User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Mediation Committee

It is my pleasure to announce that after great consideration, you have been accepted as a member of the Mediation Committee. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Requests for Mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks page, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You may also (and are encouraged to) join the Committee's internal mailing list. (Please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it.) If you have any questions about how the committee functions, please feel free to ask me. Congratulations on becoming a member!

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) 06:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! You're the perfect choice. Guettarda 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah, don't you mean "condolences"? Seriously though, thanks much. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Excellent news, trust you'll maintain your usual standards of tact and diplomacy :) Have fun, dave souza, talk 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You are too kind, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Belated congratulations. --Ideogram 06:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! KillerChihuahua?!? 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Angry Video Game Nerd

Since you deleted the article, why didn't you just protect the namespace and talk page as well? Considering the Nerd's ravenous fanbase, I would imagine the article would be recreated rather quickly. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it was recreated under a different name, not the same name. I don't expect the editor(s) interested in recreating this article to use the same name - they seem to have an understanding of watched pages and recreation, and I think this was an attempt to circumvent the injunction against recreating pages. It didn't work. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please explain this 'injunction'. If you deem something isn't popular in your eyes, do you slam a lifetime ban on the article? It's not like James Rolfe hasn't become a household name in the last seven months. It's been said several times that he is now a part of MTV-owned as of a few weeks ago, but this is deliberately overlooked. What will it take to get him an article? Every time we meet the criteria, admins change the criteria on a whim. He is definitely 'notable' and 'verifiable', but after months of proving this to wikipedia, many people are just starting to get the impression that some administrators are being extremely petty in this matter. 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
? I'm not sure I follow. What injunction? Do you have a link, or a specific? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
1 2 In July 2006, this article should have been removed because he was INDEED nothing more than a one-hit-wonder with tens of thousands of views on a random youtube video. But now it seems as though every single time the restoration of this article is brought up, they are basing their arguments off of facts from July! Rolfe's character has grown far beyond being "some guy that talked over one old game and cussed about it" since July. He has amassed millions of views, hundreds of thousands of fans, and is now the featured content of gametrailers. Alexa seemed to come into play when he was removed in July 2006, citing that the sites he was featured on didn't even break the top 100,000. Screwattack currently sets in at 52,150 (ranking in July 2006 was 1,156,995), and his new home, GameTrailers, weighs in at 1,644, far, FAR beyond this magical 100,000 barrier that people wanted to hide behind. His first entry to his new home, Gametrailers, has amassed ~150,000 views in 9 days. Rolfe currently has 4.41 million views in little over 10 months on Youtube.
It was stated that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" That is correct. Wikipedia had no idea that Rolfe's character would develop into such an well-known character. He has. This is February 2007. That uncertain future is gone.
What I have been given the impression if is that the only reason Rolfe is delibartely denied from having an article on wikipedia is due to WP:SOCK, or sock puppetry as User:Mailer_diablo implies in the deletion review, along with a cute little, "Resistance is futile!" phrase linking to the infraction. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry Nintendo Nerd So, that is what the imaginary tie-breaker came down to. Rolfe, barred from wikipedia in July only because a user decided to post under several usernames, "Ya, keep him!" If sock puppetry is the main reason he was kept from having an article back in July, when he didn't even deserve one yet, there is no excuse now.
Rolfe has met many of the criteria in WP:BIO#Proposed_alternative_criteria, but several admins have went, "Yeah, well, we're just going to not let that one slide for this guy. Or that one. Oh, or that one. Yeah, can't do that one either. We need him in EGM or CNN or something. Yeah."
I will never understand why he will continue to get deleted, no matter what he accompishes. He could end up being the official spokesperson for Rolling Rock, or have a high DVD sales ranking on Amazon and would still be denied an article for reasons stated in the wayback land of July 06. A majority of the time this article is deleted, the excuse, "No new developments," pops up when we have cited several in the deletion review and (always IMMEDIATELY purged) discussion pages. The simple matter is we feel like we don't have a voice when we are just outright ignored like this.
With every new major accomplishment Rolfe obtains, we will, always in vain, recreate his article, only to be silenced again. We will keep doing this until you either allow the well-deserved article to finally stay, or permanently ban the creation of his page. By the time this debacle is finally nearing its end in as early as 201X, there will be tons of already accepted wikipedia articles that reference James Rolfe's character, but all interested people will see when it comes to the Angry Video Game Nerd, is that ugly red text of emptiness. SashaNein 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you seem a little confused about Wikipedia policy - you cannot simply re-create an article which has been deleted through Afd - you have to take it to WP:DRV. If you recreate it without Drv, it will be speedy deleted again, as a matter of policy. Open a Drv and present your case there. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would happily do so, but I have found that, as now proven, wikipedia will NOT listen to any more debate, courtesy of User:Trialsanderrors, User:Starblind I shouldn't have bothered to type a single character.SashaNein 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have missed an important part of the closure statement. The decision was not to not listen, it was to not listen without a new proposed article - do you have a new article? Do you have, in short, a different article, with notability established and non-trivial reliable sources? If you do, then you may certainly present your information to Trialsanderrors. If you do not, then you are trying to re-create an article which was validly deleted through Afd. Wikipedia is not censored, but neither is it an indiscrimiate collection of information. See WP:NOT. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda and fundamental misunderstandings

This conflict is all about the presumption of guilt. From the beginning Guettarda has assumed that it is obviously all my fault and the only option I have is to apologize. He has never opened a discussion by asking me to explain my view of events, he is constantly challenging me to "strike my comments" or "explain my behavior".

I am not interested in having a debate about why I beat my wife. If I am going to talk to Guettarda, it must be with the understanding that his interpretation of my actions is not the only one.

There are some other misunderstandings here. The most important is that I am not, and never claimed to be, a mediator or acting in any mediation capacity. I am basically a clerk for MedCab, I shuffle papers, close abandoned cases, and identify cases unlikely to benefit from informal mediation. I let others do the real mediation work, for obvious reasons.

