User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Dick Armey

I wondered if you had ever taken a gander at the article?--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Was his father affiliated with the mafia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. But that woman from msnbc is half the article.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. But I'm no Dick Armey fan. :) How are things going Dix? You staying out of trouble? Who knew that Armey was still alive... I saw that Traficant was just let out of prison. It would be good to put them all in a cell together, no?ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's dig up the guest list for his brother's bar mitzvah. ^Bongo_matic 05:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confident he's not Jewish. He may be pagan. Or a Mason? Elk? Moose? I'm sure he calls himself Christian, but so do a lot of characters that would fit in on South Park or Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you still chasing after mafia members CoM? You should know by now that even if you catch them with reliable sources, which can verify the facts (straight from the horses mouth no less) - that's still not going to be enough to submit to an article. You'll need photos, tape recordings, police reports, ... well you get the picture. As I'm sure you're also aware of by now: "one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues" is not puffery, please consider the very NPOV Clinton - Gottheimer source. Of course I would have to assume that any quote from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or Hannity would simply not be allowed. All those guys have to backup their claims are "research" and "facts". By the way, you never followed up on which articles you wanted restored to your sandbox. Let me know. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  06:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Everybody is a comedian (and a rapper). The AfD closer was slow in responding, but eventually came through.

There was actually more puffery than that about Frank being a bridge builder with conservatives, so maybe I should be thankful. Did you know that Frank is renowned as a moderate who frequently crosses party lines and only engages in partisan attacks with the utmost reluctance?

If people want to be silly and put ridiculous shit in articles there's not much I can do about it. I don't think it makes sense to play games and force readers to play interpreter in guessing what slanted abstractions signify. I would like to see fair and accurate article content. But even more than that I would really appreciate it if the POV pushing slime would refrain from launching false accusations, personal attacks, and time wasting smears against me here and on article discussion pages. That these fuckers then report my responses on noticeboards hoping some boob of an admin (and there are plenty to choose from) will block me, is par for the course at this point, but I have better things to do with my time then play the diff digging game and tit for tat with the animals at the zoo. And I've had enough of the arbs and admins who want to play wiki-cop and think this is some sort of model UN forum. If they can't grasp the basics of what goes on here then it's no wonder we have so much incivility and asinine time wasting drama. I prefer to write and edit articles and will continue to do so as long as I am able. So I'll keep hoping for the best. I do miss the Law. :( ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be "fair and ..."—that's Fox News. ^Bongo_matic 06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't they put all these talking head crazies on one or two channels and actually have news programs on a couple of other channels. I can't watch any of the main "news" programs because it's nothing but some schmuck in a jacket and tie (or a bleached blonde in a brightly colored dress) spouting off. And now they changed anchors on Worldfocus so I can't even get a proper dose of international news without having to endure a melodramatic British accented host who isn't comfortable or up to doing the job. Why is everyone trying to get me fired up. :) I do like Katty Kay though, although some of her viewpoints are bit simplistic. The whole media is just so echo chambery it's getting ridiculous. As nutty as Glenn Beck and O'Reilly are, at least they do some original research on occasion and every now and then have interesting nugget or something so over the top it's kind of funny. Those shows are just bad, the rest of the stuff is mind numbingly awful. How hard is it to replace the talking points and spin with the occasional journalistic offering of investigative reality or actual news? I've concluded that we're just getting more and more stupid in the U.S. of A. The situation on Wiki and in the media are just symptoms. But hopefully they're getting smarter elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

looks ever so much better now. I just didn´t know where to start. I´m doing well, and hope you are as well. --Die4Dixie (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It mostly looked okay content wise until I got to that one section. It does need better organization and some tweaking. You should have warned me about the photo. I almost pissed myself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Calm down, I was only trying to make you smile - not get you all riled up. I agree with you, and when I thought the badgering had gotten to be more that it should be, I asked for it to stop. You know that I don't really edit political areas, and if I ever do start - it's only going to be on a subject that I have a modicum of respect for, and frankly, there are a few of our "brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights" that I can't find an ounce of respect for. Just keep your cool, and stick to the "content" - if I can help, I will. There is nothing here worth getting emotionally distraught over. It's a website. Do the work that you enjoy, be happy in what you do. When the payroll office opens up, then I'll be more than happy to join in on the political side of things, but until then - SMILE, enjoy life. You do some damn good work here, and I respect you a lot. Stay mellow, and "Don't worry, Be happy". ;-) — Ched :  ?  06:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm is my middle name! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Child of Calm Midnight .. hmmm ... I'm likin that! by the way, I miss Law too. ;) — Ched :  ?  06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way Chedsky, I blame your buddy Pedro for my F-bomb dropping. He's a very bad influence! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

