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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 ( ~~~~ )
Yes, thank you! I am sorry I had not gotten back to you yet... my r/l has been eating all my time! Would much prefer to cuddle cute kitten and hug and make up, thank you!!! Happy puppy. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, great, thanks.--v/r - TP 00:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Darwinbish has taught your kitten to bite you shrewdly on the ass. Hopefully that has made your day better. Kittens are cute and have very sharp teeth! Spread the goodness of kittens by giving someone else a bitey kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. littleanklebiter.
Help yourself. Feel better.
Um... ok... I hope you get your issues all worked out very soon. Meanwhile, have a cupcake! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[The good twin Darwinfish is a little offended on his sister's behalf. Stuttering slightly : ] She doesn't have issues! She's just mean, that's all! darwinfish 13:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Given numerous contributions you have made regarding the subject of 9/11 ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) and your past involvement in strongly supporting MONGO who was a major fixture in the circumstances of this case ([6], [7], [8]}, I do not think you could reasonably describe yourself as being uninvolved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on a couple of Afds in 2006, restoring removed content which was possibly page-blanking vandalism, and supporting an administrator whom I (along with many others) feel was hounded and harassed excessively, all of which occurred at most recent two years ago? Nope, not involved. All of which begs the question, why are you here? What do you hope to accomplish by this allegation? The case is closed. I cannot recuse myself even should I agree (which I do not) that I am even peripherally involved. Had I considered myself involved, I would have never expressed an opinion on your AE case in the first place - and that opinion was supporting the decision of another admin, and advising you to cease contentious behavior. Your sour grapes and attempt to frame me as "involved" ex post facto do not raise my hopes that you have taken the advice offered by Seraphimblade to heart at all. Advise you cease such quibbling. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did I give you the impression that I had only that? Indeed, this is a little more compelling: [9]. John's history with MONGO was a direct factor in the case as John filed the case against MONGO that was used to push for my topic ban. You are so many different kinds of involved it is an obvious issue for you to put yourself off as uninvolved, even if the WP:INVOLVED problem were not magnified by an admin who was clearly and unequivocally involved closing the case after your comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on Wikipedia 8 years, 1 month and 14 days as of this writing. It is hard to find anyone with any time here with whom I have not interacted, both pro and con, and often both. I ask again: What is your intent here? What is your goal? What do you hope to accomplish? So far you have accused me of being involved. Do you expect me to agree? and if so, what do you think that will accomplish? What, in short, do you want? KillerChihuahua?!? 06:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tis very odd that a few votes in concert with mine 6 years ago would somehow be construed as involved. The oddest thing is that anyone whose supposed editing history is more recent than those Afd comments would know about them. I can't see how edits made 6 years ago could have been dug up in the 1.5 hours which lapsed between when you made your comment at AE and when The Devil's Advocate commented here. But good to hear from you ferocious puppy!--MONGO 06:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That you "interacted" with someone is not really the issue. I doubt your interactions with other editors are all of this nature. Your message to MONGO on his talk page is not particularly helpful, I might add.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to declare yourself involved, though I don't particularly care what reason you give for declaring yourself involved. Your past interactions with John, who filed the case against MONGO that led to my topic ban, would seem a reasonable basis given additional evidence here: [10], [11]. Then I would like it if you would re-open the case so an uninvolved admin can review it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KC, this wouldn't be the first time that The Devil's Advocate found a noticeboard discussion inadequate. He often winds up continuing his appeal on talk pages of the admins involved. If one admin will not reply to his satisfaction, he goes to another. I don't know whether calling this 'pestering' would be too strong. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the gist of TDA's argument is the six month ban was either excessive or unjustified. However, there are only two months remaining in the current topic ban so TDA will be able to resume edits by early October. It needs to be noted that TDA was also banned for 30 days from this topic at the end of 2011...and was blocked for evading the ban during that period. This subject is a hotbed area, and most editors have a low pain threshold for those whose primary efforts in that topic are to promote a more fringe view, even if it is done by mere insinuation. I had hoped that the article may someday be rated as a Good Article again. That may be impossible if so much time is wasted dealing with endless and petty AE complaints filed by those that have a history of promoting a more fringe twist in an effort to silence those that disagree with them.--MONGO 16:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, agreed. This is sour grapes, which could be characterized as mild harassment/forum shopping by way of "IDHT"; the case is closed and yet he's pursuing it after the fact on multiple pages.
