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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 ( ~~~~ )
How would you like to be paid generously... for editing Wikipedia from your own home? Contact me for the details, and I'll pass your name on with my recommendation to Pfizer, Ortho-Biotech, and Merck. :) Join the club. MastCellTalk20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will I get a "code-name" like you? Will I have to be a "biostitute" (wth is a biostitute, anyway?) or can I stay a puppy? Do you get paid a bonus for harassment of innocent editors who are only trying to ensure The TruthTM is in articles, or is that part of your normal duties? KillerChihuahua?!?01:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think being a "biostitute" means that my biomedical expertise can be rented by the hour, rather than being reserved only for people with whom I share a deep emotional connection or at least a mutual physical attraction. Though I guess I should share the most painful development - I was subsequently downgraded from a "paid" biostitute to an unpaid one. MastCellTalk07:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the 18th century lit cabal silliness - I will finally have time, so I will be putting forth my short passage reading project, dealing with 18th century lit and the rest, on Wikiversity. It will mostly have a passage, some questions, and a discussion area. I will put a few things to choose from and take requests, so it can be an ongoing project. I'm only telling youthis now because you kinda expressed interesting, heh. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So pleased to see your name on the Mediation list. Unless you feel very positive about it, I would prefer that you just point me in the direction of a good mediator, seeing as you edited on Palin yourself. I don't personally believe that someone can be biased and not show it, therefore AGF precludes Conflict of Interest, but many people obviously put great stock in it. If it jogs your memory, I was the one who put the chart about the number of everyone's edits on the talk page, proving Ferrylodge's accusation against you that you were doing BRRR to be in fact the opposite, that he broken WP:3RR about 3 times over, that day. Anyways, I didn't know about 3RR back then, or I would probably have just said that, since the chart was soon deleted anyway. Ferrylodge has gone off to edit Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Collect shows up once in a while, but Fcreid and LedRush, Tom, and Kelly are my real problem now. They do the same thing over and over, revert, assert. My refuting their assertions, pointing out that their assertions aren't backed with evidence, my reasons for inclusion or deletion, all of that goes unanswered, or answered with more unbacked assertions, ad nauseum subjective claims like WEIGHT, etc. Revert, assert. Even if you won't take the case or don't know someone who will, even if you've read all that was just deleted from the article already, you should look at the discussion page. Pretty sure that is an exclusive: the Alaska Supreme Court case that proves and illuminates the Palin Church and State AP story. Good talking at you. Anarchangel (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your confidence! Officially, we all rock the house. In practice, the mediator is usually (where possible) someone who has no edited the article in question ; who has no strong relationships, either pro or con, with the editors involved; and who has the available time. If you want to ask me questions I am always here; but I will not be mediating. KillerChihuahua?!?16:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing the puppy Feliz Navidad ;)
Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...
I see that you removed some material from the Sarah Palin talk page. Thank you. Single purpose accounts are still very active over there and they tag team to no end. Is it me?? Anyways, cheers! --Tom18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note your warning, but I am pretty sure it was inappropriate. First, I wasn't even "warring for inclusion of that nonsense". Just undeleting the comments discussing it in the first place. If it is truly not a fit subject or source, it should be a simple matter to dispose of that in Talk. Deleting the comments, instead, was not appropriate at all. I have encountered situations where it was appropriate to delete comments rather than rebut them, and this was not one of them. I notice that you didn't warn Tom for warring the same issue. And by the way... the London Review of Books is not a blog.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy holidays
In the spirit of the Christmas season, would you accept an olive branch from someone who has disagreed with you in the past? Blessings to you, and best wishes to you and all your loved ones. Kellyhi!18:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No olive branch needed, but thanks much! I hope we can disagree without ever taking it personally, yes? Best wishes to you and yours this holiday season as well! KillerChihuahua?!?23:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, rereading WP:LEAD, it looks like the lead should be sourced with citations as well...don't know where I got the idea it was different...Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darnit, did they change that? and when? Yes it used to be different. The lead is a summarization of the article, and if sourced in the article, no need to have the cite in the lead. I'll look into this, but IAR, if its sourced, its sourced. Same goes for sourced in main article when there are spin off sub articles, too. KillerChihuahua?!?23:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. In Wikipedia:Lead#Citations: "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source..." and goes on to mention CON. so its been toned down from what I remember; and further there is a comment in the lead of WP:LEAD itself which states that the lead isn't exempt from needing cites, so basically the darn guideline is a little contradictory. All that said, the guy edit warring to add the fact tag was refusing to discuss and was edit warring for something which is, in fact, cited. The section on the guideline page mentions ease of locating sources not unsourced content, which is what the fact tag is for. In short, there may be grounds for discussion about whether to place the cite in the lead or not, but the "fact" tag is completely inappropriate for something which is sourced (just not sourced where the editor wants it to be.) Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!?00:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry for the way things turned out. I am going to try and get Write and Jim to stop taking it up as an issue against your involvement. Very unfortunate. You have to understand that they have been conditioned to respond to deletions as a threat from the permanent round of deletions by Collect and Ferrylodge and Fcreid and Tom and Kelly and Grz and anyone else I forgot on the page, which have prevented material unfavorable to Palin being added completely, and are currently whittling away at such info that existed in the article for months, such as the 'Stambaugh gun control as an issue in firing' You really need to look at some archives; you'll see what I am talking about. Writegeist is pretty level headed in the face of abuse that has been slung at him from the F's and C. Jimmuldrow hasn't been there much. In a word, they are 'punchy', they feel threatened.
