User talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive04

This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua/Archive04.	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.
Archive 2 - Archive 1	Archives

AfD

Based on what I've seen from you on AfD, I think that you might have something to add to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney. I'd appreciate you weighing in on the matter in either direction. Savidan 19:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the invite, I went and looked, and I don't see anything I could add to the current conversation there. If I can find time, I may look into it further and add anything I find about the subject. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you get it worked out.

Hope you get your RL issues worked out. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, big time. Jim62sch 23:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks much, things are looking up a bit. Now, once I get my motherboard in, things should be back to normal. :) KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I third that wish. :-) -Kyd 15:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Kyd. :) Good to know one is missed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thank you!

Hi KillerChihuahua/Archive04. On behalf of my right eye, I'd like to thank you for giving me your support on my recent RfA. It ended with a final tally of (73/2/2) and therefore I have been installed as an administrator now, and I'm ready to serve Wikipedians all over the world with my newly acquired mop and bucket. If you have any questions, do not hestitate to forward them to my talkpage. Once again, thanks for your support.

Soothing R 20:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

l33t 61r|

hey! glad you thought that my addition was cu73! if you need to talk, go 4h34d, send me a m3ssag3.

go, U54!

ch33rs!

Chef Clover 03:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark featured article candidate

Hi KC

I'd like to put up Noah's Ark as a candidate for featured article. Since you've taken a recent interest in it, I thought you might like to have another look to see if there are any further tweaks you'd like to make to that end. Cheers PiCo 12:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please please. ;) Jim62sch 12:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KC: I've put up the nomination. If you want to vote, go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates and scroll down till you find the article link. Whether you support or object to the nomination, you need to explain your vote in terms of whether the article meets all the criteria for FA (to be found at the top of the page). PiCo 12:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Your email account is bouncing emails I send to you - error given is:

<<< 554-: (RLY:CH) http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rlych.html <<< 554 TRANSACTION FAILED 554 5.0.0 Service unavailable This is an issue with my email service, I think, and I will see what I can do about it.

Did you try my other address, just to verify which is having the problem? Jim62sch 12:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Send me an email from your alternate address pls? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Since you have previously taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. Thanks. bobblewik 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you boot anon again?

The anon User talk:152.163.100.133 has had 3 warnings again, and he just deleted all of the warnings on his talk page today, against vanadlism policy, even though I warned him on February 4th. Can you boot him again? Travb 09:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an AOL ip, so the most I can generally block for is 15 minutes. I am terribly sorry, just keep reverting any vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC?

GE is back at Abortion. Do you think it's at last time to RfC? -Kyd 11:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. But it would be a good idea to start a page and collect diffs from the previous periods of activity, so if GE starts being disruptive again we are ready to file one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input; as always, I appreciate it. WP:DFTT instead? Quasipalm assembled a list of all of GE's suspected sockpuppet IP addresses on his Talk page. I'm sure, in any event, it'll help. Logging off for today. -Kyd 13:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiloh Shepherd Dog

Thank you for protecting the page. As you can see, between the time that I made the request and the time that you protected it, the revert wars continued. Robert McClenon 13:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Good luck in achieving a reasonable consensus on this issue. Or, failing that, good luck with Arbcom reaching a quick decision. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myths

Hi KillerChihuaua,

The word myth may have several meanings (hence the disambiguation page). Only the academic one deals with supernatural incidents.

On pages linking to myth, often the term Rumor (may be correct or false) or Falsehood would be more appropriate. Hence, I think that a risk of confusion is given and meaningful disambiguation should take place.

Which disambiguation pages would you propose for the following (non-academic, common language) meanings of myth? Here are my suggestions:

a fact of known falsehood -> Lie, Falsehood
a fact with uncertain correctness -> Rumor
a story with uncertain correctness -> ??? (Rumor)
a story which proved to be false -> urban legend

Of course, one could state that these are covered in the wiktionary - but when there are articles in the wikipedia dealing with rumors and lies, I think that listing them reduce the risk of confusion.