Even if I were a mediator, Guettarda displays a total lack of understanding of the nature of MedCab. MedCab has no official status and mediators who work for MedCab do not have any standing beyond that of any other editor. It is impossible for any statement made by a mediator (which I am not) to "cast (someone) in a negative light" any more than a statement from any other user. Of course, it would be ineffective for a mediator to violate neutrality by deliberately offending one of the parties, but again, I am not a mediator.

Guettarda seems to be afraid of being characterized as "unwilling to proceed" with the mediation. First, I never made that characterization, and second, even if I did, there would be no consequences. Any party can refuse informal mediation with no repercussions. Informal mediation, like formal mediation, is entirely voluntary.

Let me now lay out the full sequence of events.

Initial contact. Note the accusatory term "offensive" and the request to "strike your mischaracterisation". There is very little room for me to explain myself here; fundamentally I disagree that it was a mischaracterization but apparently the subject is not open to debate.

I have a very low tolerance for people who waste my time. This comment already put Guettarda halfway there.

I went to the page of the dispute and found this. Note the presumption implied by the choice of terms "complain" and the apparently incontrovertible claim that it is "offensive". Clearly in order to have a productive conversation with this user I am going to have to first convince him that I am not complaining and that my statements are not offensive.

I was in the middle of responding to this when Guettarda posted this.

I responded with this. Note that I am (a) contesting his claim that this was done in secret, (b) trying to explain that my comments were not about him, and not complaining, (c) trying to explain that there are no negative repercussions from the case being closed. The final sentence may have been unnecessary, but at this point I had a legitimate concern that Guettarda would not benefit from informal mediation and I had to find out.

This edit is completely neutral. Here I explain why no one has been notified of the case yet and again offer to reopen the case with no penalty implied.

Guettarda replied here, again asserting as objective truth that my comments are "accusations" and "offensive", accusing me of escalating, and characterizing my comments as "insults", while completely ignoring the substantive points I made. In my opinion the objectionable part of my comment was a simple statement of fact that Guettarda seemed to take offense quite easily. Not a complimentary observation, but hardly an insult.

At almost the same time Guettarda posted this. I fail to see the reason for posting essentially the same message twice. Note again the accusatory tone and the presumption of guilt.

It is very important to note that my reason for getting involved in the first place was merely to determine whether the case should be closed or remain open. Guettarda's personal conflict with me was not relevant to this goal. It was clear that it would take a great deal of time and effort to get Guettarda to drop his assumptions and listen to an explanation of my actions, if it was possible at all. Since I had no reason to expect that I would need to interact with Guettarda in the future, I decided that disengaging was the best use of my time.

Therefore I posted this and this. Note that these statements are entirely factual.

Guettarda's reply. Note again the assumption that my statement was a mischaracterization, an assumption I would have to overturn if I wanted to have a productive conversation. Note also that Guettarda is refusing to accomodate my expressed wish to end the conversation, which should be considered rude in any context, a pattern that has continued up to now.

Final attempt to end the conversation. It is absolutely bizarre to me that none of the commentators on this conflict have expressed any respect for my wish to simply not talk to this user. I have often seen other users request certain others not comment on their talk pages and revert them on sight. It has been done to me. At the conclusion of my last major conflict I was advised that the two of us should simply not talk to each other. This remedy was proposed in a current ArbCom case.

This is the crux of the current dispute: I do not see why I have to explain myself to this user. I do not see why he cannot respect my wish that he leave me alone.

Nevertheless, since you as a presumably neutral third party (whom I also happen to respect) have taken an interest in this case, I am happy to explain myself to you. I hope this clears up my position. --Ideogram 14:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your position has not been cleared up at all, I'm sorry. You have not responded to any of the concerns I noted above - am I somehow being unclear? Your very long post above is essentially a series of diffs with explanations as to why you think failing to notify someone of a MedCab case and then characterizing them as unwilling to discuss is somehow not a misleading representation. This is indeed offensive, and Guettarda was completely correct in his civil request that you strike such a misleading characterization. You don't seem to see that. You restating that that is what he said does not change a thing. The rest of your post is more of the same - can you not see that you have insultingly mischaracterized Guettarda as "unwilling to discuss" and since then all of your posts have been either claiming victim status at his reasonable objections to this, or insistance that he "leave you alone"? You asked for my input, you have it. Strike your post on the MedCab case, apologise to him for the mischaracterization, whether intentional or not that, is what it was - and if you expect to resolve anything with anyone, you don't insist they stay off your talk page. Nothing in your post above is new information; nothing in your post above acknowledges that it has been you who has refused to discuss and be civil, and adding oddness to refusal to consider these might indeed be valid points, you have weirdly characterized my response to your post on my talk page as "you...have taken an interest in this case" - Ideogram, please take a little time before responding this time. Try to look at how your posts read to others, as Wikipedia has nothing to go by but your words and actions. You may have one thing in your head, which didn't quite get through the keyboard the way you meant it, but we have only the text you entered to read. If you have decided you and Guettarda are fundamentally unable to "meet in the middle" and discuss things in a polite civil fashion, then simply telling him not to post on your page, while making posts which boil down to "Guettarda won't discuss" is sending a mixed message, to say the least. I ask you: what is your goal here, what are you trying to accomplish? Please take time to consider, and put it in one sentence - whether you tell me or not, at least clarify for yourself what your goal is, and see if your actions are working towards that or not. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The statement "we can't really force them to discuss" does not assert they are unwilling to discuss. I do not believe that characterizing someone as unwilling to discuss is a smear, offensive, or an insult. Discussion has to be ongoing before a mediator gets involved, a mediator cannot magically start discussion by appearing. It is not my job to notify parties of a mediation, that is the job of the mediator.
The blame for a misunderstanding must be shared by both parties. No one is asking Guettarda to apologize. I refuse to make an insincere apology.
My goal here is to do things I enjoy and not waste time trying to explain myself to people who don't respect my point of view. --Ideogram 14:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