However, I feel that removal of the material entirely, when there were facts in that material, was, although not as unfortunate as their response, not the best decision you could have made. A quick glance at the material makes me think that it wouldn't pass muster for inclusion, but we don't know for sure yet. Reviews, the full text of other chapters of the book, to which that might have been an introduction, all kinds of stuff. Know what I mean? Dismissal of it for style reasons is a more cursory judgement than I had hoped for. I have restored the links to the information, but kept the quoted information itself deleted, until I hear from you.
In the end, that material isn't at issue. The continued presence of the material in the article being a little more assured, as in, we can stop being under siege for a while, and addressing the behaviour of people on both sides, and trying to get a consensus going, is the main priority. To that end, I will, as I said, write to Write and Jim. Anarchangel (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posting a huge screed of materiel without one single tiny hint of where it might fit in the article falls squarely in the not a forum category; had the poster(s) not edit warred but rather rephrased and attempted to concisely state what content they felt would improve the article I would have certainly left that. Instead several people edit warred to re-add that large and unhelpful post; I have no patience to spare for such shenanigans. I still, after reading ANI and the article talk page and several editor talk pages not seen a single suggestion for improving the article, which is all the article talk page is supposed to be for. While I have all the sympathy in the world for anyone who has been attempting to edit an article Ferrylodge edits, it does not excuse such misuse of the talk page, and edit warring to preserve such misuse of the talk page. You may feel removal of the screed, after the edit war was already underway, a less than optimum choice. It is, however, the choice I made. That my ending of the edit war was followed by the bizarre "rogue admin" nonsense on ANI is only icing on the cake. KillerChihuahua?!?03:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are too many of you for me to say this on your pages:
Merry Christmas to all of you who celebrate the holiday, Happy Holidays of whatever flavor to those of you who celebrate something else, and just plain Best Wishes to the rest of you! KillerChihuahua?!?03:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KC, please don't make personal attacks on me in edit summaries. If object to the accuracy of an edit, please just revert it politely.
I wrote:
"the current intelligent design article condemns ID, and several arguments favoring ID have been censored.:
Your edit comment was: Remove smear against the project without due evidence, inapropriately placed: Ed, if you can prove censorship do so - elsehwere. But stop your smear attacks here. Not wanted, thanks.
I don't know which assertion you object to:
that that current ID article condemns ID; or,
that several arguments favoring ID have been censored
Is it one or the other, or both? How would either be a "smear against the project"? And why are you making it so personal?
I would rather just discuss ways that the article can be made more neutral, by adding material which balances the one-sided narrative it currently has. Is neutrality a goal you favor? If so, will you listen to my ideas? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have accused me of making a "smear against the project" and of being "bored" and "trolling" your talk page.
What I'd prefer you to do is discuss with me how the intelligent design article can be improved. I'm also open to hearing why you think saying the ID article condemns ID is a smear (or why think saying several arguments favoring ID have been censored is a "smear" which merits removing my suggestion from the goals section of the WikiProject. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, when you're talking about me, you are in error. In fact, you are completely wrong. Ed, try to get your facts straight before come posting here. Stating there is censorship is an accusation. A smear. Which you made. I can link to the diff if you've forgotten. I said "don't smear". So don't. Clear enough for you? KillerChihuahua?!?22:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kwanzaa
Hey,
I don't know a whole lot about Wikipedia talk pages so bear with me if I make any policy mistakes. In regards to the Kwanzaa article I don't know anything about WND, but now the entire criticism section is gone. The previous discussion on the talk page seemed to conclude that the criticism section should belong their as Karenga's background was deemed relevant. Regardless of how you or I feel about that, the section should be included as that was the conclusion. And in regard to the WND, the only thing I added is that he had a criminal record, which is a matter of public record, so if you don't like the WND (and I know nothing about it) don't throw it out, find a better source. Whadya think? And where do you respond to this my page or yours? Happy holiday02:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezzi386 (talk • contribs)
I respond on my page - I prefer nt to split discussions. The previous discussion was in Feb 2007. Although at that time I did say that if criticism were about the holiday it should be included, the simple problem remains that there is no real criticism of the holiday which can be sourced to any reliable source. Karenga's criminal record is about Karenga, not about Kwanzaa, and belongs on his article - and you will find it there. If and when any reliably sourced criticism about the holiday surfaces, add it to the article and I will support you. However, do ensure that
the criticism is of the holiday Kwanzaa and not its founder, Karenga