Mongo: He seems to think if I declare myself, who didn't offer the solution but merely supported it, as "involved" that it will make some kind of difference in the ban. It won't, of course, and I'm not, so fail on two fronts. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I told Tim that he shouldn't close an appeal that directly seeks to lift a sanction he supported. That is just common sense. While I cannot say that declaring your involvement would prevent the same outcome, the reverse is also true. For instance, maybe another admin would have actually commented on the elephant in the room that I was clearly and repeatedly pointing out rather than consistently dodging the question.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate, I don't think you're going to make any more progress this way. It's clear that KillerChihuahua is not going to undo her comments, nor do I think Tim will undo his close. They disagree with you about the propriety of their actions, and rehashing the point isn't going to change anyone's mind. If you think you've been treated wrongly, I think your time would be better spent going to the committee itself to appeal, and including your concerns that those who handled your appeal were involved. Note that I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your claims, as I have not read the threads in any real detail, just saying this conversation is going nowhere. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) And you were wrong both times. You were told your "elephant" was irrelevant to your appeal.[12] You seem to have a really bad case of WP:IDHT. Be done, already. I have declined three times now. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
adding: Heimstern is quite correct. Your appeal was closed, you are beating a dead horse. You cannot gain anything by harassing me and TimC. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFC
Hi,
I wonder if you would be willing to close out the move proposal RFC at the Men's Rights page.[13] You have given some admin support at that article in the past, and I think it would be good for an uninvolved admin to close it out. I don't think it is a very big job, but if you don't have time, that's fine and we can find somebody else. Slp1 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can do it; it may take a bit for me to read through it; I wasn't even aware there was an Rfc there. :-/ So I'm not up to date on it. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a proper RM according to settled provisions at WP:RM. Was it even an advertised RFC? I have posted on the serious impropriety of your closure, Killer; and on your closing comments. See this new section on the talkpage. I hope it will not be necessary to take the matter to WP:ANI. ☺ NoeticaTea? 02:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite serious; please take this to ANI or withdraw your procedural complaint. You are holding the move hostage until you do one or the other; or until another admin steps in. Over a month of discussion and clear consensus for a move, but you want to threaten me with procedural wonkery? Seriously, I wonder at your rationale, but if you feel it necessary, please follow through. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a good sign that you take the role of admin seriously. Tony(talk) 02:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've about had it with your ABF. I changed it after the ani was closed, to reflect actual accepted practice as demonstrated by the ani; so others would not be confused and misled as Noetica was. This was clear from the timing of the change and my edit summary. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start with the premise that we're all valuable editors. There seems to be a lot of anger in the air. Tony(talk) 05:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, thanks for the heads-up. All editors are valuable, some especially so as they take on tedious admin work, and they should not be hassled for making good faith edits, or lectured unnecessarily on supposed requirements to set an example.
KC, perhaps you could advise. I incautiously looked at one of the 151 articles categorised as needing RM attention, Talk:Great Nonprofits. The proposed move seems completely uncontroversial, but if I'm reading the instructions I'm supposed to wait 7 days before making the move. Seems silly, is that right? . . dave souza, talk 19:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember if you were around back when RM was started, but it was originally supposed to be for technical moves only - do you remember when you wanted to make a move, but there was something at the destination, and you had to go to find an admin? Well that's what RM was created to deal with. However, it has morphed into the bureaucracy you're recounting there. I don't mind that so much; but recently some editors are saying all moves other than typos and obvious errors must go through RM. That's against established practice - heck, look at Tony1's hyphen moves earlier today - those would have to wait 7 days each, and there would be an enormous backlog, and for why? But I'm mostly concerned about the wear and tear on editors who don't even know RM is being promoted to be like Afd. Afd has built in control; only admins can delete. But anyone can move, so saying moves MUST go through RM really seems like entrapment to me. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I appreciate you weighing in on the Rfc. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the sensible points you make, didn't know if was for anything other than when tools were needed. Too lazy for this stuff, someone has been quick to revert my change so my impulse to help reduce the RM backlog has been stifled. Back to WikiSloth, dave souza, talk 20:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ANI comment.
