'''That's enough of that. Ferrylodge, you're done posting on this page. Do it again and you'll face a block for harassment. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC).'''
'''That's enough of that. Ferrylodge, you're done posting on this page. Do it again and you'll face a block for harassment. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC).'''
I most certainly am done here.[[User:Ferrylodge|Ferrylodge]] 02:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 02:32, 28 May 2007
KillerChihuahua is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect her ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, she may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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.
Wikimedia Foundation
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. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )
KC, thank you for your kind support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. Whatever your health issues are, I hope that they resolve themselves quickly and well. Please feel free to drop my a note any time if there is anything I can do for you. Pastordavid15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness gracious, I apologize for missing this and not responding sooner. You will make an excellent administrator I think, your calm reasonableness is much needed. KillerChihuahua?!?18:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, there's been a bit of an edit war on the MacGuffin article. Noticing your kind words on my userpage, I decided to ask you to keep an eye on it, and protect it if necessary. As a party to the discussion, I thought it unwise to do so myself. --Eyrian19:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to let you know i am closing this account, shortly after writing this message. I meant to write sooner but it kept slipping my mind. The adoption process went great, i ended up adopting two users, who were both great. Thanks for adopting me also. Hope you get better soon.
There is an unassigned case for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race. I was wondering whether you would consider taking it on. I do not believe the case is very complicated so hopefully it wouldn't take up too much of your time.
While I appreciate your confidence in me, I am not certain I am the best mediator for the case. We are considering mediators for this case now, and I am sure the case will be assigned an excellent mediator. KillerChihuahua?!?13:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Race and intelligence
Heya Puppy, thanks for all your work at RfM! I'm amazed to see you still have a case moving, even after five months (the Kriss Donald one).
I was just dropping in to ask, can I close out Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence and remove it from the list of current tasks, as inactive? A number of suggestions back in March were that it was becoming stalled, and after your last message it appears that no-one has given any further input, and half of the participants are 'inactive'.
This was just a courtesy note, to make sure that there's nothing being done 'privately' to make this still active. If it can be closed due to inactivity, just pop me a line and I'll do it - my desire to clean out Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Open Tasks is ever-raging :)
Yes, I agree with your assessment. The case was very active at first, but from the beginning there were problems with a few of the editors not participating, and as you note, many have left, making the mediation more or less defunct. On the positive side, they seem to have taken the ideas they gained from organizing their issues and ideas and done something with that, so I cannot call it a total loss.
We may have to close Kris Donald soon also as a failed mediation; it is only two participants and one of them seems glued to the concept that policy supports his view en toto, which of course if that were the case there would be no case and it would not have been accepted for mediation. I cannot seem to get past that stumbling block with that editor. If you have any bright ideas I would much appreciate it. KillerChihuahua?!?09:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor doesn't just not-understand policies, he actively denies that we can have any policies. I don't see how it's possible to have a meaningful dialogue in this situation. Can you see anything short of blocking that might get the point across? Doc Tropics02:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC) PS - good to see you again : )[reply]
Not at this point. I have come to the conclusion he is a troll. I plan to ignore his attacks and insults, cease attempting to explain policies to him, and stick to the user warning templates. KillerChihuahua?!?10:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry KC. A direct transcript of your comments with my reply is on my talk page for anyone to see.
I notice you didn't admit your mistake. Why not? If you think you didn't make any mistake then you are suffering from a delusion. As I wrote, your actions which constitute administrative abuse have been duly noted and are of course publicly available in history.
This is not a simple accusation of admin abuse - it is documented admin abuse. There is a big difference.
Would you mind having a look at Talk:Miscarriage? There is an editor there who keeps changing a long-standing wording in the article, and, when asked to clarify why he feels this change is warranted, his explanation was, essentially, "I think it should be that way, and that's that." I do not think this is a reasonable basis from which to make editorial judgments. If you have the time, a third opinion might be helpful. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 11:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind checking out Minors and abortion? An anon editor keeps inserting the same information into the article despite being pointed to past discussion at Talk:Abortion about the problematic nature of this study and the way it's being presented. -Severa (!!!) 21:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you did this revert because of WP:EL. I looked at the link, and it seemed like an odd religious site, but they were trying to build an ark. I read over the EL rules, and this seemed right on the edge. Because you won't feed me steak, I now need to just ask for your reasoning with all good faith. Orangemarlin20:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You just won't let that steak thing die, will you?
