User talk:KillerChihuahua

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Note: there is an element of humor in the above "bumper stickers" which the humor challanged may miss. Feel free to be unamused; however I will not be badgered about light humor on my talk page so if you feel the need to lecture me about them, be aware I am uninterested. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Zis ist Viki, zere ist keine "humour" allowt hier -- verstehen Sie, meiner kleiner Laffe? •Jim62sch• 13:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia user discussion page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.
Talk to the puppy To leave a message on this page, click here. If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. *Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ ) Comments which fail to follow the rules above may be immediately deleted.
Archive 6 - Archive 5 -Archive 4 - Archive 3 - Archive 2 - Archive 1	Archives

---

Contents 1 All Eyez On Me 2 Brit/American spellings 3 Barnstar 4 Tirade 5 Your favorite article 6 3RR/172 7 Selig Percy Amoils 8 wrong wroom? 9 Communism 10 happy Turkey-Day!!!! 11 Religious POV from your user page: 12 Reversion on Creation-evolution controversy 13 Ping 14 Oh no! 15 Neighbors 16 "As" and "is" on Intell. Design page 17 Vandalism 18 Speciation 19 Query 20 Withdrawn 21 Barnstar 22 Diff or not 23 neo d 24 Email 25 Your input is requested 26 law school 27 To Lucas19: pestering 28 Scientific perspectives 29 Thanks 30 new stuff 31 Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess 32 Potential Impersonating User 33 Comment by Sparrows point 34 Please reconsider. 35 A newbie's plea for help

[edit] All Eyez On Me

I didn't really need an admin. I was overreacting, and I knew it. I haven't been on Wiki quite long enough to gracefully handle potential edit wars. Thanks for the heads up, though. I'll re-add the article to my watch list and try to keep a cool head. Ford MF 02:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to hear you'll be sticking with the article. We have essays on how to keep cool on WP: WP:CHILL, WP:MASTADON, WP:TIGERS, etc. Give Mastadon a read for the humor value, it helps. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in this, as I never finished The Good Soldier and do not like Pound enough for the witticism to bite, but Mastadon is pretty darned funny. I even added a line. Geogre 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brit/American spellings

Sorry, I wasn't sure of Wikipedia's policy on spelling variations. Thanks for the heads up.

Your puppy is very cute, by the way. He makes me think of my longhaired at home. Finduilas 09 06:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - that one trips up a lot of new users, who "fix" the spelling without realizing what they're doing is changing the style of english used. The puppy is a generic pic from Wikimedia commons, not my personal puppy - but yes he is cute! If yours is as cute, I imagine you get a lot of joy out of him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I award you this Barnstar in recognition of your sense of humour and ability to lighten editor morale, even in otherwise serious, divisive discussions, like Talk:Abortion. Some of us would've packed it in, for sure, if it weren't for your good humour! Severa (!!!) 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very very much! I am glad to hear that my sometimes wry sense of humor is appreciated, and if I have managed to lessen tension with a laugh, I am delighted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tirade

What can be done to discourage User:Sugaar from continuing on WP:ANI#Unjust block? (watchlisted you) --Ideogram 11:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears this is already in hand. Several admins have weighed in on the advisability of dropping the subject; if s/he persists, someone will surely mention it on the user talk page, and so on. I suggest you drop it as well. No sense escalating this. It really needs to move from Current Events to Past Events. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I had no intention of touching it. Just wanted to hear your thoughts. --Ideogram 11:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your favorite article

... appears to be Tupac Shakur. --Ideogram 11:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well mine certainly isn't, and yet somehow I always seem to wind up editing Tupac articles. Sometimes Wikipedia is just like that. Ford MF 12:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are in error, Ideogram. If you check my talk page history, back in March, I actually posted a request for other admins to keep an eye on the article.[1] I don't like rap music, I really don't care for 2Pac, and yet it is my highest edit count, due to TUPAC IS ALIVE, TUPAC is the greatest rapper EVER, and TUPAC is just another dumb dead nigger type edits. It is one of the most vandalized articles on Wikipedia. 99% of my edits are rollbacks; 90% of my talk page edits are variations on Do you have a source for that? and still I babysit the darn thing because no one else has taken over. The person whose favorite article is Tupac Shakur is License2Kill, who is not an admin, occasionally allows his admiration for 2Pac to cloud his judgment on NPOV, and has less clout for dealing with vandalism. Doubtless Fordmadoxford has similar rationale for editing Tupac related articles. They are fan magnets and 2pac-hater magnets, and often the people editing come directly from forums with no knowledge of V, RS, NOR, and NPOV. We clean up the article and educate the editors. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. Why do you care enough to maintain it? --Ideogram 13:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is on Wikipedia. 'nuff said. I also babysit Guiding Light, but I've made no real effort to clean it up. And I don't even want to tell you what I think of soap operas. All I do for GL is make sure the unsourced tag stays on the article and people don't grab the castlist directly from Soap Opera Digest. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR/172

