one thing, there cannot be any abuse of sysop tools here as there was no use of sysop tools at all. Reverting and warning are not sysop tools. Secondly, when I had a look at that discussion, it became clear to me that you are indeed cruising for trouble with your current attitude of "I won't drop this until my issues are addressed". Some people did address your arguments (arguing they were not correct), Jayron, for example. Carrying out a one-user struggle against a section of policy in a hostile manner (yes, it is hostile, even if only mildly so) is just not going to go anywhere and, if you continue to edit war (and possibly even if not), will be disruptive and will cause undesired results, I can pretty much guarantee that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Heimstern:That will be something for the greater community to decide, if it comes to that. To my mind, sysops get held to a higher standard, meaning that they either need to take care to examine the issue properly or take care to avoid appearing to take sides (that's why we have that 'always protected on the wrong version' joke). I can deal with petulant reverts from normal editors (defined as reverts where people lack the time to explain their actions, but find the time make threats/warnings/insults) because they have no power to enforce their petulance. But KC didn't do due diligence this time: he reverted to his personally preferred version - it's not like I haven't had this discussion with him before - without reading the discussion and with obvious misstatements (no, KC, you'd know it wasn't the 'consensus version' if you'd bothered to read the talk page), and then backing it up with a formal warning. That's sketchy behavior for a sysop.

Personally I'm still holding out that you (KC) will give a decent explanation of your actions in talk, which will solve the problem admirably from my perspective. Is that likely?

plus, Heimstern, you're failing to understand the process of consensus. "I don't like it" comments are not reasons, they're reactions, and "I didn't hear that" behaviors are generally to be avoided by everyone. I may be hard-nosed, but I always listen to reason, I always try to use reason, and I always expect reason from others. I do realize that can be aggravating to people in some circumstances, but do you actually have a meaningful objection to it? If so, tell me what, because I am currently under the impression that wikipedia discussions ought to be resolved to reasoned discourse. --Ludwigs2 16:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Might want to check the gender of your pronouns a bit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is gender relevant to the discussion? more to the point, has this conversation degraded to that level already? well, whatever... I suppose there's no real point in pursuing this conversation further here; KC will do the right thing or s/he (happy?) won't, and we will all go on from there. --Ludwigs2 01:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Merely a piece of advice, that's all. Really don't have much more to say about the dispute than I've already said. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I've already explained twice. I see no reason to spam the talk page simply to kowtow to your peremptory demands, especially given the bizarre threats you're issuing, Ludwigs. You'll have to make do with the two explanations you've already been given, or waste time and bandwidth with "OMG a Rogue Admin didn't jump thru hoops for me" and see how that works out for you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

yeah, well... whatever self-justifications get you through the day, KC. I'm always amazed at how neurotic people get when you ask them to be reasonable and rational. --Ludwigs2 16:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, KC, I see now that you've already responded to this personal attack by Ludwigs on his or her own talk page – have added my own comment there. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems he's also been a bit out of line with another editor as well, and been admonished[13]; his response seems to indicate he's going to cease the hostile behavior[14] but no indications as to whether he's reconsidered his edit warring to change longstanding policy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

--Ludwigs2 20:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there KillerChihuahua! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

WP:V 2

Hi, you recently supported a talk page proposal (proposal 5) to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. The proposal has attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN466 22:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy note. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, n00bs!

Hi there, Killah. From the depths of my incompetence... would you like to make a template with curly brackets? I have asked Rexx for technical assistance so many times recently that I'm ashamed to approach him again—even though he's always extremely gracious about it—and then it struck me that I know another Wikicode Wizard, namely you! The thing is, Bishzilla has a Welcome template for welcoming newbies. That is, she has it in text form. Here. She warmly invites anybody to use it, but for some reason it doesn't seem to be very popular. The bishsocks use it, and... well, I think that's pretty much it. I've never understood why. But it's just struck me: maybe it's because people are only used to the curly-bracket type of template, and feel a bit uncomfortable or confused about using it in text form? (Though indeed that's just as easy—if Little Stupid can use it, surely anybody can!) Bishzilla doesn't have a clue how to turn her text into {{Bishzilla welcome}}, although, as you can see, she's quite clever with the BASEPAGENAME stuff. So, if you're in a coding mood... Or, here's a novel idea: could you tell me where I can read about how it's done? (Provided it's real easy!) Best, Bishonen | talk 04:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

You just type in the pagename inside curly brackets, with subst, like so:

{{subst:User:Bishzilla/Welcome}}

or were you asking for something else? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well... the text is in her userspace, but I don't want that "User" crap inside the brackets. And take a look at my lovely Vandalism Warning Warning template. It's evoked by typing {{subst:vww}}. So... does that refer to the redirect Template:Vww? Should I Bishzilla start by creating a redirect page with a good name—the name she wants in the brackets? She'll be in trouble if she puts that redirect in template space, won't she? And having it in userspace precludes it having a cool name. ['shonen's head explodes. ] P.S., have you seen Bishapod's cute new socks? See boast on his userpage. Bishonen | talk 12:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks

I shall treasure your wise advise :) :) :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi! Saw your name on the Adopt-a-User list, I know you're not taking any new adoptions, but I have a question about Good Articles. How large must an article be to qualify as a GA? WP:GACR says the article must be "broad in its coverage", but nothing about specific size requirements. Thanks in advance, --hkr Laozi speak 10:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be because there is no specific size requirement. My suggestion; look at some GAs which have similar scope to the article you are trying to get to GA status. Some subjects need more length simply to cover the topci adequately, while if you tried to stretch an article on a simpler topic to the same length, you'd end up with too much padding and filler. So it varies from article to article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

AE notice

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Ed_Poor. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been handled quite swiftly; thanks for the heads-up and apologies I was not available to post evidence although it appears this time that was not necessary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of William Norman Grigg

Hello KillerChihuahua, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on March 29 2006, William Norman Grigg, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:12.235.235.112 (page has mainspace links, and more than 49 edits). This has been done because the page seems to be about a person, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:12.235.235.112. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of 12.235.235.112 (talk · contribs) 15:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

AE

Made this change. Hope you don't mind. T. Canens (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixing my typos, grammar, and other errors is always appreciated. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

163.6.1.196

Given that this ip has done nothing but vandalize Wikipedia since it was last blocked, I think a longer block would be appropriate than the previous one. The ip is part of Davis School District, Farmington, UT. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not generally give out lengthy blocks to school IPs. We can always reblock. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not been my experience, but maybe I get a skewed perspective from dealing the worst of the vandals. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Which, that we don't generally issue long blocks for schools, or that we can't reblock? Of course block length is admin discretion, but this is a shared IP, by definition. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: WP:SYNTH on Family Research Council

I'm 3RR'd out on Family Research Council so I won't be making any more edits today, but I would ask you to please review my rationale for claiming a synthesis violation on the article talk page before reverting my edits. Taking a primary source statement made by someone and then refuting it with another unrelated primary source is the very definition of synthesis. Thanks. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I read your rationale prior to reverting. You are in error. There is no SYNTH violation in the disputed content.