Your first point validates what I said to you - that we cannot see what's in your head, only what's on the screen. If you didn't mean that as an insult to Guettarda, when clearly several people read it precisely that way, why not strike and apologise to the effect of "I'm sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I didn't realise it would be read that way" - do you see?
Your second point is illogical. A misunderstanding may indeed belong to only one party. If you say to me "bogs are mucky" and I misread that as "dogs are mucky" I might disagree, and given my username, I might even take it as an insult - but the misunderstanding would be entirely on me. It does 'not take two to have a misunderstanding. That is a logical error. If you think Guettarda should apologise, then you need to have some reason other than a logical error, or a desire to "spread the blame".
Um, I didn't mean your goal overall, I meant in this specific situation. Do you want to mend fences and clear up misunderstandings? In that case, you will have to realize that even if in your heart you are innocent of any insult, your post read as an insult, and act accordingly. If your goal is to not be able to work with Guettarda, then you will have to adhere to a self-imposed ban of editing any article Guettarda edits, and never mentioning or referring to him again. Otherwise, you are fanning the flames that you don't want to do the work necessary to put out. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Up until this point I was only aware that Guettarda read my comment as an insult. The fact that you agree is valuable information. However, I will need to hear from a few others before it adds up to "several".
It is not at all clear to me that there is value to maintaining (or rather, creating) a relationship with Guettarda. From his comments below it appears that he continues to think the only topic worth discussing is my "misbehavior" and that I am not allowed to criticize anything he did.
Let me propose a compromise. If you are willing to take on the medcab case, you will naturally have the right to edit the case page and the article talk page as you wish. You can remove my comments and I will make no objection. --Ideogram 15:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
But the only one who matters is Guettarda. If I say something not intended as an insult, and they take it that way, I apologise - because at the very least I hurt their feelings by my poor phrasing. This isn't a vote of the majority - this is a case of being polite. If you see no value in a good working relationship with Guettarda, I repeat my earlier suggestion - self-impose a ban on all articles he edits. If you don't, then there is a value to having a good working relationship with him. As far as his focus, yes I imagine until this is cleared up that is where his focus will be.
I'm not sure who you are suggesting a compromise with. Me? I'm uninvolved, that's why I'm a third party, yes? Guettarda? Then you must speak with him, which isn't going so well right now. Again, I am not a member of MedCab, I am a member of MedCom, a different thing. The MedCab case has been closed. I could easily have removed your post, as could Guettarda - it can be read as a violation of NPA, and MedCab has no formal membership anyway. I imagine the reason Guettarda didn't remove it is due to a possible conflict of interest concern - I don't know. The reason I asked you to do it is because you wrote it, and striking out your own comment indcates a willingness to retract personal attacks. Whether it was a misunderstanding or not is a moot point. I generally don't remove personal attacks, although sometimes I do. In this case, there is no point if you are not the one doing the removing/striking. That's my opinion alone, btw - not a pronouncement of any kind. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) My goal here is to resolve the underlying medcab case so that the article can be improved. I do not think that my relationship with Guettarda, or indeed what anyone on Wikipedia thinks of me, is relevant to that goal. --Ideogram 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it was closed on the 17th, I'm not sure how you plan to resolve anything via that venue. Am I missing something? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No medcab case is closed permanently. They can always be reopened at any time by anyone's request. --Ideogram 15:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So... you don't see the point in having a good working relationship with Guettarda, whom you've insulted; but you'd like to re-open a MedCab case involving him, which is where the insult took place, without striking, apologising for, or otherwise acknowledging your insult? Is this making sense to you? Because I confess it looks like you're working at cross-purposes to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I refuse to let stand the assertion that I insulted Guettarda. Is anyone with a short temper allowed to demand an apology from anyone else just because their feelings were hurt? In my experience at Wikipedia this has not been productive.
Since medcab is informal, it doesn't matter whether the case is officially open or not. If you (or anyone else) wanted to, you could step in at the dispute on Uncommon Dissent and do exactly the same thing as a medcab mediator while ignoring the case request and all of medcab entirely.
However, Guettarda has indicated that he cannot improve the article while my comment stands. Personally, I fail to see the connection, but I am willing to go so far as to let a mediator who reopens the case strike my comments. I am not willing to go so far as to apologize for hurting his feelings. --Ideogram 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, you asked for my input. That being the case, I advised you on how your actions appear, and what I think you could do to improve the situation. It reads as an insult; when one insults someone, one should apologise, regardless of whether that was intentional. It seems to me you are just being stiff necked about it. You're now saying that Guettarda has a short temper, which has not been my experience, and has nothing to do with your post at all. This is refocusing on Guettarda's character in order to justify your own, hardly a strong position to take. If I call someone a rude name, is it less rude because I think they're not very bright? or any similar reasoning? Ideogram, again I suggest you take a little break and think this over. I don't see that this is going anywhere productive right now. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not less of an insult because of anything about Guettarda's character. It's less of an insult because I don't think it's an insult. I don't give in to demands for apologies. That will never change. --Ideogram 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a fairly decent bit of evidence for my concern that you're a wee tad stiff necked, wouldn't you say? ;) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Guilty. --Ideogram 16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