I'm surprised by your unblock of 172 for 3RR; it looks like 3RR to me. I'm even more surprised that you didn't explain yourself on the 3RR page or on RA's talk page. Its hard to see that as polite, though I'm prepared to see it as such if you care to explain William M. Connolley 20:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant to, then r/l interfered, and I ended up going to bed without remembering to log back on and do so. I am open to discussing it if RA or you feel it is desirable. 172 made a series of edits which RA himself described as "In the first reverts, he removes "anarchist communism" entirely but then decides to merge it into the preceeding section" which aligns with 172s explanation that he was attempting to reorganize per the talk page, on which he made 16 edits on 19 November. The original version was by Uusitunnus; 172's first two reverts were indeed reverts. The third was not a revert, with the edit summary "attempting new compromise, putting an abridgement Donnachadelong's section" - the diff between the reverted version and the new version is this, which is clearly a re-org. A paragraph has been moved below and rewritten. The final edit was summarized as "Compromise. Inserting the abridgment of Donnachadelong’s section under a new title, so that anarchism does not appear to be subsumed under Marxism" and the diff between the "new" version above, and the "final" version is miniscule: this is the diff. So it was two reverts, followed by an attempt at a rewrite and one revert to end; for one shy of breaking the 3rr. It was edit warring; it was questionable, and RA or you or anyone would certainly have been within bounds for blocking him for 3RR as a warring editor can be blocked for edit warring regardless of whether 3RR was actually broken. However, the decision was one-sided; the edit warring was certainly bilateral; and 172 was (witness his 16 edits on the talk page and attempt to rewrite to compromise, followed by the final reversion which was a small change but still moving in the direction of compromise) attempting to work with other editors to acheive a version all could live with. He was not contentiously reverting repeatedly to "his" version. Reading the history and talk page, I concur with 172s assessment that the other editors are promoting a POV and "gaming the system" and his blocking would send the wrong message. IMHO Communism would benefit from mediation or more experienced editors, so that 172 is not battling a concerted POV group alone, or nearly alone. I do not see how blocking him for attempting to work with other editors while maintaining accuracy benefits Wikipedia in any way.

I will post a link to this section on 3RR, RAs talk page, and 172s talk page so if there is any further commentary or disagreement hopefully we can handle it in one place.

And finally, I apologise for failing to post an explanation last night. I plead r/l; I certainly did not intend to be impolite to anyone. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Re impoliteness, I'm happy to accept your explanation. Re 3RR, I disagree, and would have blocked him myself William M. Connolley 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. Would you have also blocked or warned any of the other edit warriors on the page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any other blocks there - as far as I can see, only 172 has broken 3RR William M. Connolley 22:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding rendundant, that didn't really answer my question. Would you have warned any of the other edit warriors on the page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I say, only 172 hs broken 3RR. I wouldn't warn people for only 3R, if indeed any others do have 3R. If I'd been processing this report, I wouldn't have warned anyone else William M. Connolley

William M. Connolley and I are not on the best of terms. I don't think he is being a very partial judge here. To call the 4 edits a 3RR violation is ridiculous. In one of them I am reorganizing the article and summarizing another editor's work, working toward a new version rather than reverting back to an old one. To call this edit [2] a revert is utterly ridiculous. In that edit I'm correcting a mistake/typo that I made myself and admitted to on the talk page! That's a minor edit! I renamed the heading on Marxism "emergence of communism" in order to broaden the section's focus in a previous edit. That was a mistake; I should've changed the section name to "emergence of modern communism." So I corrected my own typo in this edit. [3] The edits were not a 3RR violation by any stretch of the imagination, unless one is to argue that self-correcting typos counts as a reversion. 172 | Talk 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

