User talk:KillerChihuahua

Userpage | talk | contribs | sandbox | e-mail | shiny stuff 2:59 pm, 6 August 2024 (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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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. 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 ( ~~~~ ) 24 - 23 - 22 - 21 - 20 -19 - 18 -17 - 16 -15 - 14 -13 -12 -11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 -4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Archives Health update 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. KillerChihuahua?!? BillRodgers = HarveyCarter = a host of sockpuppets I saw on another DrKiernan talk page you talking with Monkeyzpop about a persistant sock puppet. He has hit various dead celebrity articles particular hits on Jimmy Stewart, Elvis, John Wayne, Steve McQueen and a host of others. I set up 3 reports on him for a slew of sock puppet accounts - [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] The thing that works against him is himself. He uses a pattern in his names and his edits are word for word identical many times from account to account. He's even picked up conversations as one account got blocked as if nothing is wrong with avoiding his sockpuppet block by setting up another. (and another and another and so on). To make a long story short. Is there one place we can get all these names together and make it easier for editors to see how many fake accounts he had. I recall a link I tried working on like that months ago but can't seem to find it. All these new incarnations should be added. I have been on a short wiki break due to work and I am slowly coming back up to speed. Also user BillRodgers is what I see as his newest. Same edits in Elvis and Jimmy Stewart as other accounts. Hope you are feeling better soon (saw the tag on top of userpage). Take care and thanks for your time. --Xiahou 23:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Depending on how many you consider a "host", puppetmaster and a specific cat is the way we do it. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets gives information. User:Jon Awbrey is one with a lot; see his user page, and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey for how it looks, check the pages to see use on sock account pages, etc. Is this what you were asking about? Oh, and if you do it, remember not to subst. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks using the link and changing the name to HarveyCarter I found it at [[4]]. Looks like people have added to it. The thing is when I go to the sock puppet page to search cases only my 3 come up so how did the others get added? [[5]]. Thanks again. I appreciate it. --Xiahou 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC) You have to use the {{SockpuppetCheckuser}}. See here and here. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you.(about template to add name to list)See what happens to me when I take a few weeks off wiki. I used to have all kinds of time. Now I am at the desk, away, back, away, throughout the night. Hopefully back to normal soon. But I was also wondering is how other names got listed on there without opening for example HarveyCarter case #4 and so on. Was it just admins blcoking and adding the template without opening a case? Sorry if I ask to many questions. Anyway, Thanks for everything. I'll have to keep an eye out for his new one and others and start copy and pasting a report on notepad or something unless someone beats me to it. --Xiahou 00:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Probably. I've added several to sockmasters I know well, such as Jason Gastrich and Jon Awbrey. Sometimes the edits are clear enough without troubling with CU. In those cases, I add to suspected sock, not checkuser sock, but sometimes after that someone with checkuser checks, confirms, and changes the tag to SockpuppetCheckuser. In those cases, although a checkuser checked, there is no RFCU to point to. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Just to let you know I filed a 4th case against him for the new account plus one I missed back when I turned in the others. [[6]]. Thanks and have a great day. --Xiahou 01:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Blogs etc as references I am wondering about when blogs become useful as references. Some blogs are written by known figures who are notable already from their other writing, or from their qualifications or expertise. Some are associated with people who give their real names and professional positions and credentials. Some science blogs have been highly rated. For example, Nature magazine placed a "review of some of the best blogs written by working scientists" on its website in July 2006.[7][8]. Some examples: Pharyngula (weblog) by PZ Myers, a biologist from the University of Minnesota, science category winner in the 2006 Weblogs Awards Panda's Thumb (weblog), with many professional scientist posters, also highly rated (second place winner?). Almost every poster I have seen on there already has a WP article, and is noted for other writing already. Usually with good sources. talkorigins not a blog exactly, but with many articles written by well-known professional scientists and well-sourced RealClimate, a blog produced by "real climate scientists at the American Geophysical Union" Aetiology, found at [9], written by Tara C. Smith, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in Iowa scienceblogs, a provider of science blogs includes many interesting and useful blogs [10]. Note that they are selective in who gets to blog, in fact. Nature itself hosts assorted science-related blogs [11] Comments? Ideas? Suggestions?