A replica of the ark is inappropriate for the Noah's Ark article for the same reasons as the internal link to Johan's Ark would be - see Talk:Noah's Ark#Mentioning of Johan's Ark - it is simply not information about Noah's Ark. This ark has the further problems that it is not even built, and the site is soliciting donations, making it fall under the commercial spam type category. In short, it is trivia that doesn't even exist yet, and tells us nothing about the subject of the article. KillerChihuahua?!?20:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your health
I won't pry, but you did voluntarily post that you were ill some time ago, and I see there's still a notice at the top of your talk page. I've often wondered how you're doing. I very much hope that whatever it is has been sorted out — you've been one of the kindest admins I've met. I'll send you an email soon. No need to reply to this (or to my email). Take care. ElinorD(talk)20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As so many have asked about my health, in email and on this page, and been so kind as to offer kind thoughts and prayers for my health, I feel obligated to post an update. For those for whom this is Too Much Personal Information, please just ignore this.
The good news is that none of the truly nasty things which my physician tested for came back positive.
More good news is that I will be back to "normal".
The bad news is that she doesn't expect me up to full par for at least a year, as of my last visit, May 10, 2007, although she assures me if I am a good puppy and follow her directions, I will improve steadily (I'm being a good puppy).
More possible bad news is that she hasn't ruled out all of the nasties, she just wants to see how I'm doing after 6 months before deciding whether to send me for more tests (current condition could be masking other symptoms).
The truly excellent news is that so many people have been so kind and understanding. My thanks to you all.
Hello, are you refering to the {{essay}} template. Did you see my edit summary on one of them? I know I was making a lot of edits there but the syntax was coming out wrong and I was saving it then testing it at the sandbox without saving there, I would have used the show preview button but that did not work with the syntax I was doing so I had to keep saving, apologies for any inconvenince caused by I wouldn't say I was causing harm to the, I'd say I was testing them out to improve them. Thank for pointing it out. Kindest Regards — The Sunshine Man(a.k.a Tellyaddict) 14:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because if it was not working then I would have to change the template, with respect I have not harmed the template, I have made some changes to it. — The Sunshine Man(a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I being unclear here? Edit the template in sandbox. Test in sandbox. No need to edit template at all until it is working correctly. You can make additional sandboxes you know, and put templates in your userspace. They do not need to go into template space. KillerChihuahua?!?15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the great message you left re: my recent RfA. It was much appreciated, and I'll be sure to take you up on the offer. I also have to say I got a chuckle out of your user name. About a week ago, my 15 year old daughter, who's great around big animals like horses, came across a chihuahua on a sidewalk, got frightened, screamed and ran...yup, scared of a little dog...she laughed later, and then got a chuckle when I told her about your username. Made the evening just a tad brighter. AKRadecki00:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We little puppies are frightening! Maybe not quite as scary as Bishzilla, but still very scary! Glad you and your daughter got a laugh from my name - and do let me know if you ever need any assistance. KillerChihuahua?!?18:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
CyclePat reverted all the redirets I did on the AMA to close it down. I have restored them however I donot wish to do so again if they are reverted again (I don't use to be in an edit war wth anyone). Is there anyway to have them protected? ÆonInsanity Now!01:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be protected, but IMO that would be a bad idea at this time. Its being tagged as historical; he is clearly of the position that it is only temporarily inactive, not permanently. I think he'd view it as similar to somone going on wikibreak and returning to find their pages tagged Retired, and protected - and since this is not an individual editor, and the association must exist on its pages or not at all, it would be like the wikibreak editor being indef blocked as well. Do you see? He is trying to revive interest. To make it active and not historical. He's not vandalizing something, so protection is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua?!?10:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see thanks for cleaning that up I was wondering but it does seem that the community woul dlike the AMA to go. Thanks for your help ÆonInsanity Now!15:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its a matter of allowing a little time to pass and hopefully Pat will come to the realization on his own that it is beyond recovery. No need to pressure him, or edit war. I see Guy is approaching him about other places he could help Wikipedia which might be a more productive use of his talents and energies. Let him go through the mourning stages, and move forward on his own. And also consider: it is possible the the AMA might actually rise phoenix-like from the ashes. Stranger things have happened. KillerChihuahua?!?16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep it could but thanks to the ANI thread looks like there is now clear consenus to the closing of the AMA. I didin't want it to go far believe me (I had no intention of getting into an edit war as we all have other shings to do lol) Thanks again for the help. ÆonInsanity Now!18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible article?
Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:
The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our dear Katefan
Yes, it's incredible how present she is still, even after a whole year has passed already... :( I know for a fact she's well and enjoying her life, and we all should be happy for her... but still, like you, Puppy, I miss her like she had left yesterday...