172, you are right "To call this edit [4] a revert is utterly ridiculous." However, if you look at the report, that is not listed as one of the 4 reverts. --BostonMA ^talk 00:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, then what did you include? My renaming of the headings-- that was a new proposal for a new version, not a reversion? My mistake. Frankly, this is getting silly. I'm going to go back to attemping to with other editors while keeping the article consistent with professionally written encyclopedias and the secondary academic literature on the subject, which I what I was doing before your report. 172 | Talk 00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the report, I see it was this one. [5] I was working toward new headings, a new structure, a new version trying to meet Donnachadelong halfway-- not a reversion. I think I'm the only one on the talk page trying to do this. Yet I'm the one getting hassled. This is unbelievably frustrating and unfair. Now, please llet me get back to some real work. 172 | Talk 01:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with William Connolley - the problem with 172's action was that he engaged in multiple, complex partial reverts. I feel that whatever debate and changes he wanted to carry out should have been discussed properly on the talkpage - edit summaries are not supposed to be a communication method. He should not respond to other people's objections by reverting their edits, albeit with compromise alterations. And the law is impartial - other editors did not come close to violating 3RR but it would be ok to give them a gentle nudge of warning as well. I quote a passage from WP:3RR here as I did on Bishonen's talkpage:

"Reverting, in this context, means undoing the actions of another editor or other editors in whole or part. It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. A revert may involve as little as adding or deleting a few words or even one word (or punctuation mark). Even if you are making other changes at the same time, continually undoing other editors' work counts as reverting. 'Complex partial reverts' refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention."

Basically, I just want to understand the 3RR policy better and make better decisions. I have no issue or consternation at KC's unblock of 172. Rama's arrow 23:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you not turning a difference of opinion into a personal issue, and instead treating this in a professional manner, RA. As you can see there are sometimes disagreements. In my view, 172 did revert, but then made different edits. WMC sees a clear technical violation of 3RR, so there is a difference of opinion there. It certainly wasn't one of those easy cases where all reverts were precisely, or even substantially, the same.

All parties were edit warring to one extent or another, but 172 reverted twice then tried to work towards a compromise version. To state "no one else violated 3RR" is to focus on the Rules rather than the Situation - which is certainly a valid position, and WMC is tireless in his work on 3RR, so his judgment comes from an enormous amount of experience. Strict rules interpretation does not always take into consideration the Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Reverting_without_edit_warring, which would exclude whatever in 172s rewrite may have appeared a partial revert; and on the part of the other editors, This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day from the intro to 3RR. Finally, one does not have to violate 3RR to be blocked or warned for edit warring. As the situation involved two parties, and one (172) was attempting to work towards a compromise, then the others were also at fault - not for a technical violation of 3RR, but for warring rather than trying to work with 172. Thus my unblock - as I have stated, the 3RR was not clear to me, 172 had begun working towards a compromise version. IMHO the other editors merited a rebuke for continuing to edit war. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selig Percy Amoils

Dear Mr. Chihuahua, there is currently a discussion on this article's talkpage regarding how to properly apply BLP policy to this subject. Knowledgable comments from more experienced editors would be very helpful. I have therefore invited you and AnonEMouse to comment in the hopes that you can help clarify this situation. Thanks for your time and attention Mr Chihuahua. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Gee, you've been off having (partial?) sex reassignment surgery, Mr./Mrs. Chihuahua? And here I thought it was just a cold! How the hell are you? Have an animated flower! Would you like something hopping and bobbing to look at on your page to cheer your convalescense? Say the word! Bishonen | talk 18:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] wrong wroom?

excuse me, but who're you, and what exactly are you asking me? (did that sound rude? I'm being puzzled--just clarifying here) but if I understand, then yes, that was my edit —preceding unsigned comment by WAS (talk • contribs)

Dang, I just passed out at my keyboard. That's what I get for holding my breath while awaiting a response from KC. Normally I wouldn't do such foolish things, but I'm anticipating a nip from the pup for expressing myself a bit too firmly. C'mon, get it over with... : ) Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WAS: You seem to have understood my question correctly, thanks for answering. In the future, rather than fragmenting a discussion over several pages, please answer on the page where the question was put - thanks. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which will sign and timestamp your posts. As to who I am, see my User page.

Doc Tropics: In my opinion, something gentler would have been in order. Test2, which is nonsense, would have been more appropriate to the edit in question. However, certainly a repeat offender has frayed the tolerance of AGF, so I have no quarrel with your choice. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KC, I agree. My original response was probably too harsh; I had planned on using test2 until I saw all the other warnings...but things seem to have worked out. With just a little self-control WAS will be fine. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communism

Thanks for the feedback on the references and other issues with the article. If you have time, any further help-- now that I have started work on references-- will be greatly appreciated. 172 | Talk 09:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome, I hope it helped. I regret that I cannot commit to taking on anything more right now - I will look in from time to time and offer any suggestions I can, though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] happy Turkey-Day!!!!