Please note that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you do not pass, or even reach, 3 reverts. I suggest that instead of mindlessly reverting and repeating your SYNTH assertions, you actually try to discuss this with other editors, who are clearly unpersuaded by your arguments thyus far. You should respect consensus; not edit war. It is BRD not BRRR. Unless and until consensus changes, you are edit warring against that consensus and this is not a productive course of action. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You can read my response on the talk page. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, Puppy - quick question for you, since it involves an area you (and others here) have more experience with than me. A particular user has been adding the Category:American pro-life activists to the articles of American politicians who express pro-life views. Is that a typical use of this category? My impression was that "activist" categories would apply to people who are primarily known for, well, activism like protesting and organizing, as opposed to politicians who subscribe to a view, no matter how ardently. Cheers! Kelly ^hi! 00:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. Activism entails more than a mere sharing of view, or platform. One must have actually at the very least passed out leaflets or organized meetings. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...the user in question is Corbridge (talk · contribs) but I'm not sure what to do. Do you need a source to add categories? I'm personally pro-life but prefer to keep Wikipedia neutral and not a battleground. For example, when I pointed out on Talk:Kristi Noem that Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin were not a part of this cat, the user immediately went and added them (yes, WP:BEANS I know). Kelly ^hi! 05:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If the cat cannot be supported by a source, then its OR. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories

I have no interest in petty pique. You were wasting everyone's time. Now you are wasting mine. Feel free to do something useful. Paul B (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you intended to accomplish with this post; you have managed to insult me yet again and I see no other purpose in this post. I suggest in the future if all you have is an insult, you take the less disruptive path, and refrain from posting at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I really can't bear this kind of florid offense-taking. You are the one being disruptive here, not me. Paul B (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This really is not some kind of pissing contest. If you "cannot bear" people being offended, then take care not to offend. Avoiding ABF and NPA violations would be a good start. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, KillerChihuahua. Paul B is an arrogant user who thinks that he belongs to a superior kind of people. He will frequently revert your sourced edits without explanation, and if you ask him questions about his behaviour, you will have no answer, just a condescendant silence... A pity that such pretentious users can still post on wiki.--109.212.120.109 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your assessment, I don't think this sort of post is likely to make any positive difference in his interactions with others. If you feel he has such a history, I suggest an Rfc. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionism (2nd nomination), since you contributed to the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

DAvid SHankbone

Hello. I need to write to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Shankbone. But his discuss page is locked. I don't know why. I'm writing you since you were the last person to write him. Please could you post this for me? THank You.

___

--Grace Hightower --

Hello David. Why is your discuss page locked? How are we to write to you if you have locked your page?

Please could you fix the Grace Hightower redirect. Someone redirected it to Precious (film) when it should bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KillerChihuahua&action=edit&section=8e redirected to Robert De Niro. THank You 69.140.66.37 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

___

Thank You KillerChihuahua. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You should bring that up on the Precious talk page, or on Talk:Grace Hightower. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time that Grace had her own article. The IP is always welcome to write me at davidshankbone@gmail.com --David Shankbone 03:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Killer, I will post on the Precious talk page.

David, how come your page is locked? Grace does not have enough acting work to get her own page. She was a flight attendant and hostess before she married Rob. 69.140.66.37 (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what she has done, as long as there are enough reliable sources that have written stories about her. Perhaps she does significant charitable work, along with some acting work and anything else that has garnered her attention. She can be hard to photograph since Robert zooms past photographers at Tribeca; she always looks stunning but we have so little time to shoot her (I wrote about that here). --David Shankbone 19:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Palin article

It looks like you may be away, but I wanted to let you know, given your past mediation of Palin article issues, that I've posted to wp:an/i regarding recent events on the Talk:Sarah Palin page and User:Dylan Flaherty in particular. Please take a look if you have a moment (or a few hours) to spare. jæs (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he was topic banned for two weeks; hopefully that will give the article and the editor the respite they need. Thanks for this courtesy note; apologies for not being available to weigh in on this as it was happening. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hi KillerChihuahua, long time no see. I hope you had a merry Christmas and just wanted to wish you a happy New Year. May the coming year be filled with joy! Zaereth (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

thank you so much! I am not on as often as I once was, but I am still around. I hope your new year is all you could hope for. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing KillerChihuahua/Archive 18 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Logan Talk Contributions 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh hey, thanks much! I guess it has been a few years. Tempis fugit. :-D KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Books and Books

I came around 2 but i didn't see anyone and the waiter didn't know what I was talking about so I left after waiting 15 to 20 minutes for a table. I didn't know the meetup started at 12. Secret ^account 00:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I spoke to the manager and the host at about 2:15. No one told me the time had changed either, and so far as I'm concerned the "time change" was done inappropriately, as there was no discussion and no consensus and no effort to notify anyone who had confirmed they were coming. I'm fairly angry; I drove over 9 hours and paid for somewhere to spend the night to be there. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua - I was happy to meet you and Dan at the anniversary meeting. As a beginning editor it was encouraging to hear your stories of the goings on at the higher levels of the Wikipedia kingdom. Looking forward to seeing you again at the 20th anniversary! GroveGuy (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If we had just waited a few days: It was announced yesterday that an ad agency located at 605 Lincoln Road has been hired to do a redesign of the Wikipedia web site. That's two blocks east of B&B; we could have gone for a tour! See: Article in Miami Herald on 1/31/11 GroveGuy (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

And just to prove you can't believe everything you read in the newspaper: Correction in Miami Herald on 2/3/11 GroveGuy (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious Question

Hi Puppy,

Would you mind commenting over at Bish's page? We are in need of your counsel. Thanks! Tex (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh

Hi, Please read my last comment in this Rfc. Is wikipedia a dealing company ?!!! Now that I have discovered it, the author should have his own article. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "dealing company" but the Rfc is closed now anyway, so I suppose the point is moot. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from Bishapod's socks

• Good evening, mrs Puppy, hope I find you well! darwin^fish (good twin) 22:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

• Hey, you, not editing much these days, are you? How come? darwinbish ^BITE (evil twin) 22:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Ah, my favorite pair of socks! How nice!!!! No, I'm not editing terribly much these days. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to see your name

Hey, I noticed just last week that your weren't around much anymore. Good to see your sig again. I tweaked your post at WP:BLPN, hope you don't mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind at all! Thanks for the kind note. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U Corbridge

Hi KillerChihuahua. Wanted to let you know I mentioned you in a WP:RFC/USER regarding user Corbridge. You're obviously welcome to weigh in, but mostly wanted to give you a heads up. Arbor8 (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikimedia US/WALRUS mailing list

Hi KC! I'd like to invite you to join wikimediaus-l, where we already discussing The Great American Wiknic for June 2011 :)--Pharos (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't sure what pages came under my restrictions.

Hi, To be honest I was never given definite clarification on the scope of the ban, and I have been discussing on this page for some time, even before that ban. I assumed if I was in breach of my restrictions someone would have said something, but you are the first to do so. I'll certainly desist from editing there if you think I should.DMSBel (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to your post on the article talk page; no one would have said anything if they were unaware of the topic ban; I don't see anyone from the previous discussions currently on the Abortion article (but I haven't checked names with any specific care.) I think that we need to decide, probably with GWH's input, whether this falls under your topic ban. If so, then no editing. If not, then I suggest you still edit with care. Abortion is a contentious article under 1RR; it is best to move slowly and discuss much and with respect. Do you want to ask GWH to discuss this? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

By all means, I'd love to know where that ban leaves me! DMSBel (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Few things are ever set in stone. All we are going to do is determine whether the ban covers Abortion at this time. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd certainly like more clarity on this.DMSBel (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have asked. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not supporting anyones position, I reverted so that there could be further discussion and I am not engaged in an edit-war, I was no more aware of the 1RR rule there than OrangeMarlin, but I have absolutely no intention of reverting again. Could you please make that clear in the request for clarification. Thanks DMSBel (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) You've just clarified. There is no need to repeat it. Thanks for the correction; I apologise for my error. However, there was certainly an edit war, and you did revert during it, and you did not use an edit summary which might have clarified your intent. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Got the message asking for my input and will respond later tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

thanks, at your convenience. No need to do it tonight if it will keep you up. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The servers kept me up, no harm answering this too while I'm up.