On ANI, you wrote:
Does Collect look a little silly and hysterical? Maybe. Is he overusing the word "blatant"? Most definitely. Was he lumped in with a group of "buddies" to be tarred and feathered for something he wasn't involved in? Looks like a big yes to me. I've been on the receiving end of this sort of "guilt by association" myself, and I can tell you, there is no merit to this kind of approach. If and when Collect errs (and he does) feel free to bring that up. But do not lump him in with others merely because he belongs to the same Wikiproject, or has the same POV. You've done two things wrong with that; you've not only inappropriately added him to a complaint about which he had nothing to do, you have now weakened your own case by distracting from your real complaint. Puppy's heartfelt advice; don't do this. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't respond there, since it's closed, but I can respond here.
Briefly, I didn't exclude him because he doesn't exclude himself. He's happy to take his turn in the revert tag-team, to urge admins to block me and to interfere with content discussions with mocking and deceptive comments. He's one of them and I'm not unfairly lumping him in. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am giving you truly excellent advice here: if you don't have a dif of him actually doing something wrong, then don't bring up his name. End of story. Doing anything else places you in the wrong and him as the wronged party. If for no other reason, do it out of self interest. Because now, if you do have a dif of him doing something wrong, it is quite possible that sympathy will be with him and you either won't get justice, you'll get "less" justice, or you'll get justice but also get sanctioned (blocked or whatever) for being part of the problem. I assure you, you are not building a case against him, you are harming yourself. I strongly urge you to try to consider all the other editors here as colleagues, with whom you should strive to get along and work, rather than as adversaries. Or at least act as though you did. Your time here will be smoother and more productive. And should you ever err, every admin in the place won't be thinking "Oh yeah, that guy who is always at 3RR and always bitching and complaining on ANI": - which they will if that's what you do, and some of them may be less inclined to help you or give credence to your account of things. You can shake that rep if you act now, but keep at it and you'll be considered a problem child. That isn't to say don't go to ANI; if necessary of course do so. But be less hasty to go there, don't act like it is a threat to go there (can't speak for other admins but one thing that burns my biscuits is "I'll take you to ANI" as a threat - it's just stupid), and once there, request assistance dealing with problem behavior of others, do not seek sanctions for others. Speak of actions of those you mention, not motives nor emotions, neither of which are you privy to. Do not speak of alliances unless there is a post on someone's page (or history) which says "Hey let's form an alliance against Still" - or unless you can document that for a period of months, two editors have tag teamed you and followed you to new articles - and even that may be simply because they share interests. Always AGF. As the old joke goes, Two or more people who oppose me constitute a cabal. Two or more people who agree with me constitute consensus. They probably just disagree with you. And absent strong proof to the contrary, they do just disagree with you. Well this has been a long post but I hope helpful. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus diff?
KC, Can you point me to the consensus for this diff? I couldnt find it in the archives. I'm asking here instead of the talk page so as to not reopen the discussion unnecessarily. Enough drama on there already. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 14:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going more by history and established content rather than a specific single item in the talk archives. Most consensus is implied rather than specified. I started digging, but there's a lot of history here and I'm not sure if it will end up being worth the time and effort, since I don't know your rationale for the change, and WP:CCC. I'm thinking the change (on such a contentious subject) should be discussed prior to making the edit. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not supporting either version at the moment, nor do I want you to waste your time cobbling together a bunch of diffs. I'll think about this for a while. Thx. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 14:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, let me know if you change your mind, or wish to engage in discussion on the talk page (preferably after this shooting has settled and reached a more stable version. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to bother. FRC is against gay adoption in addition to gay marriage, so the current version is fine with me. little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer 14:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nods, I think that's why that particular verbiage/link has been used so far, and you're right, it is more comprehensive of what they oppose. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite welcome, it looks like a great project, and I hope it does well and accomplishes its goals. As you are aware, I have been active in speaking out about women on Wikipedia since at least 2006, and am always happy to see someone taking steps and doing hard work to try to address that.