I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandiziŋ! --Randfan please talk talk to me!

Happy Turkeyday! Cheers! :) —Randfan!!

Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Randfan!!

[edit] Religious POV from your user page:

I totally disagree with your POV issue on your user page. Mainly because I don't feel that Christianity is as pushed as you say. One good example I've come across was the Dinosaur article. A scientific viewpoint was held over the Christian view point on the subject of dinosaur/evolution etc. Further still, I feel that the Jewish viewpoint is even more pushed than the Christian's view point. So yes I do agree with you in that a small religion has such a big part on Wikipedia. Anyway, was kinda lonely, so decided to randomly message a person I don't know. Have a great night/day depending on which side of the Earth you are on... :) Spawn Man 11:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What part does a dinosaur play in the religious beliefs of Christians? Sorry, your post makes no sense to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about Religious perspectives on dinosaurs? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a horrid article, btw.  ;) •Jim62sch• 14:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What's not to understand? Spawn man totally disagrees and agrees with you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Spawn Man has totally misunderstood me, and also that he considers "Christian" and "Young earth creationist" to be synonyms. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, for an administrator that was a bit uncivil sounding. Anyway, I said in relation to the Young Earth creationist vies on dinosaurs. It was just a comment, jeez... ;( Spawn Man 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion on Creation-evolution controversy

It is a bit ironic that I already did discuss the removal on the talk page, while your edit summary requests that this be done and you did not add to the discussion! Could you please place your rationale there, so that the matter may be discussed appropriately? Seraphimblade 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ping

Puppy ping. Bishonen | talk 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Clown ping. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh no!

do we all have to have them? My Mac is still in bits after the move! The best I could do was Image:JzG.gif. Bah! Guy (Help!) 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neighbors

I had thought we might be neighbors, but wasn't sure, and was reluctant to ask (privacy y'know). But yes, I am here. Well, technically I am actually here at the moment, due to business and family obligations. I miss the sun, I miss the sea, and most of all, I miss my friends. With luck I'll be back in January. Don't hate me because I look like a snowbird, I'm actually a native who just has to spend a lot of time away from home. Doc Tropics 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You poor baby, you must be freezing - still Chicago is a beautiful city.

Speaking of here and there - Why, oh why, do you persist in splitting conversations? Why do you answer my post on your talk page here instead of there? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's fun to watch you run from page to page like you're chasing your tail? Sorry, I'll try to keep them in one place at a time. It's actually snowing like *%$# right now. Good thing I laid in some firewood. Email sometime, if you want...Doc Tropics 07:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "As" and "is" on Intell. Design page

Your recent one-word change produced this text:

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach that intelligent design is an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause

I suspect that what's wanted is this:

In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), a United States federal court ruled that a public school district requirement for science classes to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause

(Excuse the intrusion into your talk page. I have a lot of trouble using the ID article's talk page or editing the article. It's probably my browser's fault.) Cognita 02:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that is what is wanted?

The one affirms that it is an alternative, the second affirms it should be taught as - and I didn't make a change, you did. I reverted your change, which changes the meaning slightly and was not discussed on the talk page of the article - whcih is where you need to take this next, watch the page history for talk page archive if you're having trouble loading it. I realize this may seem like a trivial difference, however we have had six month long edit wars over one word on the ID article, and it behooves you to have good reasons for making a change which changes meaning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

You knew this, but just to make sure - I didn't write this vandalism you correctly and understandably reverted. See WP:VPT#Major_edit_glitch for more explanation. Art LaPella 08:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I knew it had to be something like that - I was just rolling back the weirdness, no worries. The worst thing I thought at all was "huh! that's odd." But I did wonder what happened, so thanks much for letting me know! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speciation

Hmmm.. You removed what you called "speculation" about the validity of speciation in the context of macroevolution. In the previous paragraph, the concept of uniformitarianism is cited as the reason to infer causes. My post on where the gene variation in finches comes from uses this same principle in a much more reasonable sense to infer the preexistence of the gene types, and hence, that no evidence of macroevolution is observed in the darwin's finches example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furrypig (talk • contribs) 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Take this to the article talk page please. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