I believe that the topics are conceptually related but not close enough to count per se. I don't see behavior on Talk:Abortion that makes me want to stretch the ban to cover it, at this time. I think that DMSBel is aware that misbehavior will garner attention.

I have no concerns at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks too. I apologise that my edit came at the time there had been a couple of other reverts (I think by three different editors) when I put the picture back. Partly it was because there had been no discussion, just edit summaries which did not leave it clear why the picture was deemed POV, or what the issue with verification was related to (ie. was it to do with the stated age of the foetus, or something else?).I have my own concerns with the picture, but I am considering if a change to the text of the caption would address those. DMSBel (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens

This page: List of human diseases associated with infectious pathogens was killed in error. This page was not the same as the List of infectious diseases, as the | discussion here clearly explains. The two pages have entirely different subject matters.

Please be more careful, and look into the situation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:36, 19 May 2011 (talk • contribs) Drgao

I assure you, it was not "killed in error." You may feel I have erred in deleting it, but that is a different thing altogether. However, I have undeleted the page and will allow the Afd to run its course. Please remember to sign your posts in the future, and let me know if I can be of any further assistance. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite right; that made me smile. I like that precision of language.

Thanks for reinstating the page for the moment. I will put the case for forward, in the Afd discussion, that the new page is the only resource that Wikipedia has that provides a list of pathogens associated with diseases.

Are there any other formalities I should know about in this Afd discussion process? Thanks for your help with this. Drgao (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. I cannot think of any advice which might be useful to you in the current situation; you communicate with others and have a willingness to learn and a good sense of humor, which is often your best ally in this experiment in controlled anarchy. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Context in articles

Hi Killer, I was wondering about how much context is necessary in an article before it can be speedy deleted. I had read the criteria for speedy deletion before nominating it, but my interpretation was that the context wasn't clear enough. The example given could be said to clearly indicate that it is a biography of a male living person, which is basic context similar to "It is a movie." However, the article doesn't indicate what country it is from, nor many other things that would serve to make the article more easily verifiable. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What article are you talking about, please? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I was referring to Heist (2011 film) which has since been deleted. I'd just like a little further explanation so it doesn't happen again. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17 (All-Stars) last undeletion

Hi Killer, could you please undelete the last revision of (America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17: All-Stars) to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17 (currently redirects to the parent article) and it will be the article of its own.

There are multiple sources on ANTM All-Stars cast has been revealed a week ago: [15], [16], [17]

So, the article will be updated to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17. ApprenticeFan ^work 05:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

As it has been a few days since this request was made, I'll start by asking if this has been taken care of by someone else. If not, could you be a little more clear? I made what was supposedly a no-contest delete to make room for a move, IIRC. Now you are telling me that the article deleted was actually wanted? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Too funny

Hello KC. Following certain items on AN/I I came upon your use of "sacrifice virgin frogs at midnight". After pulling a rib muscle from laughing I realized that I had to ask if that sect experienced "The Ribbeture" this past weekend. Thanks for bringing a smile to my day and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! "Ribbeture" - if you hurt yourself laughing, you've returned the favor. I thought this weekend was raptors coming - that's why there would be no people left after the raptors came for them, you see - or only a pair of shoes - remember Jurassic Park? And here is a video of someone getting Raptored[18]  :-D KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Raptor's coming is a great one also. I just had another thought. Would there be any task more thankless than being the person who had to check to make sure that any given frog was a virgin? Thanks for the youtube link! MarnetteD | Talk 19:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor and Unification Church

Arbcom request for amendment by me. Please comment there, because you are involved. Andries (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FEd_Poor_2

Bradspeak

[Darwinfish, politely :] Good input! Apropos of request for amendment and arb comments there, has little deathdoggie seen this, hmm... essay? Is about a language similar to Ur-Dino! [The last sentence is one of the Fish's modest jokes. ] darwin^fish 09:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

heh, am I guilty of it, or failing to utilize it? Probably both. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey there fellow puppy, how the heck are ya doing? In reply to your above question: I think you approach things with all the dignity and decorum required of a "Bradspeaker"; and yet still maintain the ability to be perfectly ... ummmm .... "forthwith"(?) and straightforward when the occasion calls for it. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  14:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC) (ps. good to see you!)

My understanding as a speaker of British English (moderately conversant in Scots) is that "forthright" is the apposite term. Of course with all those reds under your beds states, perhaps "forthleft" will be the new term, if that's not too sinister. . . dave souza, talk 16:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I can only admire y'all's (to betray my Florida cracker roots) mental dexterity. . . Yopienso (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

<Huge smiles> @Dave - considering some of the political discussions that go on here, I think that was priceless. Just a note though: I was using the term: forthwith rather than forthright, and intended to convey the meaning "immediate" (as found here. The question mark was to simply to imply that Puppy didn't speak without thinking first though. Cheers and best to all. — Ched :  ?  17:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Is good. It seems fair to say the Puppy speaks forthrightly, forthcoming forthwith. Not sure of the grammar, but the online dictionary suggests it works. However, it also brings up as an option Forth & Clyde Canal, complete with my photo of the canal in front of Ruchill Church Hall so that's not a very reliable source ;-/ . . dave souza, talk 17:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Darwinbish

[Darwinbish, less politely. ] Bah, no, little dog. Is Brad speaks teh bradspeak as always! Artificial or excessive veneer of faux civility! Aimed at OrangeMarlin presumably. "No fucking way" = strident? Rubbish, OM good guy! Silly 'shonen so excruciatingly polite as not even to be understood, typical! [19] [20] [Bishonen feels obscurely flattered; is not often accused of excessive politeness. Darwinbish bites Brad shrewdly in unmentionable part. ] darwinbish ^BITE 18:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry! I must apologize to Brad, if he sees this (hope not), and everybody. Darwinbish evil twin! Regrets! Bishonen | talk 18:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

My radar told me that my name was being bandied about here. I mean it's all about Ed Poor, and who really cares? Not sure why WMC supports him, but he has some soft spot for Ed. Now let me go back to being strident about FT2. Bradspeak....passive aggressiveness in my book. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) My goodness, it took Ed Poor and an ArbCom request to get all of you here? I'll have to file one regularly, then. I certainly try to speak clearly, although with indifferent success, so far as I can tell from the responses I sometimes receive (check out this, for example - scroll 'til yuo see my name) although it may be that the reading comprehension levels of some of my readers is sub-par, rather than that my communication skills are. I see no reason to apologize to anyone for "bad language" - Wikipedia is not, last time I checked, censored. Even now. Although perhaps I'd better check before posting that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Always appreciated your thoughts in discussions. If I step over some line or am acting unreasonably, please feel free to yell at me some. I won't hold it against you :) NW (Talk) 20:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear me, what did I say which prompted this? I sincerely hope I have not offended in any way; if I have, please feel free to tell me so, clearly. I value candor. :-) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing bad, I promise! It was just nice to see a trustworthy name at Talk:Abortion. NW (Talk) 21:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I am a good guy(tm) today! So delighted to hear it! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Any chance you can speak to RoyBoy about his topic ban threats and edits like [21]? NW (Talk) 15:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  Nods, was thinking of saying something already; I have done so now. RoyBoy is a Good Guy; his posts read to me like he's pressed for time and/or stressed, but he is a bit draconian in his pronouncements this go-round. There are two views here; the inclusion of the d word has always been a point of contention, but he is treating those who disagree as though they were all POV-pushers, and it is clear from even a quick read of the talk page that is not the case. I hope he'll take another look at his approach and see how it is not helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Simon Bolivar

I've moved the article to Simon Bolivar (barque) as she is not a full-rigged ship. Generally a ship article shoud have the following structure -