As long as you're here I wish to clarify something about which I think you may have a misunderstanding about. I think the Teahouse is an excellent idea, and I delighted to see that it has become, as I hoped it would, a solid resource for new editors. My only objection to adding it to the templates was that a) it was done while the project was still in the development and testing phase, and 2) insufficient community input. I saw that the idea had been raised of adding it to the sidebar; is that the approach you decided to go with instead of seeking community support for adding it to the welcome templates? I think if you opened an Rfc today you would easily gain support for adding the Teahouse to the standard welcome template. I could be wrong, though; I didn't think there'd be any serious objection to my current Rfc and not only have just three people weighed in, they're all oppose. :-/ So my crystal ball might be broke. But I strongly suspect I'm right about this; and urge you to request community consensus at this time now that the Teahouse is established. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, you said earlier you weren't sure how to set up an Rfc. I can do that, if you like. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I totally understand your concerns about the template additions with the Teahouse! I'm happy to say we're out of the pilot and that the pilot was a proven success - we figure (the team who created the Teahouse) that if the community seeks to place it on templates, they can engage in creating that conversation now! In regards to the sidebar - it was User:Kumioko who mentioned he had did it (without proposing it to the Teahouse volunteers and WMF folks) on the Teahouse talk page. So that was entirely community driven, and was a surprise for us. Same with the templates now, it's up to the community (and while I am part of the community, my COI with the Teahouse counts me out in starting the conversation, so to say) to take the lead on that RfC. I'd love to see it happen, but, my fingers are crossed hoping someone else will be bold and make it happen. (People keep talking about it, but no one is diving in...so who knows!) Ah, the complexities of the world of Wikipedia :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Accusing others of tendentious editing
Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly.
Your edit summary does not seem helpful towards achieving the consensus you are seeking. Now I'll ask you as nicely as I can not to repeat that spurious accusation. Belchfire-TALK 05:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, edit warring during an ongoing discussion on the talk page to insert contested material sourced by BLOGS? I'd say that's a big yes for TE, yes indeedy. Please seek (and obtain) consensus on the talk page for your edits, do not war to insert them during an ongoing debate. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look again. 100% of the material I added, which you reverted on the grounds it was poorly sourced, was from major, recognized news sources or from published authors. Carol Swain is a former member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. And I have not edit-warred. Nor have I edited tendentiously. Please be more careful that your accusations are factual. And please be careful not to edit tendentiously yourself. Thanks. Belchfire-TALK 19:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take content discussion to the talk page of that article, not here, as my edit notice clearly states. There is an ongoing and lively discussion there where it is appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FRC RFC FTW!
You started an RFC at FRC days ago. I'm wondering if it's time to declare the winner and move on. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have several misconceptions with respect to how wikipedia operates. But for brevity, I'll confine my remarks to RfC.
30 days is the norm for RfC, though not the default unless a clear consensus is formed,
As the initiator of this RfC (even at someone else's behest) I doubt KC would close this with a 10 ft pole.
There are no winners or losers in an RfC, just an outcome. This is indicative of a battleground mentality.
RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically de-listed by the RfC bot after 30 days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template). Thirty days is the default length, but there is no required minimum or maximum length. If consensus has been reached before 30 days, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run.
In other words, we can remove the tag and end the RfC anytime we want. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LGR is completely accurate in every detail, except that I could have added the tag and also closed if I were not involved (I am very involved) - if I were acting in the capacity of moderator for the Rfc - sometimes editors ask an uninvovled admin to "ride herd" on an Rfc, especially where the subject is contentious and/or the page is under probation. I wish you'd just linked to the RFC page instead of citing it at length. We're trying to get input and comments and come to a consensus here, not fight to get "our" version in. (See how I linked that instead of pasting half the page?) And no, do NOT remove the tag and end the Rfc unless virtually everyone is in strong agreement on what to include and how to phrase it; I do not see that happening any time soon. And last, Still, YOU should not remove it or declare the decision at all, now that you've shown lack understanding of the process and were trying to use an Rfc to "win" anything you do will be suspect, unless there is 100% agreement on the page - and if that is the case, then someone ELSE can close it, preferably someone uninvolved. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to politely ask you to look at what I actually said and compare it to what you thinkI said. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spoon feed me, please. I have a bad cold. What did I misread? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion stems from my use of the idiom "declare a winner". This phrase is used to refer to ending a contest or discussion with some sort of conclusion. It is unfortunate that you picked up on the word "win" and took it to imply WP:BATTLE, but that inference is incorrect.
Mostly, I think you were annoyed about the fact that I posted a quote from WP:RFC, but it was entirely unfair of you to suggest that four lines is "half the page". It's shorter than LGR's bullet-pointed summary, and much, much shorter than the RFC article. This sort of hyperbole can run towards incivility, although I'm sure you didn't intend it that way. It does reveal your state of mind, however, which may explain the false inference you drew.