With regards to your suggestion I should archive my talk page — do you suggest it purely for technical purposes, or is there something I should be concerned of? — Whedonette (ping) 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither. Merely that there have been some minor hostilities and a fresh page might assist in ending it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawn

I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your support.--MONGO 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a pity. I feel strongly that had those who oppose investigated more deeply, they would have found that in those controversial cases, you were pitted against Trolls and POV Warriors who would have done considerable damage had you not held fast. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly! AnnH ♫ 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame. I think MONGO would have been a good arbitrator. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Thank you for the Barnstar. This simply started as a simple task I though I could perform very occasionally -- one which required little work, really -- and it's gotten quite out of hand. It's very difficult to stop once one's started! --CalendarWatcher 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I know what you mean! Welcome to Wikiholics-not-so-anonymous. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diff or not

Mr/Mrs, I did not ask for a diff, nor for help. I want my name respected on WP. In that interreality case, my name is still used out loud but all my original text is deleted by myself last week. The current text in the article is not mine but of other contributers, i suppose. But still suspects and accuses are made by some establishment about me, using my real name in their comments. That is going too far, is violating my privacy rights, especially because MY text is deleted, and i have quitted that whole article. Not by the critics, but by the way newcomers are handled. Including the blunt comments of Doc Tropics that when I (unexperienced and confidently) use my real name, I have to accept the consequences. If that is representative for WP, than this is not my world. That's all and that's over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.207.182.13 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread my post. I asked you for a diff of where anyone had posted personal information about you, or made any attacks towards you. What comments, specifically, are you complaining about? From what I see you posted your own name - I fail to see what you are unhappy about. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The first 5 lines, from "This article ... to sources." My full name and website are posted, but these relay to the original article. Not to what now is. After I was repremanded about being OR, I discussed that with some and after about 2 days I withdrawed my article text and deleted all my posts as far as I could. In days between some others contributing to the article with their focus, something about history and cartoons and so. That is not my business nor core. So, I am unhappy with my name in comments to text that is past and gone. Also i don't except being accused when I am out of action.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.207.182.13 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, sign your posts with four tildes. Secondly, the first 5 lines of what page? KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neo d

Hey KillerChihuahua, if that's how you feel about the term, I noticed it's also at Lynn Margulis — coelacan talk — 02:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I guess it's an epidemic. — coelacan talk — 02:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is a redirect, but ah well. I primarily objected to it being used as the primary description; I'm not going to argue the use of the term across all of WP, as even though it is a neologism it is one gaining currency. Thanks for the heads-up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding: Note that Margulis is described in the intro as a biologist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 08:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Email

I sent you an email, perhaps you missed it? Or your email is not working? KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Got it, but did not want to engage in an extended discussion about a simple observation. Fred Bauder 15:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an extended discussion, I asked three simple questions. Are you saying you'd prefer not to answer them? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] law school

Hey puppy! I haven't heard from you in forever!

You have no idea how good it feels to have law school so close to being out of my hands now. I took my LSAT's and did ok on them, got a 162 (out of 180, its 87th percentile). That's a good, decent competitive score, but a little lower than I'd have liked. But it should be good enough. I wrote a really good personal statement and resume [6]. I'm 90% done with the application process. Hopefully I'll be done by the 15th or so. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How are things with you?

I am so delighted to hear that! Be sure to keep me informed, ok?

Things with me.. heh, scroll up, see the last few sections. IRL, incredibly busy, weirdly enough. I keep having these odd illnesses and accidents. I had bronchitis, then I was bit by a brown recluse, then I hurt my finger (typing impaired, heh) and all kinds of fun experiences - I think you knew about some of them, but its been almost a trend. I hope I'm done with that kind of stuff for a bit, its cramping my style. ;) Overall I'm doing well. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading the papers now... wow, great stuff here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I love the line "Perhaps it is a natural progression, from soldier to lawyer—the law is another pursuit requiring a mighty heart and a dedication to service." and the entire closing paragraph. Lots of great accomplishments, too! Outstanding. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Be not pestiferous, inslut not our friends. Looks to us like you're a rodent with a dog-complex.--SanIsidro 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We're sorry, but this page's allotment of incoherent rants is already full. Please take a number and we'll be with you as soon as possible. Doc Tropics 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh....I'm completely confused by that. Anyway, I do remember some of the strange illnesses and accidents and the like. Glad to hear that it's over. It may sound stupid but if you believe you're invincible, you will be.