• Lede - brief overview
• Description - measurements, propulsion, crew etc
• History - service, rescues involved in, incidents etc
• Refs - self explanatory
• External links -website, images off wiki etc

I'll create the red categories. The more you can find out about the ship, the easier it will be to research. If you are up to translating from Spanish, a search on the Spanish language Google may prove profitable. I find that Google translate does a fair job on major languages. The article may need to be moved as the commons category commons:Category:Simón Bolívar (ship, 1980) uses letters with diacritics. Mjroots (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I wondered about the article title, but I knew someone at the Ships project would know what would be correct. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Faith

Hello. I am concerned this editor might be canvassing [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] in bad faith. Is there action I should take on the matter? Your advise would be appreciated. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears to me to be illegal canvassing. The editors may be chosen as the most recent editors, or commenters in a previous discussion, or some other "legal" method of choosing for notice, but he verbiage in the request makes it clear that 67.233 feels that the previous version is the "right" version. Suggest posting this exact info on WP:ANI under the heading "Canvassing by 67.233.18.28; be sure to mention the verbiage in your post so the objection is clear. Then let others discuss it, IMO, without getting dragged into a he said, she said type thread. Don't forget to notify 67.233 per ANI instructions - there is a template, you can find it in the header of that page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise. Not fun. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that Sarek, one of those notified, has warned 67 about canvassing, but 67 is justifying and arguing rather than taking the warning to heart. I suggest that as Sarek has warned, you await developments. OTH if this is a cross post and you've already done anything, ignore me - no need to go undo it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Any accusations by me at this point would just be seen as opportunistic (and might well be, given my involvement in the discussion). WP:DIGYOUROWNGRAVE might apply if violations of WP:NPA (veiled, thinly or otherwise) continue. Bleck. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I contacted the editors in the FAQ#1 link on at the top of the main abortion article (or linked to it as I clicked through related links) GTBacchus BCSWowbagger RoyBoy Anythingyouwant, etc.. I contacted all that I came upon as I scanned the page. The ones that are no longer active could not be contacted. I am laughing so hard at your "vigilance". I was concerned that the warning in FAQ #1 was being violated, so I notified people discussed within FAQ 1 as relevant to the genesis of that warning, and for that you accuse me of acting in bad faith. I have to laugh or I would do something that I am sure wikipedia does not allow. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

KC, please stop with the tiresome attacks on me. I hope it is out of character for you. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

IP 67, can I encourage you to create an account? Shot info (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Something tells me that this IP already has an account but can't or won't use it for some reason. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

???

Strangely enough, you stopped editing right after I asked you a question in response to your surprising warning on my talk page. Given that there have been substantial gaps in your editing history recently, I am slightly worried that you may have been acting as a proxy for someone else, and may be planning to run away now without responding. Of course I am willing to assume good faith, as I must. But you can make that easier for me by demonstrating good faith and giving a satisfactory response in a reasonable timeframe. Thank you. Hans Adler 14:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done so; in fact, I would have considered it timely had I answered within a day or two. Your impatience does not translate to a crisis for me. I take strong exception to your allegation that I might be acting as a proxy; and request you strike that accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

While there is no rule against it, it is not established practice that random editors are notified of old Arbcom cases without immediate provocation. As you seem to be unable to explain convincingly what prompted your warning to me, I now suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP:EEML#Presumption of coordination and WP:EEML#Off-wiki communication just to make sure you do not inadvertently cross any bright lines. I will strike any and all communications about my reasonable suspicion (more details on my talk page) if and when it has been cleared. Hans Adler 15:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You are now spamming both my talk page and yours with slimy insinuations apparently designed to shift focus from the fact that you have now received notification of the ArbCom remedy, and that notification has been duly logged. I am now done with your demands and character assassination. If you have a question regarding how you may improve your editing habits so as not to run afoul of the ArbCom remedy, I am willing to answer. I will ignore any further attempts to change this into a mud-slinging defensive battle. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to defuse this, and I'd also like to know the answer please. An explanation along with the notification might have been useful. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Re to Dougweller: Pseudoscience and some sub-topics seem to be heating up a bit; I am notifying recent editors, as well as a little wikistalking of QuackGuru. They are friendly notifications; similar to letting a new editor know about 3RR. If you are aware, you can avoid running afoul of the restrictions; further, following the restrictions leads to a less contentious editing venue. Please do feel free to try to defuse the gross attacks on me, but kindly do so elsewhere, not here. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

For the record: So far you have repeated several times that you want me to retract my suspicion, but you have not said anything to suggest that it is false. This kind of behaviour seems to be designed to cause an escalation, and that's already the AGF interpretation. Hans Adler 15:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your accusations are false. I am simply notifying editors; please cease this pointless vendetta against what is merely a simple notification. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had just struck my 15:55 comment and explained that it was in error, since wikistalking QG is a satisfactory explanation. Apparently not, so I am doing it now. Sorry for the delay. Hans Adler 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries; I'm not a clock watcher. We've all had cross-postings before. Thanks for explaining. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI: In your notifications you linked to WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, but then you logged the notifications at WP:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Hans Adler 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If you had actually familiarized yourself with the linked remedy, you would have followed my link from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions and upon reaching the section Logs found the instructions "All notifications are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of notifications." Further, upon reaching that log, you will find the verbiage "List here editors who have been placed on notice of the remedies in place in this case or the Pseudoscience case, whose notifications are to be logged here as well." KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice

You have placed a notice on my talk page about a very old Arbcom decision on Pseudoscience, an article which I have edited very little. In view of your giving no explanation for placing the notice there, I can only interpret it as a threat warning me away from editing the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

It is merely a notification of a still active ArbCom remedy, with the intent of insuring editors are aware the article(s) are subject to that remedy. If you are unaware, you might accidentally run afoul of the remedy. Please take the notice in the helpful spirit in which it was intended. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the Pseudoscience article some half a dozen times in the course of this year and I have made it clear[30] that I have abandoned attempts to improve it because of the uncontrolled edit war going on there. I find your notification on my talk page to be intimidating and unwarranted. I note that other recipients of your notifications have also expressed concerns with the way you have handled this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC).

And were satisfied with my explanation. I find that editors are often unsatisfied with, or complain about, a lot of things. They complain when I suggest they follow policy; when I post warnings; when I block. Its is an administrator's lot to have to listen to people whine irrationally whenever he or she inform them of potential policy violations. I even have one former editor who was community banned 4 years ago who is still whining and complaining about me because I was the one who implemented the community ban by pushing the block button. People will sometimes blame the messenger and not their own actions. Irrational, but there it is. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I find your implication that I am "whining" to be offensive. Your remark to Hans Adler about "slimy insinuations" in the section above is also lacking in the courtesy that editors expect from each other. I suggest that you redact it and in future moderate your language to a level that is consistent with the dignity and decorum expected of an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry you were offended, and am concerned that you would take comments obviously about other people to be directed at you. Perhaps you should read a little more carefully. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for another notification

As you have been trying to ensure that all editors active in the pseudoscience area are notified of WP:ARBPS, may I suggest that you also notify HandThatFeeds (talk · contribs). My request is prompted by this edit, which either isn't constructive at all, or displays a breathtaking level of ignorance concerning both the topic of the article and the content of the article itself. I have seen a lot of nonsense on that talk page from both pro-homeopathy and anti-homeopathy POV pushers, but the claim that the bible of homeopaths (5 editions during Hahnemann's lifetime, a sixth edition based on his manuscripts appeared 76 years after his death, countless reeditions and translations) was self-published and cannot be used as a source on homeopathy because "nothing demonstrates that his work was important at all" is the worst so far.