However, I will need to hear from a few others before it adds up to "several". Funny how Guy's and Kafziel's opinions, which are far harsher in what they said than KC's or mine, somehow don't figure into this picture. Guettarda 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[ec]I don't think I misunderstand the issue. The fact that I found the comment offensive is reason enough to ask someone to withdraw it, but what's far more important is where Ideogram chose to post - in the area reserved for mediators. The comment poisons the well. Even if I were totally wrong in my reading of it, asking for it to be removed is a reasonable request. Ideogram's response, with an insult, was unwarranted and unacceptable. My subsequent attempts to discuss the matter...well, that's there for anyone to see. Obviously Ideogram's behaviour makes it impossible for the medcab discussion to proceed. I don't see how that benefits anyone. I'd happily have nothing more to do with him/her, but as long as her prejudicial comment stand, I see no way to proceed with the far more important issue of trying to improve an article. Obviously Ideogram needs to start acting like a member of a community and treating his/her fellow editors with less contempt, but I have no illusions about my ability to affect that in any way. Guettarda 15:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts: Guettarda had every right to be offended and to ask for a retraction of the mischaracterization of his actions. Ideogram is either intentionally being dense or simply lacks the intuitive skills to see how his words and actions could be taken as offensive. Nothing that Ideogram proposed as a defense served any value other than to further inflame the issue.
On the positive side, Wikipedia is lucky that Ideogram is only a clerk in MedCab, not a mediator. He lacks the empathy needed for such a position. •Jim62sch• 19:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


You don't look that vicious to me... :) Or is it more of a hidden killing ability?-Localzuk(talk) 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one look at KC and many have died laughing. --Ideogram 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You laugh at your peril! I'm a very dangerous puppy! Really. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Be assured, the puppy can bite! ..  :) ... dave souza, talk 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
His Her bark is worse. --Ideogram 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
His?? Whose? .. dave souza, talk 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Better, but still foolishly tending towards the insulting. I've seen KC in action a few times, and she wields her powers well. Beware. .. dave souza, talk 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would certainly rather have KC as a friend than an enemy. --Ideogram 21:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Something like this, maybe? Guettarda 20:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I like the way it is done in Acoelorrhaphe better than in the other sections - I see you have some descriptive content in all the others, but its below the lists of species - which do you feel is preferable? I can help move, if it is the former. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the offer to help moving the text, but it all has to be re-written to fit at the start of the section, so just moving it probably wouldn't save much time. Of course, this makes me re-think DrKiernan's comment about converting it to an article...I begin to see possibilities. Hmmm...that could I submit it as both an FAC and FLC? ;) Guettarda 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you put any of the cool info in Did you know? or is it too late? You could go for it all, you know! KillerChihuahua?!? 01:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Which cool info? Actually I don't really know how DYK works - I thought it was magic :) Guettarda 02:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

semi-protection of Jun Choi

Hi, you placed the article under semi-protection, but it doesn't seem to be working anymore. User User:RealDemocrat tried to reinsert the deleted POV sections yesterday and also deleted the semi-protect template. Even though I reverted, today an IP user was able to vandalize the article again. Could you please check the protection? Thanks. Wl219 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I protected it the 15th for five days - new feature, self-expiring protection. RealDemocrat you must handle as a content dispute. One vandalistic edit - or several, for that matter - does not warrant semi-protection. I suggest you remove the tag as the page is no longer protected, and revert vandalism and deal with content disputes as usual. Should the vandalism reach intolerable levels, request protection at WP:RFPP. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello are attempting to educate me on this lovely world called Wikipedia. And apparently you are side-seat driving on my proper grammar. Thankyou mother. LellitonStars 00:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean improper grammar? Not to mention spacing... I'm glad to see you taking an interest, dear. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving Stuff to Talk Page

Hi. At the embryo talk page, would you have any objection if we move part of the discussion to your talk page, beginning with where you use the word "nitpick."? It went downhill pretty fast from there, and it kind of distracts from the merits of the discussion to have another editor making accusations of “unctuous[ness]”, and all that.

More specifically, I’m referring to the section titled, “Who Says ‘Embryology’ is Usually Restricted to Vertebrates Whereas ‘Embryo’ is Not?” The only remaining thing in that section that I’d like to keep there is this part which responded to a pertinent question from you:

Please let me know. Thanks.Ferrylodge 15:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I would - as far as your reasoning for a merge, thanks. I'll be on the talk page of the article shortly to reply to that. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the above on the article talk page - did I miss it, or did you not post it there? Either way, the consensus is no merge, so it really is moot. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You missed it, which goes to prove the point that it is buried amidst a lot of name-calling and accusations. Regarding whether the issue is moot, other editors can still vote, can they not? Perhaps even those who have voted might want to change their votes. In any event, if for some reason you think that all of that name-calling and accusatory language is best left where it is, then so be it, though I cannot imagine why. As I said to Andrew C. at my talk page:
"The thing about embryology is no huge deal. I still think it's a redundant article that will lead to confusion, but there's no issue (yet) about factual accuracy in the article content. So, I'm not fuming about the lack of consensus to merge that page with another. KillerChihuahua actually made the best arguments against a merger, IMHO. But the stuff at the abortion page today is not something I'm inclined to let go of, because there are serious issues about factual accuracy, and they must be addressed."
Anyway, I'll look forward to your reply that you said will "be on the talk page of the article shortly." Thanks.Ferrylodge 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I subsequently said "it really is moot." Why you're here being repetitive and pasting posts you have left on other people's pages is beyond my comprehension. Are you trying to annoy me? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a comment that I left at my talk page, and it's something that I wanted to say to you. I am not trying to annoy you. Are you trying to insult me (again)?Ferrylodge 22:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have never tried to insult you. I have tried to get you to calm down and see that your abrasiveness and argumentativeness is not helping you on Wikipedia. Clearly, I am failing. If you are not trying to annoy me, why are you repetitiously repeating the victim-like claims of "name-calling and accusations", "name-calling and accusatory language", etc.? This serves no purpose.
as regards the post, it was indeed left by you on someone else's talk page, and then pasted by you here. If you wished to say it to me, you could have done so without the quotes, or you could have simply linked to the dif. The question still remains, why did you paste it here? This also serves no purpose that I can see. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, within the space of a few hours today, you've accused me of being "victim-like" and "annoying" and "abrasive". Yesterday, you accused me of "nitpicking" and being a "troll" among many other things. The day before it was something else. I appreciate that you are an "Administrator" and I have tried to be respectful, but you yourself need to review your own language, IMHO.
As regards the paragraph above that I pasted here (beginning with the words "The thing about embryology..."), it was left by me at my own talk page, not someone else's as you've repeatedly insisted. See here. I pasted that paragraph here because (quite obviously) I wanted to tell you (1) that I do not regard the controversy at embryology as a huge deal, (2) that I thought you made the best arguments against a merger even though I disagreed with you, and (3) I wanted to explain that I think matters of factual accuracy are more important than merger issues. My bad.Ferrylodge 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone else's talk page other than mine, apologies, I didn't realize I was unclear. I didn't mean other than yours. As far as the "accusations" - I am honestly trying to help you here. We have rules, guidelines and policies: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, as well as numerous essays such as WP:TE - we don't have these for no reason at all. We actually value people being able to work civilly and respectfully with each other. I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to tell you that your writing style is overly argumentative, hostile, aggressive, and trollish. You assume bad faith rather than good on a regular basis. This is not an accusation, it is an observation. If you don't see how you do that, then please ask me where you have done so, and we can discuss it so you can correct this - and if it is a misperception, you can correct how you present yourself so others will not also perceive you this way! You react to every attempt of mine to discuss your demeanor with defensiveness and attacks - do you not realize that merely underlines your overall hostile, negative attitude? I don't know how to convey to you that you really do need to review your interactions with others in a dispassionate way, if you can, and see how your interactions here are nonproductive. You are burning bridges left and right, mocking and insulting people who have a great deal of experience on this project, causing a great deal of stress to valuable contributors, and generally acting like a dick - please read that essay, with an open mind, before you respond to the fact that I placed a link to it here.
As regards the merger, much appreciated. I think we are both on the same page now with that. If I may make an attempt at summary: you have your position, I have mine, we understand each other's positions (and for the record, embryology does need a great deal of work, but I think the focus should be there rather than merging just to split later after its fixed up) and the issue is not that major to you so no big. Yes?
Do please take the time to read the linked items, if you have not, and especially the essay on meta. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I certainly do agree with what it says at your dick link: "Telling someone 'Don't be a dick' is something of a dick-move in itself." I also value people being able to work civilly and respectfully with each other. And when people behave uncivilly and disresepctfully toward me, my natural inclination is not to go away and let them have their way. So, yes, I do try to stand up for myself. Feel free to point out the best example you can of where you think I messed up. Perhaps at the embryology embryo discussion where I was called "unctuous" and failed to reply with "yes, sir, you're absolutely right, I am unctuous"? Is that the instance you have in mind?Ferrylodge 02:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the part I felt was relevant was "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. If you suspect that you may be a dick, the first step is to become aware of it. Ask yourself what behavior might be causing this perception. Try changing your behavior and your mode of presentation. In particular, identify the harsh words in your communications and replace them with softer ones." Multiple people here have told you that you come across as abrasive and hostile, that you are not being civil. You seem to feel no need to even respond to that except to bitch that they are attacking you. You may wish to reconsider that perhaps you are in fact abrasive, hostile, and uncivil. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now I'm bitchy. Just keep going, you may set a record.Ferrylodge 03:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And I'm sure you'll enjoy responding with more name-calling and accusations. Ironic, isn't it, that the one thing you decline to respond to is the respectful answer to your question (that you claim you were unable to find, and now claim is "moot")?Ferrylodge 22:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I did respond, above. And with a tally of 5-1, with all the recent regular editors weighing in, yes indeed it is a moot point. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Your response is apparently that you refuse to consider my answer to your question, because the point is moot. Fine. As I said, the thing about embryology is no big deal.Ferrylodge 22:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"Ah, now I'm bitchy". One begins to wonder if this is parsing gone wrong or mere word-twisting. Either way, thre possibilities present themselves: Ferrylodge is ignorant of semantics, Ferrylodge thinks the rest of us are ignorant of semantics, or a singular combination of both. •Jim62sch• 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is turning into a tit-for-tat. If several editors have pointed out to Ferrylodge that his style of communication might need to be reviewed (KillerChihuahua, Jim62sch, Slimvirgin), and if several editors have raised concerns about his pattern of editing (myself, Andrew c, Davidruben at Talk:Stillbirth, Citicat and Vassyana at Talk:Fetus), I think these are valid considerations. This whole affair is starting to remind me of User:Cindery, who started out defensive and abrasive, and then took a turn for offensive and abusive. I'm not suggesting that Ferrylodge is the same as Cindery, only that, in Cindery's case, she didn't really have a reason to come across the way she did. I think Jim62sch raised a very valid point at Talk:Embryo, even if it came across in the wrong way, in that Ferrylodge might be transferring the mindset he uses in his daily profession to his participation on Wikipedia. The remedy, in Ferrylodge's case, may be as simple as learning to "turn off" his professional mindset when here.

One recommendation for Ferrylodge would be not to persistently gate-crash topics on other people's user talk pages (as demonstrated here, here, here, and here). It gives the impression of confrontation. -Severa (!!!) 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I didn't immediately respond to KillerChihuahua's post on my talk page, I did take a quick look at the situation, and will look more thoroughly next week. I'm a bit caught up with real life issues at the moment. However, I will say that as someone known to be pro-life, but who manages to respect Wikipedia policies without ever compromising her beliefs, my experience of working with KillerChihuahua, SlimVirgin, Severa, and Andrew c has been extremely positive. Some editors, like me, openly state what their POV is; others do not. I don't know the personal views of all these editors, but I do respect them all as people I can work with, who want to have a balanced, neutral article, and who are prepared to civilly discuss issues of what wording is best to achieve that, with editors from both extremes.
Anyway, I'll leave it at that for the next few days, except for two points. One is to say that I don't regard Ferrylodge's posts at my page as "gatecrashing". His explanation for how he found that page is perfectly reasonable, and he is welcome to post there any time he wishes. The other is to point towards an example of one of the nicest Wikipedians I ever knew, dealing with somebody of a completely opposite POV. I saw it at the time, because the addressee's page was on my watchlist. It's useful for me to look at that example whenever some radical pro-choice anti-Christian (and I don't mean anyone on this page) is getting on my nerves. (My nerves are actually quite calm, so it doesn't often happen!) I don't know what the context was, but knowing Kate as I knew her, I feel it's impossible that she could have said something really unkind, that could really have needed an apology. But once she was aware that someone had found her remark offensive (whatever it was), she didn't keep it up with more of the same, but made an extremely goodwill gesture to reach out. When things get heated, it's better to try to pour water on the flames, like Kate, or even to do nothing (since the fire might go out by itself), than to pour on petrol. Musical Linguist 22:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Severa's comment, does that mean that I shouldn't have visited other people's user talk pages in those four instances, or does that mean it would have been okay to leave those messages as long as I had started a new topic?Ferrylodge 05:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Link cut template?