As for the law school stuff, I'm hinging basically everything on the fact that my LSAT scores are decent, military service, and that I can write like a beast. I have to, because my GPA sucks, it's around a 2.9, just shy of a 3.0. Considering the school I attend has an average law school entry GPA of 3.85, I'm behind the power curve. I think I can do it though. If you like it, that gives me confidence.

Read through your talk page. Sounds like you've been busy. I'm easing back into wikipedia. I had a nice break over the summer working on a mountaintop with no internet, no phones, hell, no real power. Four months of that definitely revitalized me. You should look into it, even for a weekend, just spend a weekend camping someplace nice. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Lucas19: pestering

Lucas19, it looks from this page like you are pestering KillerChihuahua and taking up an unreasonable amount of her time. Since you reject all the advice and information she gives you, I suggest there is little point in your continuing to demand more and more of it. Please be assured that experienced wikipedia admins tend to know more about policy than new editors. This state of affairs comes about because of an astute admin selection procedure, which only approves editors who are knowledgeable about policy for adminship. You may safely trust policy advice from Killer. Please note that Wikipedia policy is not a system of law and not a bureaucracy: it is the consensus of admin practice, as developed on the admin noticeboards WP:AN and WP:ANI. Written policy sometimes lags behind, or fails to cover every detail of, this policy-in-practice. Please click on the links I have supplied in this message, I think they will be interesting and informative for you.

I see you request Fill and Killer to move their comments to User_talk:KillerChihuahua#Your_Warning, on the argument that "this section deals with the behaviour of KillerChihuahua." I quite understand that you're not familiar with the function of userpages, but it is in fact quite inappropriate for you try to give other users orders about how to format their page, or inform them that a particular section on it "deals with" whatever. I hope nobody does that to you; you probably wouldn't like it. I feel, on the contrary, that Killer and others should be spared from seeing your quarrelsome posts every time they use this page, especially the ruleslawyering about calling a person stupid via calling their actions stupid (how would stupidity manifest itself other than in stupid actions, pray?) and therefore I have moved "your" sections to their own archive. Note the link, and feel free to study the material there at your leisure, to copy it for your own use, or whatever. Don't edit it, though, as it's an archive, and don't use it to set up an attack page against Killer, because that would likely merely be deleted by an uninvolved admin; please see our policy against attack pages.

You are here to edit articles, I suppose? Please discuss them on their associated talkpages from now on. There has been enough repetiton of your concerns on this user talk page. If your interest has definitely shifted from encyclopedia articles to your conflict with Killer (which I hope is not the case), and you remain convinced that she has acted less than appropriately, there are two ways of complaining of admin behaviour: posting on WP:ANI, and setting up an RFC. Please click on those links to see how to go about it. I should mention that I personally believe you'd be wasting your time, though. Bishonen | talk 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, looks like you are pestering me given [7] and [8]...Lukas19 12:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

About your comments about stupidty, I'll quote myself: "Even the smartest people can say silly things. It's unreasonable to expect anyone can make perfect arguments about EVERY single subject. So when I call your arguments stupid, I'm not addressing you. However, I admit I could have worded my comments more constructive but given the quotes such as User_talk:Doc_Tropics#Civility_warnings, give me a break." I'm trying to move on. But seems like you have opened it again...Lukas19 13:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific perspectives

Thanks for your previous comments on this issue. At this point only 2 editors are active in the discussion, which makes any attempt at consensus a little shakey. The most recent comments are here if you would like to review the progress. Thanks. Doc Tropics 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind congratulations... and sympathies... and thanks. :-) Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new stuff

Well, I've decided to revive the WikiProject Climbing. Unfortunately, on the more technical side of things, especially involving templates and infoboxes, I'm a little over my head. Mind helping out? Most of the articles under the project could use some simple rewriting for tone and standardization, and I'm planning on taking care of that. Mainly I just need some advice making all the templates and infoboxes and such work, so I don't look like a klutz, and a second pair of eyes might help ;) Oh, and what do you think of the new (shorter) signature? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I can help with templates and infoboxes for you, sure. brt. And the sig is better, I approve. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Killer—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 15:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Impersonating User

Just wanted to let you know, an account called User:The Puppy was created that states it's an account you use when not editing from a secure location. Since it doesn't appear to have been created under your existing username, I've reported it to requests for comment. If you genuinely created this account, please accept my humble apologies. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, looking at the contribution you made at the same time I reported the user, it appears to be you. Best, Hagerman^(talk) 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, me. Thanks for being so vigilant tho, much appreciated! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Thanks, Hagerman^(talk) 00:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Sparrows point

I believe it is correct to use the word "theory" when discussing evolution as it relates to speciation and origin.