You might also consider notifying JzG who chose to [reward and ignore this behaviour instead of helping to reign it in. But since he himself logged an earlier notification on the same page, I guess it would be technically redundant. Hans Adler 08:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

When I want your advice on being an admin, I will certainly ask you for it. Until then, if you feel you know how to do it better than I, please feel free to nominate yourself for adminship. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

We are now on ANI, although so far as I am concerned your unconstructive response here is just the background that explains why I take such a trifle there instead of asking an admin directly. After one admin has refused, there is always the danger of accusations of admin shopping, even if the admin refused to provide a reason. Therefore, if you don't want to discuss this further I guess you can just stay away from the thread.

By the way, my decision that I can serve the project more effectively without the bits is none of your business. I can of course not force you to continue your interest in fairly notifying editors of the pseudoscience Arbcom sanctions, and in fact I only requested it. I am not sure why you felt a rude refusal was appropriate. Hans Adler 12:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't refuse, although I see NW has posted the notice. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Time for a noob?

Good morning. I could use a little help/advice Did I really spell advice wrong..twice? I've been pulling statistics on abortion from a variety of sources and formatting them into wikitables for possible inclusion in the abortion article...

• When I offer them up for comment/selection/rejection on the talk page should I link to my userspace working page or place them in a collapsible region on the talk page itself?
• When there is a big hairball on a talk page (i.e. the death debate) should one wait before adding a new section and proposing ideas that are not related to the hairball?

Thanks. Ps. Too bad about Chester. If only he had used his powers for good :) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

With the caveat that this is only my opinion, and there will certainly be those who disagree, I will be happy to give you my advice on this. I'm going to answer backwards:

• IMO, wait for the death debate to reach a conclusion/die out. When one big issue is already underway editors often find it hard to give a new issue the consideration it deserves.
• I think on the page is important; it ensures the proposal will be in talk page history, easily found by editors in the future.

And yeah, too bad about ole Chester. We hardly knew him (thank goodness.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Donkeyshins :) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 has been amended by the Arbitration Committee

Please see here for further details. On behalf of the arbitration committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC).

First edit day

Happy First Edit Day, KillerChihuahua, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Rcsprinter (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Jay Brannan

KillerChihuahua, did you by any chance have any OTRS involvement with the Jay Brannan matter a few years ago? See Talk:Jay_Brannan#LGBT_tag, Talk:Jay_Brannan#Categories.

It seemed to me there was an agreement to remove some LGBT categories from his biography at the time, but they have since crept back in. I raised it at BLPN, Wikipedia:BLPN#Jay_Brannan, and it's become a bit of a mess. (I'm not even sure I did the right thing by raising it again; but it looked like Jay had a very unpleasant experience at Wikipedia at the time, and I wanted to see if we couldn't do right by him.) The matter's also appeared on Jimbo's talk page. Could you have a look? --JN466 11:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall him making an OTRS request, but I will go look. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, he made 2 requests; the last was handled by Rjd0060, who has not edited since October. I'm reading through the tickets now. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And the first was handled by JzG; I've left a note on his talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --JN466 03:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

For clarification: Does this mean we have to clean/censor the rest of the article of all the mentions he made of his own sexual orientation including those hosted on his website? And what about new users/IPs who will add the cat back in because it's reliably sourced with his own words and they don't know an OTRS request was sent? Hekerui (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert all re-additions of the cat. Edit the rest of the article applying common sense and BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, again. --JN466 16:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Kathy Chitty

Hi, KillerC. Just to let you know I've reinstated some of the text you deleted from the article on Kathy Chitty. I've done this as I think the text sets the context of the rest of the article. As you know, the whole article looks a bit vulnerable. If it survives, the text will be useful to the article. If the article gets deleted then the issue is resolved. I hope you are happy with what I have done. Best regards Rickedmo (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

I am a bit confused. Some time ago I have published an article on Wikipedia, Beanies, which was marked for speedy deletion. You declined the speedy stating: "Speedy deletion declined. Appears to be notable game; claims made, history given, claims of special status (first in several categories, etc.) Not a speedy."

The page hasn't been changed since then, and yet, now another user requested a speedy deletion. How is that even possible on an article that is approved by an administrator and where no new content has been added and no edits made? I saw that I have the option to undo the latest "revision" (the speedy deletion request) by this user, so I did, but I am still confused.

Can you help me understand? I would really appreciate it.

PaleZoe (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The tag on the article is for Afd, not Speedy deletion. Speedy deletion rules are fairly strict; any plausible (or even semi-plausible) claim of notability will result in denying the speedy request under A7, which is the tag I removed and declined. (See criteria A7) However, Afd is quite different. An Afd does not have to meet any of the Speedy criteria; it falls under the deletion policy - see reasons to list for Afd listed there, which include "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)." In fact, I often decline a speedy and replace the speedy tag with an Afd tag, adding it to Afd. Your article makes a claim of notability; the Afd discussion is to decide whether it actually meets the criteria. The article's sourcing is also a problem; if there were better sourcing, the notability claim would be easier to defend. Let me know if you have further questions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information and your attention. What exactly do you mean by "article sourcing"? -- PaleZoe (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All articles on Wikipedia need to be verifiably sourced with reliable sources. The first is a policy, often cited as the one of the most important policies on Wikipedia. The second is a guideline on how to identify which sources are reliable and therefore acceptable, and which are not. If you have specific questions about specific sources, you might want to try the reliable sourcing noticeboard at WP:RSN. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I apologize for my tone in that comment on the talk page. It's just that that quote from Tony struck in nerve in me for several reasons. I'm not labeling you with any of these descriptions, but that quote seemed to me to justify an intolerant, authoritarian attitude (see the quote at the top of my user talk page), plus, its just plain childish to call people who believe the truth is different from what you believe, even if it can be classified as prejudice, "stupid." Cla68 (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I think Tony meant, and when I quoted it I certainly meant, that while "some people" might think/believe some awfully dumb stuff, it doesn't mean we need to give it equal, or even any, weight on Wikipedia. You may find it childish to classify some things as stupid, but quite frankly, there is a lot of stupid stuff in this world, and so long as I am speaking in generalities and not addressing any specific person or calling them stupid, I find it is unrealistic to pretend otherwise. Ignorance certainly exists; I am ignorant of a great many things myself; no one can possibly be knowledgeable on all things so everyone has some areas in which they are ignorant, and for almost all of us, those areas outnumber the areas in which we can claim expertise. Acknowledging this should offend nobody. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 06:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A week?

Killer, isn't this overdoing it? I have teflon skin and don't care what insults he or anybody hurls my way, but if he'd instead hurled them at somebody else I'd have given him 31 hours maximum -- and probably less if that somebody else were an admin, let alone the admin who had blocked him. -- Hoary (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

When he is told, directly and clearly, that "if there's more potty-mouthing, expect a longer block." and his response is "Fuck you - you self-righteous creep" I can only presume he recognizes his problem and is asking, nay begging, for an enforced break from Wikipedia. I have merely granted him that break. I see you feel I am being too draconian; if you wish I will post on his talk page that if he promises to be more civil I will lift the block. IMO he didn't take the civility warning you gave him seriously or he'd never have replied that way; or else he really is a complete nasty-mouth with some kind of inability to speak in a socially accepted manner; either way I don't see how giving him a week to learn some basic manners can possibly hurt. Its not as though he's adding lots of good content to Wikipedia when he's not blocked; the reason he started his tirade of rudeness and insults to begin with is because his content was unsourced, original research, synth, and in most other ways unacceptable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say. However, people do often explode when blocked; when I block somebody, this doesn't surprise me, let alone faze me. An hour after telling me what I should do with my private parts, he might have thought "Hmm, maybe not such a good idea after all", and deleted it. (Not that I can point to anything in his recent editing history that would make this seem likely.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

yeah, I probably would have ignored it, or at most offered a mild observation, if it had been I who had blocked him and received the insult. I'll add the note to his page, and see what happens. Not holding my breath, mind you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion Motion