I've been following your news about your health, and know that you've been, and will remain in my prayers. You deserve no less, sweetie. Needless to say that if I can ever help you in any way within my modest possibilities, I'm just a click or two away. Love you, Phaedriel - 12:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the recent activity at God and User talk:Rip Van Snorlax, I saw your personal note to the editor and the um,...pointed Edit Summary that accompanied it. After some brief consideration, I think I understand your position. It probably wasn't appropriate for me to use the term "vandalsim" in my Edit Summaries, was it? Assuming good faith means I should have treated the edits as well-intentioned but misguided, and tried to provide more constructive comments than just the boilerplate warnings. I also noticed that despite your optimistic handling of Rip, you didn't hesitate to block when it became obviously necessary (at 7RR...LOL). So consider this a "thank you" note KC, from me, since you probably won't get one from Rip. Though you never addressed me directly, I was able to learn from the example that you set, and I hope I'll handle this type of situation properly in the future. I'm glad to see that health issues have diminished neither your bark nor your bite : ) Doc Tropics14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking it so well, especially as you found the summary a bit "pointed" - I do aim for clarity rather than obfuscation, looks like I managed this time.
I actually wrote a rather long response, but when reading it over prior to saving, realized it was a bit long-winded and pontificating. Short version: thanks for feedback, let me know if I ever err on the side of biting rather than AGF - thanks! KillerChihuahua?!?18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted for your approval, or at least your review. I still wouldn't bother with a personal note in many circumstances, but this seemed to merit more than a boilerplate warning. Am I learning, or what? And BTW - one should always eschew obfuscation : ) Doc Tropics18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO...while I was asking you to review my carefully worded note to the newbie, another Admin blocked him indefinitely. Maybe I learned the right lesson, but picked the wrong case to apply it...Doc Tropics18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
firstly its not just the book the 'god delusion' he has written numerous articles about this and - its his contention religion is the cause of geopotlicical conflict.
Therefore I find your edit capricious -
Mywikieditor200720:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion on the discussion page. You have been informed by other editors that consensus is to keep the criticism in the article body; hence, the religious contention criticism would be in the religion section, for example. You have been informed other editors about sourcing. You have been informed other editors about WP:BLP. You have, in short, been informed your edits are in violation of our policies. That I also addressed the issue of the correct article for any content about the book does not invalidate any of the concerns which many editors have with your edits. You have not addressed any of these concerns except with dismissal and insults. You are, in short, rapidly making a name for yourself as a disruptive editor. I suggest you attempt to work with other editors and address their concerns in a more civil manner. KillerChihuahua?!?20:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For being
For KillerChihuahua for being a cool cat around the wiki! We appreciate your level-headedness and good cheer -- Samir06:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to do something with, "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" [1]. I'm also trying to find the origins of "I'm taking my marbles and going home". ;^) --Ronz04:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tell you why. The section for Dawkins was POV and maybe even slanderous, without any references. The section on Behe is filled with references. I mean Behe babbles a lot, and he's easily quoted. That's why. Dawkins is a brilliant biologist. Behe is someone who's trying to trick school districts into wasting money to lose court cases after attempting to teach religion (in the guise of Intelligent Design) in public schools. By the way, you appear to be stalking KC. Watch it. Orangemarlin17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
umm no it was it was clearly referenced. Now i am 'stalking' KC for pointing out his bias? And you apparently didn't even READ the controversy section (and you're obviously compeltely bias) it talked about Dawkins BLAMING religion for geo-political conflict like northern ireland, indo-pakistan and israel-palestine and said if religion were to go away so would these conflicts. Talk about babbling ignorance! He also blamed 9/11 on religion when even the 9/11 commission report says its US policy/support of israel. So in this case Dawkins is grossly inaccurate (because of his own hatred). but obviously the knee-jerk defense of him by you and others demonstrate that self identified 'rationaslists' are just as fanatic as fundementalists.Mywikieditor200718:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that isn't the reason. The reason is:
I don't write all of Wikipedia.
Surprised? Its clear you think I do, or at least I have total control over these two articles! Strange to say, others here have a say in how articles are written. We like to call it consensus. The editors on the Dawkins article have decided to integrate criticism into the article body, adding criticism of Dawkins views on religion in the religion section, for example. This has been discussed repeatedly on talk, and the consensus has been to not have a separate criticism section. I don't watch the Behe article as closely - it gets a lot less vandalism, probably because Behe is far less well known - so I cannot say whether the subject has ever come up to integrate the criticism as is done in Dawkins. If it does, I would support that. The last time I edited the Behe article was on July 18, 2006, when I added three references. KillerChihuahua?!?18:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While there are a huge number of adjectives that might be used to describe the puppy (and I'd be happy to go into detail) "capricious" isn't on the list. I assure you that any changes KC made were carefully thought out and completely in accordance with WP policies and guidelines. Very few editors or admins are as dedicated as KC, or as well-versed in the fine details of how this project works. At this point your ongoing complaints and nit-picking comments seem to border on harrassment and I urge you to desist. Doc Tropics18:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was not clear: I assure you, I do not control every editor on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should try addressing the community about perceived bias on articles which I do not even edit. So far as I recall, I have never edited Bush even once, for example. Cease singling me out for venting your frustration at what you perceive to be bias on Wikipedia. Go to the Village pump, where you will be able to address the community as a whole. The best place would probably be Policy or Miscellaneous. KillerChihuahua?!?19:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mywikieditor2007, I think you need to take a step back and try to assume good faith on KC's part. I think her edits at Richard Dawkins have less to do with "bias," and more to do with upholding consensus, especially since she is not the only editor who has objected to the addition of a "Criticism" section in that article. I have not been involved in writing the Dawkins article, but I have watched it, and a "Criticism" section has been proposed a number of times before on the Talk page. If you wish to see a "Criticism" section, or something like it, added to the Dawkins article, I think that it would be more effective for you to propose this idea on the article's Talk page and work with other editors to create a section that will address everyone's concerns. I don't think this is going to be achieved by singling out one editor out of the many who has objected to or reverted the addition of "Criticism" sections at Richard Dawkins in the past. -Severa (!!!) 19:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua, thank you for your suggestion at my talk page. When I revert vandalism, I am now attempting to leave messages at the vandals' talk pages, as you suggested. As you know, it is less time-consuming to merely revert the vandalism without choosing, formatting, and posting a message at the vandals' talk pages, but I will try to do so as you suggested. I hope you do not think that there was anything disruptive about reverting vandalism without leaving messages for the vandals; disruption was not my intention, and I will assume that you assume good faith.