Is the link cut template a form of censorship or not? for example, hiding this image (one) on this page. All other time I've seen this template used it was reverted (mainly because the other editors stated that it's still censorship). Not that I feel that it's really adding anything to the article to begin with~ I ask because the same user that added this template also added it to this image (two) to the page Strabismus, which, when I attempted to correct or alter this, i was met with some resistance, including being called a troll on the talk page.

As of last night, I removed the image completely, but I'd like to know for future conflicts and/or if the user(s) decide to come back.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 04:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the images, I don't need something which disturbs me this much on my talk page. I will reply to your post once I look over the situation. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it is not censorship - some images are disturbing to some people (like me, heh) so as Severa informed you in her edit summary, The linkimage template is seen as a compromise between a user who doesn't want censorship of the image and users who believe the image is too graphic. This is a solution which has been used on some images. Some images are considered to be disturbing, and not add value to the article - those are not placed on articles, and this is also not censorship, just like removing unecessary trivia in articles is not censorship. Almost always, if a potentially disturbing image is added to an article and the template is not used, then it is not the first image in the article. This is a matter of basic politeness, in a way - make sure the people wanted to be on the article about SomethingDreadful before they are confronted with the graphic representation of it. Prince Albert piercing is a notable exception - and the only reason I know about that one is that its been brought up on AN/I so often - so that is not without controversy. In short, No. Not censorship. Censorship would be preventing verifiable germane information from being presented at all. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
So where is the line drawn? I know many people have disapproved of people attempting to push bias POVs and use the link template for images on, for example, vulva.
it's been pointed out that linking to the images could/does create a bias in favor of a certain type of people- while this may not be the case for all images, such as the ones I posted, is there any policy on the use of this template? Clearly the use of the template could be used to create a bias on a page with it's use (IE a Really religious Islamic man linking to all image of women, because of his religion/cultural views on women (etc, etc)). I guess what I'm asking for is if there's any background reading on the subject?--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Tons, but its all over, not in one place. This is generally decided by consensus, and there is disparity in views, as I noted above. But its not censorship; the images linked are considered by the consensus of the editors of the page to be reasonably considered potentially distressing or disturbing. This usually involves blood or innards, and almost never sex or religion - this may indeed be a cultural bias, but IMO viewing what the primitive mind percieves as injury may well be a hard-wired thing, which simply disturbs or distresses a significant enough segement of people to be considered when choosing how to display, or not display, an image. It is, in short, not a policy violation. Its a content dispute, or a style dispute. Why war over it? I cannot imagine a good reason to war over this. The images are only a click away for those who wish to view them. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Yes, exactly. I've always thought thought WP:NOT#Censor is too often interpreted as an open door policy. I believe it should be balanced by a counter-policy (which, waggishly, I've dubbed "Wikipedia is not"). WP:IUP does contain a provision which suggests that "shocking" images should not be added unless a consensus of editors determine them relevant to an article. Basically, I think the value of an image should be determined by how much it adds to the informativeness of the article, but that this should be balanced against maintaining readability. I understand concerns of "where do we draw the line?" in terms of precluding certain types of images, but, for me, it's always been pretty straightforward: graphic, violent, or "shock" content. I hate to make a value judgment, but, I think there's a lot more concern for keeping a restraint on violent content than there is for keeping a restraint on images of nudity or sexuality (That's why I opted for the linkimage template at Amniotic sac, and also at John and Lorena Bobbitt). Violent/graphic images could disturb readers on a very fundamental level, leading to nightmares or lost sleep, whereas images of nudity/sexuality, unless found by young children (whose parents should probably set up some sort of content-filtering before letting them online), can only disturb someone's sensibilities. There are simply too many such sensibilities regarding sexuality — the Islamic man who does not want to see depictions of women for religious reasons, people who want nude images of women not just to be skinny and young to prevent issues with body image, people who would prefer male nudes be (un)circumcized for religious or ethical reasons, etc., etc. — that it would be impossible to account for them all without shutting Wikipedia down. I'm sorry for going off on a tangent on your talk page, KC, but these thoughts have been floating around my head for a while now. -Severa (!!!) 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, I appreciate the input from you! You are always welcome to weigh in on any subject on my talk page. Especially difficult questions with grey areas, as your experience there is considerable. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Another element ignored by some editors who like to cite WP:NOT#Censor is the tacky factor. I think another useful addition to our guidelines would be Wikipedia is not a peep show. (See Pearl necklace (sexuality) or Pubic hair to see what I'm talking about.) -- Donald Albury 14:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nick Palumbo

Just to let you know, the anon IP reverted all the edits that we did the other day. I reverted his edit as well as requesting page protection.--CyberGhostface 21:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

One revert isn't enough to justify protection, but please keep me informed - its on my watchlist, but then so are about 2k to 3k other pages, so I can easily miss it if an edit war starts. thanks much!!! KillerChihuahua?!? 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jun Choi

The protection on Jun Choi has expired, should the semi-protection tag be removed? Corvus cornix 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I usually always do come to you when I have questions about Wikipedia. You've been a major help. Thanks License2Kill 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 12:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

R&I not progressing

It appears that the mediation at R&I is not being taken seriously by some of the editors who signed up. But there is much nonconsensus editing ongoing at the various pages, which to me seems to disrespect the spirit of being in mediation. I suggest that the pages be protected until some progress is achieved in these discussions; this may focus the energy from the pages to this process.