I made a motion here. 71.3.234.41 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard that there is even a case. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Santorum

Hi,

Did you protect the page you intended to? [31] There were no edits since August 8 on that article. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 03:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except I read that date wrong. Still not sure it isn't a good idea. 1) had been subject to a bit of edit warring. 2) had combative Mfd. 3) Election season starting. 'nuff said. 4) Seemed like a good idea at the time. - Please feel free to unprotect if you want. We can always reprotect. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Lol, well I wish I were an admin, but not :P B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I for my part, I have to admit, didn't notice it was only a redirect. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 22:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ack, I thought you were! My apologies. (Why aren't you?) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I never tried for it. I'm told I would have to do a bunch of stuff to prepare and don't have a lot of time right now. Pesky questions like "how many articles have you pushed to FA status." I did try to get GA on an article once, and found the review system has little participation. Oh, and I'm a deletionist. Probably fail just for that User:Becritical/Deleting unsourced material. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see... Actually I would not support you given your recent edits. You do realize not everything has to be sourced, right? We don't need a cite for every little thing - only things likely to be challenged, etc. I think your understanding of V is a bit off of the general consensus. You state in your page that you never try to find sources - do you ever examine the statements which were tagged? I often find that the tags were misapplied; the statement is common knowledge, or sourced, perhaps at the end of the para, or all too often, tags are added to the lead when the content is sourced in the article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, everything I deleted was definitely unsourced: either the entire article was (correctly) tagged as unsourced for over a year, or sometimes sections were entirely unsourced (my personal rule is for over a year). I always check to see if there are any sources in the article for the text. I guess you may be right about the general consensus, but "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source... Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed." So if policy is a reflection of general consensus, why was I wrong to delete the material? In other words, of course we don't need to cite every detail, but one citation per section wouldn't be too much to ask for. Material without any sourcing should be deleted after a while (how long is debatable, but a year seems enough to me don't you think?). B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey... can you point me to discussions of this issue? I guess I could look through the talk archives, but tell me if something enters your mind right off. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 00:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned about your deletions as well. Please read, for instance, the article Seabiscuit, an article I have really enjoyed but is not well-referenced. Would you choose to delete sections of that article? Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not. I only delete what is entirely unsourced and has been tagged as unsourced for over a year. Now, you might find I made a mistake, but that's my personal policy on it. At the very least, people would have had to be adding unsourced material to a tagged article. I didn't necessarily check to see how old the unsourced text was when the article was tagged for long periods. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - Again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

File:FloridaLighthouse.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FloridaLighthouse.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Case: Abortion

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to a currently open Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Intrusion?

Not at all. Please feel free to edit the evidence as you wish. NW (Talk) 04:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now that's a blank check. You prolly shouldn't hand me one of those... :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Hollyoaks: Animated characters

Hello, KillerChihuahua … You just deleted Ash James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) … please note List of Hollyoaks: Animated characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) … Some Other Editor has tagged all of these fictional characters (created by a WP:SPA) for deletion, perhaps with an incorrect tag … they all lack WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG, so what is the best way to get rid of them? Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{19:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)}

Well, you're right, that's the wrong tag - they're not "subpages" although they are arguably "subtopics". If we look at speedy deletion criteria, we find that the articles probably best fit under the A7 criteria - except that does not cover fictional characters! I suggest trying PROD, unless they are recreations of pages deleted due to deletion discussions on Afd (G4) or hoaxes (G3). KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Marat Terterov

Hello, KC you have declined the CSD on Marat Terterov with A claim is made (and wrongly linked) of notability. This is a good reason to decline an A7, but mine was a G12 copyright infringement! Maybe speed reading.--Ben Ben (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And so it was, my apologies, and thanks for letting me know of my error! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for informing me. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I love cookies. The vitual ones are better than the real ones in some ways - no calories! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I was assuming a more broad definition of subpage. Thanks. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha naw man, you kidding! Ratibgreat (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log

(N.B. I also posted this to admins User:Mbisanz, User:Lifebaka and User:Elonka earlier today)
Hello there, you are listed as an interested admin on Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log. Firstly, a declaration of interest: I proposed deletion of the page here (which was unsuccessful), and my name appears on the page as an editor that has been warned of sanctions.
The page is stale. If this page is to remain I think it should be maintained. As such, could you please either:

1. Remove your name from the "uninvolved admin" list, if you do not want to maintain the page

or

1. Update or delete the "Other recent editors" section. I would suggest deleting it, and
2. Delete the "No action by admins" section by User:QuackGuru. This editor has been topic banned for one year, and that section was disruption by him, and
3. Remove "Shell Kinney" from the list of uninvolved admins. I believe she has retired from Wikipedia, and (done by Lifebaka)
4. Include a wikilink for each warning given in the "Editors notified of restrictions" section with the date the notification was given.

Many thanks, --Surturz (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have formatted and updated the notifications table, and now that Elonka has added the info on the first four names there[32], the section is up to date. All other issues have been resolved, I believe? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. --Surturz (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks for the nudge - you were absolutely correct, it needed cleanup and updating. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ae#Jonchapple

Hello KC. I was about to close this AE with a 3-month topic ban, which I think is a result that you supported. At the last minute Jonchapple made an offer of better behavior. Do you want to check the AE to see if this would change your advice on what to do? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

SD to PROD

Hey KillerChihauhua, hope you have had a good day. I noticed you changed two articles, Mike Clarkson & Matt McFadden from speedy deletion. However, seeings as the editor recently created 10 articles advertising his webs mini series - which has hardly any views on youtube - didn't that meet one requirement - given the context? Here is the the contribs from the editor - [33]. There is an issue that the stubbed character articles are a blatant hoax (which being familiar with the actual series, I know they is) - but for an outsider, because in two of the character articles created, they used fairly well known actor names as the portrayers. A google search proves they do not play these characters. I'm not sure we should have to wait seven days for them to be deleted. Also, as you may be better at dealing with deletion issues and so forth - is there any way to have them all removed quicker?RaintheOne ^BAM 20:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are sure they are hoaxes, we can speedy them as G3; can you find the info to make that clear? They are not subpages, sorry. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the fast reply, I shall do that then. If I provide search results on the talk pages afterward, that should help the admin decide?RaintheOne ^BAM 20:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem now as they have all been deleted. Thankyou for your time. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 20:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well then! No worries, glad it has been taken care of. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to know we killed the entire series! :) Ratibgreat (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

s/he

Well, thanks!! I also appreciate your following these disputes as I appreciate your opinion, especially here. At the Bible page, one of the first things Walker Through said is something like "this is the truth" and when I said WP is about verifiability not truth, he replied that no, WP should be about truth. So I hope you follow the discussion on the Bible talk page because i am sure that over the next few days other people will need this basic point explained to them clearly, as you have done. But the she thing - I am not always consistent, but it really is the approach I have tried to take for many years here. I sure am glad that Nil Einne commented, too. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Steaua in Europe

The current version of FC Steaua București in Europe is the wrong, please edit back to version from 06:06, 27 September 2011. Current page has no aesthetics, please look at the page of Chelsea, format of Steaua is very bad, a small table, large table, then a small, large table... Another example: Every change are making is changing from a direct link (like Budapest Honvéd FC) to a redirect (like Honved FC). Since the title of the article is Budapest Honvéd FC, we should match that in the article. While it's okay to have redirects in an article, there is no reason to intentionally change to redirects. In addition, many of those names are governed by our policies like WP:Article titles and WP:MOS, and so they may need to remain in their current version. Jjmihai 17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry I protected m:The wrong version. No wait; I'm not: Administrator policy requires that I protect whatever version is there when I get there. Sorry, but you have two weeks to hash this out on the talk page; if there are uncontested edits, whether spelling corrections, policy edits, etc; you can request the changes to the article by using the {{editprotected}} template. Hope this helps! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Who can edit the page again to correct version? Jjmihai 18:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.234.69 (talk)