In any case, the problem with the default of 30 days is that it guarantees a month in which we do not follow our own rules. To use another common phrase, justice delayed is justice denied. I would suggest that, based on the parallel of Ku Klux Klan, this RFC should never have even been created, since the issue is a no-brainer. But that's just my suggestion. By giving this 30 days, you've provided the FRC with a month of WP:NPOV violation. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with my state of mind (do not indulge yourself in the fantasy that you know how I think or feel), and it has everything to do with your choice of words. It is a pity you chose to use the word "win" to refer to an Rfc outcome. I strongly advise you, if you dislike having BATTLE linked in responses to you, to avoid that word in that context in the future. I hope this helps you in your future interactions. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to note that you didn't address the fact that you overreacted to the small copy and paste from WP:RFC. I'm also going to note that you didn't address what I said about the delay being harmful. Instead, you reiterated that you're playing gotcha with the word "win" rather than accepting that you misunderstood. This has not been a productive response on your part. I think we're done here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised you're being so argumentative about all this, as it serves zero purpose that I can see to antagonize someone for perceived flaws in casual phrasing, but if you must:
I disagree I overreacted. I have eight years on Wikipedia, and over 6 as an admin. Not only do I know the policies, I helped write most of them. I don't need their content pasted on my page. If I hat them so I don't have to scan through them to be able to read the actual post, that's my choice.
"half a page" is hyperbole, a very loose characterization, comparable to "I have a ton of paperwork to read" or "I must have done that a million times" - it was casual phrasing and not intended to be taken as a literal calculation. My desk could not even support a ton of paperwork, but that doesn't matter because it is not actually a ton, rather it is a phrase meaning "a lot" just as my phrase of "half the page" only meant "more than needed." Further, it was addressing my edit, in which I could have or could have not pasted content in any amount, but I chose not to do so.
Wikipedia is not on a timeline. We are following, not ignoring as you state, by trying to work with other editors, some of whom have views very different from our own, to achieve consensus.
It is regrettable that you have chosen to argue with me over my choice of phrasing and understanding of Wikipedia culture and policy rather than attempting to works towards that consensus. Go. Have fun. Write well. But stop bickering about minor phrasing in User talk page posts. I'm human and I have a cold, and I am not interested in the outrage that I don't use phrasing which is to your particular narrow preference. Let me know if I can be of any assistance, but cease demand for explanation of my every word. And yes, there was a ton of hyperbole in there, just like "half a page" I don't mean literally "every word" (nor was it even "a ton" of hyperbole.) People often use hyperbole, and if you continue taking it as verbatim, you'll end up misunderstanding people a lot more than if you accept that fact. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people often use hyperbole and we shouldn't take it as verbatim. The same applies to idioms, like "declare a winner".
Why are we fighting? What do we actually disagree about here? Anything?! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the salient point that if you use the word win and refer to an Rfc in the same communication, you will be hearing about BATTLE and it will cast doubt upon your approach to Rfcs. Don't do it; it is shooting yourself in the foot, whatever your personal views. We are not privy to your internal thought process; we must go by your words. Some are open to interpretation. Here on Wikipedia, others are not, as a general rule. Don't mention lawsuit, or lawyer, or sue, or anything like that or you'll be indef'd in a heartbeat. It is a waste of time to discuss how it was meant, in either case. It is simply a fact. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, kindof, except we have an actual policy whereby any legal threat, however lame and unlikely, gets indeff'd automatically upon sight. Our approach is more or less "block, then let the guy explain if he's serious or not." Srsly. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this is probably due to the fact that lawyers have access to thermonuclear weapons, yet cannot evade a block. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tissues
Feel better, Killah!
[Darwinfish, concerned, hands KillerChihuahua a box of Kleenex.] Here you are, Killah. darwinfish 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, thank you Darwinfish!!! You have no idea how comforted I am. I feel like my head is packed with cement and my entire brain is coming out through my nose. My throat is so sore I'm on liquids only, and my eyes are little red piggy eyes. This is the worst cold I've had in years. Your kind concern (and tissues!) are much appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My, these are alarming symptoms! Take care, and don't hesitate to leave all those tedious policy mongers to their own devices. Unless, of course, you find it a helpful distraction, but your recovery has priority: get well eventually jolly soon! . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, dave!!! My husband has just given me a huge draught of one of those multi-symptom cold and flu medications, and I'm going to be having some tomato bisque here shortly, so I'm being taken care of. Thank you for your kind wishes! I am feeling better already, just getting such kind messages here. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should try some megadoses of vitamin C. It's been scientifically proven to be really effective against the common cold. I mean, according to what I read on Wikipedia. :P MastCellTalk 00:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why, then it must be true! I will do that, thanks MastCell. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Men's rights, WP:TITLE, User:KillerChihuahua and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