--Filll 04:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC) The short answer to your question is always, under certain circumstances. A blog which is very well known, by a notable author, can always be used for quotes and frequently can be used for postion or belief statements. In other circumstances blogs are less reliable and are, where the author is unknown and the blog is not notable, completely unacceptable. So its not that blogs are RS; it is that some blogs are RS for some purposes. I hope that helped. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Deletion: Tenielle Cooper Article Uh, yeah - I wrote that article based upon information I had, and I cited 5 sources, including the California Bar page referencing Cooper, two website addresses with her published articles, and two internet addresses that have articles written about her multi-million dollar law suits. This young lady is well-known in SoCal legal/art circles, and her admission to Wikipedia is just as relevant as any other person's because she is quasi-famous, published, and in the media. I worked really hard on that damn article, too, so that it had cited sources and wouldn't be deleted. And I planned to continuously update with more. Maybe you failed to see the 5 cited sources at the bottom of the article, but I didn't know how to insert the footnotes in the text, only at the bottom. Please advise me as to how to get my article back up, since you DELETED IT claiming there were no legitimate sources, when, in fact, there were 5 - which is many more than most articles have. Did you even read it????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revolution999 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC) I didn't delete that article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenielle cooper. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Deletion: Greg Stein Hi there... I noticed that you deleted my wikipedia page on the grounds that I'm "just another engineering manager at Google". While that fact it true, I believe that you've missed some of the other things that I've done (in general: lots of Open Source contributions, which is why I was specifically invited to speak here at Wikimania in Taipei). The sad part is that I could not put that information onto my own page due to wikipedia's self-editing policy (proper!). So I think that you've missed a number of things that do qualify myself as a notable person. What is the best way / your favored approach for discussion of reversing the deletion? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gstein (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC) No, that wasn't the grounds, and I don't know where you got that phrase, but I don't recall making that comment nor can I find it in the logs. It had been tagged for deletion with the summary "placing for deletion due to failure of WP:BLP completely lacking non-trivial sources". The only source was a personal homepage, which btw I notice hasn't been updated since Feb 13, 2005 - although updating wouldn't make it any less trivial as a source. Deletion discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Stein KillerChihuahua?!? 11:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry... that comment was actually from Burntsauce. Regardless, you're right, so ignore my homepage. If lack of sources was the grounds (doesn't seem to be per the discussion), then I can drag up a bunch of sources for a dozen years of open source development work, talks, keynotes, and whatnot. I could not add that to my wikipedia page by myself, but that data is actually out there. Regarding the discussion page, it has a note that it is now archived and comments should not be added. One of the wikipedia doc pages about deletion said to talk to the admin who removed the page, so I came here. Gstein 17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Which is quite correct, and now we've cleared up the little misunderstanding about why the article was deleted and who made the comment to which you objected. That behind us, the article is deleted and the deletion discussion is closed, as you note. My advice is to let it go - as the subject of the article, you have a clear conflict of interest. You may wish to watchlist the article title, so you will be alerted if someone writes a different article about you. Note the statement in WP:AUTO: If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later.. In that case, you can certainly offer the sources on the article talk page, as appropriate. Meanwhile, continue contributing to Wikipedia in whatever other ways you feel you can assist with the project. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Fair enough... I was tempted to let it go, too, but one of the devs at Wikimania told me to go ahead and post ("be bold"). Maybe it will be recreated at some point. Thanks for your time. Gstein 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Barnstar The Barnstar of Good Humor For fueling my edits on Doug Stone (singer) with needed coffee, Ten Pound Hammer and the otters award you the barnstar of good humor. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 13:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Ah, thanks! Glad I gave you a smile. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Apology for disappearing Just wanted to apologise for stopping contributing on the Kriss Donald mediation - basically I was finding the whole thing too stressful and increasingly futile and came to the view an agreement was unlikely - I didn't expect a result from mediation after the last few exchanges and couldn't stomach going to arbitrartion - and my university term was starting again, so my usage basically dropped off. And yeh, I've basically stopped contributing for now - more because it's too much hard work than anything else - though I stand by what I've said on this case. -Ldxar1 22:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Not at all, thanks for the efforts you did make - mediation can be long and tedious. If it was taking too much attention away from your schooling, you certainly made the correct decision in prioritizing. I hope to see you back contributing when you have a little more free time, and hopefully you won't land on such a contentious issue next time! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Welcome Back! File:AnonymousDesigner.jpg Anonymous greetings! In the name of the Anonymous Designer, hi! and hope you enjoyed the outing. .. dave souza, talk 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Oh Noes! An AD now competing with ID? Hopefully we won't have a war like BCE and BC. :-D Seriously,t hank you, that's too funny. The outing was a mixed experience, but parts were excellent. If you ever go to the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta, I suggest allocating most of your time for the Big Tank, the one with the whale sharks. 6.3 million gallons of water and thousands of lifeforms, including rays, sharks, and lotsa fish. Did I mention the huge viewing wall and the part where they're swimming over your head? Awesome. How have things been here? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Heavy weather! Hey, that was actually a serious attempt at a freely licensed illustration for the ID article! Well, fairly serious. The outing spot looks excellent, far grander than the Scottish Sea Life Sanctuary we visited near Oban about a decade ago. Not too likely to visit in the near future, am a bit stuck in the British Isles – the article, at least. It's taking ages to get my thoughts together on condensing the development of the name, in discussion with others, so haven't been paying so much attention elsewhere. Except when goofing off, which is much of the time. Anyway, keep well, be in touch.. dave souza, talk 16:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Adoption Hey, KC, and welcome back! Quick question: since I have a good deal of edits, and know Wikipedia policy pretty much inside and out, do you think I could adopt a user? I value your opinion, and wouldn't want to go into this without it. Don't be afraid to say no...I've got plenty of time to mature. Cheers, Arky¡Hablar! 02:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC) You're more than ready for adopting someone, IMO. Your adoptee will be lucky to get you. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Wow, thanks! That sure made my day :) Arky¡Hablar! 23:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC) What up dawg! Congrats,KC!;-) I didn't know that admin meant adminastrator. I thought it was and ad making company trying to win you over. My Bad. I hope there's no offense, KC or other admins. Sorry. So your the Man now! Well, one of the Men and Ladies. Here a nice bone for a new admin. --Angel David?!?Presents 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks, I've been an administrator for over a year now. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Question about an article Recently, the article 'Otherkin' has come to my attention. The article use to be fairly long, but is now, literally, a stub. However, I'm curious to why this was done; while I can understand such things as WP:RS and WP:V, I'm wondering what Wikipedia's policy or guidelines are for when an article is 'cleaned up' to the point of being an introduction and a list of books/articles. Many of the older edits have a lot more information on the topic, such as this edit [12] . I'm wondering if you could give me some advise on what to do; to me, it seems perhaps they article is a good example of somewhere that WP:IAR would apply, and perhaps reverting to a very old version of the article may improve the over all quality (and try to clean up from there) of the article, but I fear that such an action would lead to an edit war and an endless discussion. Thanks --HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC) It seems from the article talk page that the content which was removed was unsourced or poorly sourced. If that is the case, then it needs to stay removed. If not, then you have a content dispute, and I suggest you attempt the usual steps in dispute resolution. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Reverting problem on talk page Hello, this guy is reverting talk page, i simply do not want him to associate me with some suspended user, i told him of civility and warned him many times, he needs to keep the talk page clear and clean, can you assist me in suspending the member and cleaning the talk page. I thought he was administrator, he is trying to be. We had some problems on sports articles and he took sides, argued over one tenth of a pound, i will give you link when you reply. I hope i found good administrator, as they are hard to find. I am not posting this to incident pages as i dont want other involved, looking forward to resolving this problem with you. I always try to follow the rules, this individual lacks civility. It seems this guy was pretending he was administrator. And he has buddy helping him, administrator giving out real names. How long have u been administrator, is it stressful? I am administrator on one of the new encyclopedias, but we must give real info about us, even average editors. Whats difference between meditation and arbitration commit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.84 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Please provide links to diffs. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)