What do you think? -- Ravn 14:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted to Talk:Myth and answered there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi, if someone makes edits that are clearly vandalism please use {{subst:bv}}, then we can get them blocked quicker if they continue. Thanks Arniep 18:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that brings back memories. FWIW, I'm not so hot on {{bv}} either. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally use subst, although I rarely use bv. In fact, I attempt to avoid it. No sense biting someone who might be able to become a solid contributor. What page did I fail to use subst on, Arniep? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant the bv, not the subst... "then we can get them blocked quicker if they continue" —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He changed the message I left, and LEFT MY SIG! That's vandalism itself.

To Arniep: Arniep, if you want to leave your own warning, do so. do NOT edit my post; that is vandalism. You left MY sig attached to a warning I did NOT leave. Do NOT ever, ever, do this again. Thanks.

Copying to Arniep's talk page also, this is insupportable behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Ok, that's done... Yes, Bunchofgrapes, I concur - I'm not a big fan of bv. I have used it on Beckjord ips. Gastrich socks I simply block and list. I almost never think bv is a good idea. I've had some horrible vandals get sucked in and become productive editors, which IMHO would not have happened had they gotten bv as a first taste of WP welcoming committee. It often isn't even AGF; its a kind of policy of mine. More like Chance at Redemption, if you will. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry if you took that as an attack, I'll just add my own template in the future. I don't think a user who adds the text Credited with leading the killing of George Washington in 2031 to Simón Bolívar is likely to be a solid contributor in the near future so a more serious warning is appropriate, otherwise it potentially wastes a lot of time for other contributors reverting more vandalism before the user is blocked. Regards Arniep 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an attack. I didn't "take it" as an attack. I saw vandalism, and called you on it. Please read WP:VAND before you preach at me. Editing another user's signed post is vandalism. Don't do it. I don't care if you disagree with me on whether a user will ever be useful or not; I don't care if you like bv, which I usually think is a very bad idea. I'm fine with differences of opinion. I am not fine with you vandalising my posts. Do not ever do it again. If I am in any way being unclear that this is not about a difference of opinion, but rather about your vandalism of my post, please let me know. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I obviously would never change a comment by a user anywhere else. I didn't really think that applying a more serious template on a vandal's talk page could be considered vandalism but if it is described so by Wikipedia policies that is fine. Arniep 19:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict)You state that you would "obviously never change a comment by a user anywhere else". I find it not obvious; I make no assumptions about what you would or would not do in other circumstances. I merely address that which is, rather than speculating about what might be. I also find it odd that you expect me to AGF about your clear vandalism of my signed post; yet are so dismissive of other's edits as bv when at least two experienced admins disagree, and disagree fairly strongly, with you. Perhaps you might consider examining your own bias. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I see you removed my bv warning template. I've readded {{subst:verror2}} which seems to be a better template to use in these instances (more at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace) Regards Arniep 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my warning is more descriptive as to what the user actually did. If you think your warning is extraneous you are free to remove it. Thanks Arniep 19:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my warning was there first. You are adding a pile-on warning when there has been only one instance of vandalism. Do not do this. You cannot add a second warning and then patronizingly tell me I can remove mine if I want - the error is yours in adding the second warning. I cannot believe you are warring about making sure a "meaner" warning is on that poor newbie's page than the one I left. Back off. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think where a user feels that a warning added by another user does not reflect the nature of the edit that user is free to add a more appropriate template. I frequently see very serious vandalism which only has a test1 template, the user then goes on to vandalize for hours wasting a lot of people's time in reverting, and many times where their vandalism is reverted the people doing the reverting do not post a next level warning on the user's page. This is why we should start from the second level for deliberate misinformation as per the table on Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. Thanks Arniep 20:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you are free to start with test2 if you wish. I choose not to do so.

Andymac.mac has not gone on to vandalize further, and you are inappropriately adding an additional warning. Do not lecture me, and do not post a second warning when there has been no second instance of vandalism. It is misleading and just plain wrong. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt you started at a too leniant level. I am free to post a warning which I think is more appropriate regardless of whether there has been more vandalism. Thanks Arniep 20:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to say sorry for jumping on you personally, really I should have just taken it to straight to the pump as I am pretty sure our current system isn't working efficiently. Regards Arniep 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]