However, you recently accused me of being "disruptive," when you reverted this edit. I take that to be an accusation of bad faith, and I ask you to please assume good faith.
Your edit summary stated: "Reverting disruptive edit. You do not have consensus, and indeed have considerable opposition for this OR edit." You did not write anything at the discussion page, even though my edit summary said, "Rewriting section on abortion. Please see discussion page." I had explained in detail at the discussion page why I made the edit that I did, and yet you simply reverted the edit without any response at the talk page. Wikipedia has a policy that editors should explain their reverts, and I hardly think your edit summary was sufficient.
As I explained at the talk page prior to your revert, you are the one who suggested the language of my edit (i.e. that opposing reduction in abortion time limits might be a pro-choice position). I also explained at the talk page that
Severa had not "explained anywhere why she thinks that ... opposing reduction of abortion time limits ... is not a pro-choice position." Thus, your edit summary was premature, to say the least, as neither you nor Severa had yet addressed the content of my edit.
edit warring against consensus is disruptive. Inserting OR when multiple editors have informed you this is inappropriate is disruptive. Assuming good faith means there is a question about the editor's intent. KillerChihuahua?!?18:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you consider the possibility that you yourself have been edit-warring in this instance, for the reasons explained (and ignored) in my previous comment, above.Ferrylodge18:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And do you see any on my part? And do you see any evidence that KC read or responded to the explanation that I provided above?Ferrylodge19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, edit-warring is trying to repeatedly insert disputed material into (or, conversely, to remove uncontested material from) an article. Restoring the non-disputed version to ensure that edits must be made through consensus is not edit-warring. -Severa (!!!) 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that KC removed was: "RCOG takes a pro-choice position against 'reduction in the time limits for abortion.'" That statement had only been inserted into the article ONCE. For inserting that statement ONCE, I'm accused of edit-warring, being disruptive, and editing in bad faith. It's totally ridiculous, and if anyone here had an ounce of objectivity you would see that. :-) Ferrylodge00:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) As you'd also placed that in another article, twice, and moved to the RCOG article after other editors protested, where you added virtually the same contested assertion not once but three times - why yes, its edit warring. Five times doesn't equal once, even when you bold it and italicise it and place in all caps. KillerChihuahua?!?01:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your omission of links is conspicuous. Show me once other than here where I edited any Wikipedia article to characterize a position against reduction of abortion time limits as a "pro-choice position." Just show me once.Ferrylodge01:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The contested edit is characterizing RCOG as "pro-choice".
On Fetal pain article, where a number of editors disagreed with the edit on the talk page and in edit summaries
04:13, 24 May 2007 - this was adding a cite to the disputed content, as added two edits before by Stadler981 at 22:24, 23 May 2007 Dispute proceeded on talk, with you stating the cite supported labeling RCOG "pro-choice" and other editors disagreeing to varying degrees.
Now I'm done. If I have to dig around and line up diffs of your disruptive editing again, I'm not going to bother to do it to satisfy your demands. This is enough for an Rfc right here. KillerChihuahua?!?01:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are very much mistaken, KillerChihuahua. You yourself said yesterday (and I agreed) that there is a difference between characterizing RCOG as a pro-choice group, and characterizing a particular position of RCOG as pro-choice: "You've found a source which shows their sympathies, or professional view, or whatever, is not anti-abortion. It may even establish their position as pro-choice, I'm not sure - I'll have to think that one over. But the RCOG is not a pro-choice group."Ferrylodge01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough of that. Ferrylodge, you're done posting on this page. Do it again and you'll face a block for harassment. Bishonen | talk02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