Any administrator; use the template as directed. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How can send a message to an administrator? Jjmihai 06:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.211.204 (talk)

Use the template, as I said. You place the template on the article talk page, in this case, put {{editprotected}} on Talk:FC Steaua București in Europe. Follow the directions at Wikipedia:Edit requests. What you put on the talk page will look something like this:

{{editprotected}} Please fix the spelling in the first sentence from "Hello, Dollie" to "Hello, Dolly". ~~~~

Of course you must replace my example desired edit with what you want done - take out the "Please fix the spelling..." part and put in the edit you want. The four tildes (~~~~) will add your signature and a date and time stamp. The {{editprotected}} will automagically turn into a request for an admin to come look at the edit you want made. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 06:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.234.236 (talk)

You're welcome, let me know if you have any other questions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Please join in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Further_reading.2FExternal_links. (I also posted this message at the link in your signature where the Talk link normally resides. I don't understand the connection, but then I don't know where you normally check your messages.) 75.59.229.4 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page is an inappropriate venue for discussing this. He wasn't involved in the request or denial of the requests. I see that Chzz has already answered your query there.

The ?!? in my sig links here, as this is where you'd put your questions (?) and complaints (!). The other link is to an essay, which gives advice. That's why the link reads advice in stead of talk to me or similar verbiage. Many editors have links in their sigs to essays. You will find that other editors have far more obscure linking in their sigs; you must apply common sense. Elonka, for example, uses the sig --Elonka -- the el links to her user page, the on to her talk page, and the ka to her contributions. You should generally leave messages for people on their talk pages, or post messages on the appropriate article talk page or noticeboard. Leaving a message for someone on an essay will not generally be considered helpful. I hope this information helps you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As you have probably now realized from Jimmy's comment, he has been involved in similar discussions before. We have now reached the tipping point, and imo it requires a broader discussion as I stated. As for your signature, I was under the impression such links belong on User pages. I have not seen such strings added before, and was indeed surprised at where I ended up. However, I am aware some users use multiple names but want all comments directed to one place. So, I posted there. I then navigated to your Talk page from your User page and posted there as well. I posted in both places to make sure you found the message and link. If you (and Elonka and any other of your Admin friends) insist on needless complication and confusion, I really don't think you're in a position to complain and get snarky when people get lost. imo Admins exist to be helpful and accessible. You are doing the opposite. Your actions, comments and general attitude aren't helpful, but I don't think you need me to tell you that, do you? 99.50.188.228 (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, ROFLMAO at the idea of Elonka being my "friend". We're more like civil enemies. We disagree on almost everything. I don't think she should be an admin, and she once spent a week writing an Rfc on me. I picked her as a random example because her sig confused and annoyed me when I first clicked on it, so I remembered it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And seriously, if you're going to take simple explanations of things as being "snarky" or "complaining" you will find that you are misjudging people, and you will miss out on a lot of helpful info. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Point of fact: the ?!? in your signature does not link to anything at all. I am using Chrome for my browser. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Not on this page, because we're already here. Check the "on" in Elonka's sig on her talk page, and you will find the same thing. But on other pages, it will link you here. Please let me know if you have any further questions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

True. With all the concurrent discussions I forgot which page we were on. I still don't understand why someone as uncivil as you have shown yourself to be would link to an article about uncivility, unless it's to communicate that we're all supposed to ignore your uncivility because you're 'special'. Perhaps you think you can say whatever you like, as long as you 'close' each post with some boilerplate sentence. Not true. Now here's some advice for you: if you don't know a fellow Wikipedian really, really well, then treat that person as you would your grandmother or grandfather. Perhaps great-grandmother and great-grandfather. iow, respectfully rather than flippantly. Helpfully. No snark, no sarcasm, no insults, no ridicule. Assume good faith. Try to be as helpful as possible, no nasty little snide comments. Wikipedians are from various countries, of various ages, and with various cultural backgrounds which includes different definitions and expectations of acceptable communication and attitude. At least, that's who we would like to include. Instead, the vast majority are now young boys and men who insist on treating everyone else as if they too were young boys and men. You clearly don't see this as a problem, and believe everyone should put up with whatever you feel like doing, blaming others for their understandable reactions. That isn't how the world works. If you insist on acting in a way which others consider rude, they will of course consider you rude. No ridiculing on your part for their 'misinterpreting' will change that. As an Admin, 'outsiders' consider you to be representing Wikipedia in some sort of official capacity, even though the rest of us know it's only a fancy term for 'janitor'. You don't seem to appreciate that, but I expect you soon will. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) You are in error. I consider incivility a huge, huge problem. You have no idea. However, what I don't see is that complaining and escalating serves any purpose. I think AGF is the best ever advice given; I didn't write the essay I link to in my sig, but boiled down it advises not to take offense, not to escalate, and not to let someone else dictate your approach (ie, don't let someone piss you off and drag you into fights.) It also says some people are trolls and don't give them satisfaction, if I remember correctly, and that isn't such bad advice either. I try to follow that advice, and I think there would be less drama, arguments and self-righteous hurt feelings if everyone followed that and AGF. I am very rarely (almost never, actually) accused of being rude. Perhaps I'm off my game today; my aim is always to be clear, concise and helpful. I never intend to be rude and if I am unintentionally rude I generally apologize. However, I sometimes do not apologise when I'm not being rude, and the other party is simply determined to take offense, to use a common phrase (eg, trolling). I have not ridiculed anyone who has misunderstood my meaning; this is common in text and I expect misunderstandings and am always happy to clarify if I have been unclear in any way. FYI, your condescending phrasing and judgmental approach to what you have erroneously decided are my views is unhelpful and a bit insulting. Its interesting that you feel qualified to lecture me on how I think and feel, and don't see the irony in the rudeness of your unasked for and misplaced (in the sense that you're dead wrong on my views) lecture. As I've been an admin for over 5 years now, I don't know when you expect me to "appreciate" what an admin on wp is; I'm fairly confident I'm clear on my understanding at the present time. And lastly, I have no idea what you intended to accomplish by your post. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockery

Remember, the great detectives thought I was User:Sam Spade once.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

See, this is why I don't do that kind of thing. And remember Durova's great misstep? I don't remember you being confused with Spade, though - even I would have known that was a bad call. :-D KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

When I first showed up in '05, I apparently had too much clue and not enough cowardice. So clearly I was an established user making some sort of point. Of course, being accused of socking wasn't as much of a big deal way back when.--Tznkai (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, but Spade? Your edits are nothing like his. Of course, now the imp in me wants to add something about socks to your page.. maybe the Army of rabbit socks thingy that MoP has on his user talk page. Only linked to confirmed sockpuppets and not Army of rabbit socks. :-D Don't worry, I'll resist the impulse. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Really, everything was less of a big deal then. *Shakes cane at the young'ns*--Tznkai (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha, isn't that the truth. We were much more laissez-faire then. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bible

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bible. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In what section, and for what purpose? Is there a policy question? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have given a better link. this is the section I am talking about, regarding recent edits to the lead section. Sorry - should have been clearer first time. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been resolved already. Please let me know if I can help with anything else. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - you seemed to resolve most of the problems while I was starting the discussion. What you've done seems to be fine - I don't think it's a problem now. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries, let me know if you need anything else. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can have a fresh start

Hi Killer, I think we got off to a bad start. I was not aware of some WP policies and I can understand that you were unhappy with that, and therefore me. I was also in a disagreement with your friend Slru, which I think did not go well with you. I can also see how you may want to follow me around everywhere and ensure that I do follow policy. Please allow me to reassure you that I do want to follow WP policies, as I realize that it is necessary on WP. At the same time, sometimes I feel from you an inclination to resist me, even on minor things. I would appreciate it if we can work together as editors and not against each other. I don't want us to be opponents, and I hope you can agree. Kindness and support would certainly be appreciated. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would not say "we got off to a bad start" nor would I say I was "upset" with you. Nor am I, or have I ever been, your "opponent". I would say, rather, that you got off to a bad start. I have merely tried to offer you help and advise you of policies, which you have frequently dismissed and/or ignored.