--Kevin Murray 16:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation requires patience. I disagree that protecting is indicated at this time. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Closure on Dawkins Delusion AfD?

Hi KC. Hope your cold is better. Of the last 20 votes on TDD's AfD page 15 are keeps, 2 established editors have moved their vote keepwards and I'm impressed with Laurence's succinct comment. Certainly your AfD nomination has stimulated a lot of improvement in the article. But I wonder if it be graceful or appropriate to withdraw the AfD nom now? Best.NBeale 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there's been a lot of interest which has resulted in a great deal of improvement to the article. It needs to run its course, however. Withdrawal is really only for Afds for which there are no Deletes, and there has been a lot of sprited debate here. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Tx. I bow, of course, to yr much greater WP experience. I suppose there is no chance of your changing your "vote" to something like weak keep in the light of improvements to the article? NBeale 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


I have involved myself in race and intelligence, and have rewritten the lede in an attempt to reestablish some grounding for the article. I'm just now aware of the mediation, and how big and ugly a job it is. My involvement this far has been limited, so if you need some assistance mediating, I can make myself useful. Regards -Ste|vertigo 03:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Anything you can do to assist would be appreciated. I don't anticipate this concluding quickly, and right now there are parties who are not even participating, which needless to say is going to stall things, which seems to be par for the course on this set of articles. I want to keep them focused on the main article structure and the organization of the family of articles for now - I feel that once the framework is in place it will be simpler to work out the details. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please Assist


I see you wrote to anon user early on February 16th telling him not to nominate articles for speedy deletion based upon Google hits. It appears he did this on a fairly large number of articles early on February 16th, especially those dealing with fantasy gaming from the 1980's. Unfortunately, an article I have contributed to, ULTRAROGUE, a fantasy game from the 1980's, was speedy deleted at that time.

Since then anon user has been continuously removing reference to UltraRogue being a RogueLike game on the ROGUE article, saying that it was removed for non-notability as an article and therefore shouldn't be included in the list. Could you please protect the article from anon users?

Also, is there anything that can be done to have the "speedy deletion" of UltraRogue reviewed or reinstated? I also wouldn't mind having the article sent to me for review so I can address any areas where notability needs to be added.

Thanks Bbagot 07:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

While GHits alone is not a reason for deletion, UltraRogue does appear to be non-notable. The deleted articel makes no assertion of notability; there are no sources besides an UltraRogue Restoration Project url, and to top it off, some of the article appears to be a direct copy from that site. Do you have a mention of UltraRogue in at least two non-trivial publications? Any assertion of notability? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I'd certainly like to try to find/add notability. I am aware of the notability as I was part of the university system at that time, now it's just a matter of seeing if the sources can be found that would show it. Since it was written for specific unix systems in the mid 1980's such as the DEC VAX and Herb controlled the source code, the game was a shooting star of popularity on college campuses, but didn't move into the future -- so one won't find websites offering it today. It was, however, a part of the roguelike game process. I found many links to usergroup discussions involving UltraRogue, but as far as website mentions to show it's notability with the roguelike community, here is what I came up with for now:

I don't know what this means. I'm only providing this information to you for common understanding. You're an admin, and apparently a helpful one, so I appreciate in advance any guidance you can give me.

Thanks Bbagot 05:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This will take a little time to go through, but I can tell you right now that anything from geocities is unacceptable. I'll go through this more thoroughly when I can find time, and let you know what I think. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Superstroke's Comment

File:Dogfood options-1.jpg
Dog food for the chihuahua.

I removed Superstroke's Comment because of 1.) trolling and 2.) he being an indefinitely blocked user named Mykungfu. But, here's some dog food to keep you satisfied for the moment. :-) Real96 09:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! For future reference, I prefer eclairs. (not your average chihuahua!) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User page deletion

Hello there, Could you please delete my user page? Thanks.

--Akhel 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. : ) --Akhel 01:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi KC, long time no see -- first, my sincere good wishes (and empathy) regarding health. Second, if you have a chance, you may wish to have another look at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal/Proposed_decision, where I noticed you commented earlier regarding Quackwatch. It appears that the ArbCom is close to instituting a ban of some sort on User:Fyslee, which would be a serious loss to WP, as he is one of the best scientific skeptical editors we've got. Here are a couple of good things Fyslee has done: [1], [2]. best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 09:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


I am sick too, with a sinus infection. Maybe I caught it from you through Wikipedia. :-) Get well soon. :-) Real96 18:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it time for those worm shots yet? LOL. Hope you are doing okay. Real96 22:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you're ill. Hope you can still enjoy an ice cream

I present this strawberry ice cream to KillerChihuahua for all her kindness and patience in answering some dumb questions while I was getting established on Wikipedia. ElinorD 18:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, KillerChihuahua, I'm very sorry to see that you're sick at the moment. I came here to offer you an ice cream, so I hope you'll still be able to enjoy it. I don't think I'm going to need to request help or ask any more questions. I feel like an established user now, and if I don't know something, I can normally work out where to find the answer. So, I just want to say thanks for being so kind and helpful when I was asking some pretty dumb questions like how to make a piped link, and also for giving me such detailed answers. I made some strawberry ice cream in my beautiful machine a few days ago when we had a visitor, and I thought I'd give one each to the three most helpful people I had met. So, thanks again for your kindness, and please get well soon. ElinorD (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Get well soon! (which reminds me of our office cartoonist who used to do "Get Well Eventually" cards for, um, not exactly friends. You certainly don't get one of those!) .. dave souza, talk 18:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm really sorry to hear that you're feeling under the weather. Get well...eventually. ;-) -Severa (!!!) 09:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I add to that? I hope you'll be back in full health before I've finished my paper. Take care. Musical Linguist 11:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
And a quick prayer from me ("maydooyousomegood - cannadoyeanyharm") - hope you get better soon. NBeale 11:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Do get well, from a late-comer to the chorus. -- Donald Albury 11:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks all, I appreciate the kind thoughts and notes. :-) Especially the ice cream!!! (I don't remember being that helpful, but I won't say no!!!) KillerChihuahua?!? 22:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia no-one knows if you're a dog