Nowhere did I mention anything about creationism or God.

Do you have a problem with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparrows point (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 December 2006.

What are you talking about? No one said anything about creationism or God until you did just now on my talk page. My edit summary[9] referred to "excess verbiage", which is the use of the word theory every single time, or even almost every time, evolution is mentioned. In a biography, we introduce the subject in the intro, John Thomas Doe, and afterwards we say "Doe" only. This is similar. Its a style issue - and now that you bring up God and creationism, it does appear you're trying to push the creationist "its just a theory (in the colloquial not the scientific definition)" POV. If you have a case to make for using theory that many times, then do as I requested in my edit summary and take it to the talk page of evolution. Had you troubled yourself to read either my edit summary or the notice at the top of the page, you would have been informed twice that is where to discuss such issues. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please reconsider.

I was surprised to find your vote against me. I consider your vote quite valuable, as we've worked together on numerous projects. I considered the vote against me bigoted because the individuals doing so are doing so in spite of my attempts to draw in members of a broader community.

I personally feel I've been contributing to the expansion of the Wikipedia projects across the world with my contributions to Commons, and was in utter shock that someone would consider me Anglo-American centric. I have since apologized for my remarks. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bastique, as I said I oppose with great regret - we have indeed worked together, and well. I will think this over again, but apologizing does not undo calling people bigots on such slim and shaky "evidence". They didn't accuse you personally of being biased - their position is that more stewards are needed from other backgrounds than North American. Whether I agree or disagree, or agree with their approach, is not germane. Your response, however, is. I will think this over thoroughly, as you have requested I do so. If I do not change my position, then you will know that upon reflection and reconsideration, I have not changed my mind. FWIW, I don't think my voice will make a difference in the election. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A newbie's plea for help

I am still pretty new on Wikipedia and there are a lot of things I do not understand very well at all. One of the things I do not know much about is deletion and undeletion. I wrote an article about ‎Peter Cusack a musical performance artist, professor at a University in London, host of a radio show in the UK for several years and head of several international art collaboration projects with government funding. When I wrote the article originally, I misspelled his name as Peter Cusak. It did not have many pages linking to the mis-spelled name, and was put up for speedy deletion. I added more material, and corrected the spelling. In the corrected form, it now had 10 or more pages on Wikipedia linking to it, mainly from musical collaborations with famous commercial recording artists of various kinds. I had two or three people visit the talk page who said they would argue that it should not be deleted. I stupidly did not understand the process and thought with the extra links and the people on the talk page vouching for it that is all I had to do. I really do not understand the process to be honest. I looked at the instruction pages here and even now, I have no clue what I was supposed to do. I thought having plenty of cross links from other Wikipedia pages (most existing before I wrote my article; I had no idea Peter Cusack was that famous), people supporting the keeping of the article, my having put a note on the page asking them to hold off etc would have been enough. But I probably followed the wrong procedure. Because the rules make no sense to me. And my Peter Cusack article page I wrote is gone and the talk page is gone too. What do I do? I cannot find it in the logs of deleted things although I have no idea how to search and no idea what ADMIN deleted it. I do not even know if you are an ADMIN but I think you might be. If you are not an ADMIN, maybe you know one? I think this happened in the last 10 days or so. At least I think so. I am so clueless. I am sorry. I feel like a dope and you are the one person on here that I suspect might be an ADMIN so I could ask. At least I hope you could tell me where to ask because I cannot even understand the forms for complaining about this and I feel stupid. Sorry.--Filll 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Making a strong case for Cusack's notability would have been step one. This should be done on the talk page after adding the hangon template to the article. I have asked the deleting admin if they have an objection to undeleting the article - that's a courtesy thing, I don't think there will be any problem, but they may object, we shall see. You cannot view deleted pages because they are hidden from non-admins, not to worry, they are there. Meanwhile, I suggest you keep doing research and find some good sources, which establish notability. I can userfy the article to your space and you can work on it there if necessary. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate it. I guess I was not aware of how strong a case one needed to make. And where it had to be made.--Filll 12:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Userfied and note left on user talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)