I will be blunt with you. I apologise in advance if my words seem harsh; please bear with me. I prefer to be clear rather than overly careful in my phrasing, so hopefully there is no misunderstanding.

My interest and focus is always to improve the encyclopedia. Your intent seems to have a less neutral bent; you are clearly ignorant of religions other than a certain type of Christianity and you persist in editing as though that were the "right" or "one, true" religion; you promote beliefs often held, sometimes ignorantly, by followers of that belief system. This is a violation of NPOV, as you are now of course well aware. That you are aware of it has only changed your methods so far as I can see. You are still promoting a fundamentalist Christian POV, but instead of doing so with a blunt frontal approach, you are removing anything you disagree with unless it has been cited to your satisfaction. You are running very close to violating WP:POINT, especially with your removal of such common knowledge from the lead of the article Bible as the extremely well-known fact that Islam holds the Bible to be a religious text of standing. This is about as controversial as the statement that butterflys have wings, yet you removed and demanded an RS be provided. I promised on WP:ANI when your indefinate block was reduced to 12 hours that I would keep an eye on you; you've done better than I thought you would but you still have a long way to go. You persist in arguing on talk pages that "a bunch of unbelievers have the controlling power over a page about the Holy Book of God's Word" - and "you won't be able to cover up the truth on the Day of Judgment when God judges you for your actions"[34] - a violation of CIVIL, NPOV, TPG, and probably half a dozen other policies and guidelines. You can't even seem to see that "I am helping present the truth in Wikipedia, which is in line with the Words of Jesus, who is the Truth, and Savior of the world. I can present that neutrally according to the rules of Wikipedia"[35] is problematic. You cannot "present the truth" AND be NPOV. The two are at odds. Our aim and goal is accuracy, not revealed truth.

All that said, I will help you as much as I can, whenever I can. This does not mean that I will cover for you, or bail you out, or take your side. I don't do that, for anyone. It does mean I will offer advice, and answer questions to the best of my ability. My first suggestion is to slow down. There are many complaints currently that you are filling the talk page, not following TPG - indenting incorrectly, etc. You should probably read through the policies carefully; especially all of NPOV and V and NOR. You must stop telling people they're going to hell, which is basically what you're implying when you say "you won't be able to cover up the truth on the Day of Judgment when God judges you for your actions" - that is a blockable post right there.

Regarding religion: You keep posting about yours, and speculating and commenting about others'. This may be the most important advice I can give you right now: No one cares, or should care. I don't mean this as in they don't care about you as a person, etc. I mean as Wikipedia editors they do not and should not care. Your fellow editors could be Christian, or Wiccan, or Muslim, or sacrifice virgin frogs at midnight to Cthulhu. It does not matter, and you should not comment on, or speculate, about it. Comment on the content, and not the contributor.

I hope this rather lengthy post has been helpful to you. Let me know if you have any questions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am very appreciative for your offer to help me as much as you can, whenever you can. I hope that we can now consider each other teammates, and work together to improve WP. I do believe in truth. I think every statement on WP has some kind of implication to be true (even if it is just claiming it is true that so and so said something). I think your recent stance about including the statement in Islam and Bhai show you think that is true, and because it is true you spent time to find sources and back it up. We can just consider our first statement about the Bible being the primary religious text of Christianity and Judaism. Is it true? Would it matter if it weren't true? I don't know why people have a problem with truth. Whoever came up with this whole truth doesn't matter on WP, totally deceived some people. You may disagree, but I hope you can see my point about truth being implied in every sentence. If we want to improve WP, then I think the improvement should be telling the truth, not lies. If we said the Bible is the primary religious text of Hinduism, that would be a lie, and would not be acceptable, right? Again my point is, truth is under much of what we edit on WP, even if we don't acknowledge that. Again I hope we can see each other as partners to improve WP. WalkerThrough (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're conflating "truth" and "factual". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, read this, think it over, and try to understand this point of view: Truth is inherently subjective. My truth is not your truth is not someone else's truth. If I believe in reincarnation, that's my truth. If you don't, we can argue all day each thinking we have The Truth, but there will not be a resolution. But verifiable facts are different. There they are; if there are different views then standards can be applied as to whose view is verifiably more likely to be accurate - how to weight different views. For example, a nail expert's opinion is huge on the Nail article. He's the world's leading expert and is cited by everyone else who writes about nails? then his views, as published in leading RSs about nails, will receive much attention in the article. A Nail article in a magazine not devoted to nails? Let's see, is it about building materials? Metallurgy? If yes, then some weight is given. If its a magazine about something else, and nails are only mentioned in passing, no weight will be given - the magazine may be an RS for something else, but not nails. A blog post about nails doesn't meet RS and will not be considered. Your cousin George's opinion is OR and will not be considered, even if he's a contractor and knows a lot about nails. But Truth cannot be validated in this way. That's why Wikipedia is not about Truth; its about what is verifiable. And that's one of pillars of Wikipedia - a core policy. WP:V. You must learn to understand this policy if you want to avoid policy violations here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it the truth that the entire Christian Bible (KJV) includes the word "God"? Is there any way the truth can be "No"? Do you think we should include a RS that says the answer is "No?" Is that the kind of nonsense you want in WP? If it is, then you can help make a horrible Encyclopedia. Truth is not inherently subjective, because there are absolute truths regardless if someone doesn't believe them. If someone doesn't believe the KJV has the word "God" in it, that may be their belief, but that is objectively false and foolish. WP must be about truth to have any worth, even if it's just implying the truth is that these are the various views of the controversial issues. If WP is not about truth, then the site should be closed, and readers should not be led to believe what is written is true (whether statements of fact or statements about different views). Truth matters in life, it matters about God, and it matters on WP. What a an awful excuse for an Encyclopedia if it doesn't care about what is true. I can't convince you, maybe. I can pray for you. You talk about conflating truth and (http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,fact) fact...I hope you help make a great Encyclopedia. WalkerThrough (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that the Bible contains the word "God" and is largely concerned with the doings and pronouncements of the Christian deity. That is all that matters here on Wikipedia; please do not spam my talk page with more polemics about Truth, real or perceived. If you do I will remove them. Please confine your posts to questions about policy, which I will do my best to answer. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

outdent Since you mentioned issues of policy, I thought it would be appropriate to point this one out from WP:VNT: "That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean that Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court devalues truth. What Wikipedia devalues is not truth itself, but assertions of truth that are not supported directly by reliable sources." I just wanted to point out the seeming contrast with your statement: "I don't care (speaking as a wikipedia editor) if its true or not." However, I'm sure you can clarify.  :) I hope we can all greatly value Truth and respect it. WalkerThrough (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not policy. That's not even a guideline. Its an essay, and it means nothing (other than the opinion of the author(s)). Please stop spamming my talk page with this crap. If you have a policy question, or need to ask how to do something on Wikipedia, ask it. Otherwise, you're just harassing me and filling my talk page with unwanted cruft. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)