So glad you're up and running about! Will have to go for my own walkies now, but first must confess to hinting at yourself at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification#On Wikipedia no-one knows if you're a dog, in hopes of getting a good outcome from the recent wee stushie. Arf, arf! ... dave souza, talk 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, glad I was of use to the project even when out sick. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
But how do we know you're actually a small homicidal canine, or if you prefer, a sick puppy? How do we know you're not actually a large green fire breathing reptile? Ben Aveling 02:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My Adminship

Thanks for voting for me for adminship! My request succeeded, and I think I'm managing fairly well. I must apologise for taking so long, though: I was ill when the adminship vote closed, and, well... Sorry! Thanks again! Adam Cuerden talk 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I was out sick too, and still limited (still have the sick notice on my talk page as you see) so I missed it as well. Going to spam your talk page with a colorful congrats message now... which makes me even later than you. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Can I get your input on some external links at Shunning, see Talk:Shunning#External_links. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I will post there. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Peirce

I wonder if you'd care to put in an administrative comment regarding the current discussion at Talk:Charles_Peirce#Franks_Valli_Has_Born_False_Witness? It appears some explaining may need to be done about WP policy. Thanks, Kenosis 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a check-user on User:Created Equal? This user has an approach that appears identical to User:Jon Awbrey. Thanks again.

I will take a look as soon as I can - I'm backlogged again. I do not have checkuser, sorry - make a request at RFCU. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh don't bother. I took a look, I blocked. Does that man never tire of his campaign? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tupac RfC

Hey, KillerChihuahua, sorry to hear about your illness, but I feel I gotta bring this to your attention. The old discussion about 'Pac's birthname is back! I've filed an request for comment hoping to clear this up. The RFC can be found under "Tupac Shakur" on this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Tupac Shakur#RfC, in case you wish to participate. -Mysekurity 06:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it is a closed issue now. Let me know if this resurfaces - and you may wish to include a link to that section (as well as the previous discussions) under a special Birth Name archive link when the page is archived next. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel better

A visit from the Vet!
I'm sorry to hear that you are a sick puppy. So here is a nice steak to help you feel better! SWATJester On Belay! 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yummy steak!
Thanks much! Puppy feels better already! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Little user bitten by bug again?

Little user bitten by bug again? Zilla commiserations! Hope beautiful sight of Zilla new power sig make little user feel better. Bishzilla ROARR!!zilla4admin 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Today only, special treat to cheer up sad little user: extra big sig! Ahhh, stimulating sight! User feel health come flooding back?

Bishzilla ROARR!!zilla4admin 22:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Ah, thanks much! That is what the puppy needed!!!! How is her Green Scaly Sexiness? Thats quite a sig you have there!!! KillerChihuahua?!? 22:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Is preoccupied. Considering how to make new sig float up and down puppy page, stay always in sight. For health. (Zilla always kind.) Hmm. Little Bunchofgrapes fix. Bishzilla ROARR!!zilla4admin 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

As an extra-special treat for the sickie, I'm going to ignore that. Feel better, Killer. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Talk:Homeopathy#George_Vithoulkas Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/George_Vithoulkas

What is the best way to handle meatpuppetry and attacks on yourself? I've linked (near the bottom of the Talk:Homeopathy discussion) proof of soliciting meatpuppets, so what d'I do? Adam Cuerden talk 11:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How is my puppy doing?

I hope you are recovering now. Are you? --BorgQueen 11:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam and hope all is OK, but you have yourself down as active at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you are or have been active on this project we feel you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Get well soon


Thanks for the note at R&I. Certainly nothing is more important than your health. I just went through some major issues in November, and can empathize with your situation. Please be well soon. WP will survive as we all keep muddling toward a great product.

Good luck!


--Kevin Murray 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, I really feel bad about this - I would never have accpeted such a complex case had I any prior indication I would be going through a spell of bad health. :-( Hopefully everyone will be as understanding as you are being. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Killer, I hope all is well with you and that your health issues clear. A couple of months ago you were involved in restoring and moving the Morfik page I had created so that I could work on it and refine it for re-inclusion in Wikipedia. I have worked on it, and resubmitted it, but now I have people asking that it be deleted again, for various reasons. I'm unsure what to do at this point, so I'm looking for all the suggestions I can get. MikeyTheK 13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Add sources which meet WP:RS, specifically not Morfik's site, blogs, or forums. If Morfik was mentioned in Ajaxian, Redmonk, ZDNet, and Readwriteweb, then why don't you have the articles as sources??? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sick as a...puppy?

I see you've been feeling under the weather for some time now. I hope that things are holding up on your end, and that you feel better soon. :-) -Severa (!!!) 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much, dear!!!! Dr.s don't know what it is... bah. I have good days and bad days, hopefully there will be some kind of diganosis/prognosis soon. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Aww...I have a chronic condition myself, so I understand what you mean about "good days" and "bad days." I hope that your vets (sorry, had to slip a puppy-pun in there ;) doctors are forthcoming in a diagnosis. There's nothing worse than undergoing a battery of tests, or seeing a host of doctors, and still not knowing what's going on — I know that from experience. :( -Severa (!!!) 18:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Have a nice cup of tea!
Sorry to hear you're still poorly on and off, dearie, just you sit down and have a nice cuppa. Of whatever you fancy. No need to bother with reading the tealeaves – can I just say how much it made me laugh when you recently admonished an over-publicised mind reader. Well said. Take care, and get well soon, .. dave souza, talk 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks much dear. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)