F-Bombs huh, you may want to watch out on that. Some editors around here get upset when you say those, but then again maybe it has always just been me, since my sentences have always been "Fuck You". No that is nonsense, I don't think that is it. What is your opinion you?--WillC 08:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Clean language and wholesome living are best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that depends on the person.--WillC 23:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Undo

Hi CoM

I undid this contribution, thinking you may not have intended to leave it overnight. If you wish to re-add it, I won't undo it again.

^Bongo_matic 10:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The guy has always seemed somewhat notable to me (although after this most recent look-see I was inclined to vote delete). Is a somewhat well established translator of major works notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. Are established pit crews of notable car racing teams notable? Choose a better analogy, but the result is the same. Doing something vital on notable works doesn't necessarily make one notable unless one's work has been noted. ^Bongo_matic 17:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right on this one. I do respect the editor's earnest efforts to meet the notability guidelines though, even as there is probably a COI issue. Oh well. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started Chick magnet

I have started one of the articles that you were going to work on but I might not be able to get it to the pass on my own. Are you available?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help with this ... but it would be a BLP / COI conflict. ;P — Ched :  ?  12:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I would help but have no knowledge of the subject. kelapstick (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, a picture to visually demonstrate what a chick magnet is would really be good for the article. I asked J.delanoy earlier because I had seen a picture of him on his userpage, but he'd rather not have a picture of himself in the article. I've never seen a picture of you CoM, but do you believe that you are sexy? If so, would you mind posing with a small group of ladies and uploading the picture to use in the article? Again, it's okay if you won't do it but it would improve the article and who know's...it might be a good opportunity for you (if you know what I mean) ;)--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How about these shots [1], [2], [3] and [4]. All freely licensed. In fact here's a whole page of returns [5]. I would put up a photo, but jealousy is a big enough problem on here as it is. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This shot is rather good also [6]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'll look into it a bit later.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made several changes to Chick magnet. Do you think you could look it over? Cheers.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CoM. You too.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know

... that the top four articles in the Bacon Challenge 2009 received over 37,000 page views? Wow I hadn't checked, 17,000 for peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich, 11,000 for Mitch Morgan , 9,200 for maple bacon donut, 9,800 for bacon vodka? Check it out at Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#June_2009. It's no bacon explosion but i'll take it!--kelapstick (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you craving bacon K-stick? Did you not get enough pig at the Luaus? How's the fam, the job and the new place? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you recovered from your vacation? Where are the encyclopedic photos that you took to enhance our coverage of related subjects??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your brain, please

CoM, who was that college football player we messed around with some last year or so? Refresh my memory if you can... Drmies (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jerraud Powers? Why isn't Vince Young the starter for the Titans? Silliness. The Broncos were 7-4 when they pulled Jake Plummer. They missed the play-offs that year, haven't done squat since, fired their coach, and traded Cutler. When a guy is winning you stick with him. Period. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was one who both you and I claimed was notable and got deleted nonetheless. Am I misremembering? I obviously haven't kept up with the NFL like you have. I never followed the Titans anyway--their uniforms are too ugly. The Broncos pulled Plummer for Cutler? I used to enjoy watching both. Note the similarities in their names (first names as well). Coincidence? Drmies (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it was Powers--strange history (of the article, I mean). Look at this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jerraud Powers. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you stated before the comma. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

HaHa. ... I'm pretty sure you know that I was referring to the person who accused you of "GROSS BLP violations". If not, then you are hereby sentenced to self-inflict a punishment of 10 lashes with a Wet noodle ... OH MY! ... a redlink. As further punishment ... turn that link blue. Until then please use watered down generic, run of the mill, plain old - Noodle. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowpack

...I don't think we're agreeing on this one man. I mean, do you think there is plenty of information out there that would qualify it for its own article. Wouldn't it be all right as a section of Snow?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Snow pack is a critical subject related to water supplies, avalanches, winter habitats, and glacier building. A section in snow would be a good start, but I think it's an important and interesting subject that should have its own article. I was actually a little disappointed with the sourcing on chick magnet once I dug into what was available, but I still think it's a decent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowpack is incredibly important here, most of our water comes from snowpack in the Sierra Nevadas (there are two large reservoirs that feed the agriculture here). Quite surprised that it redirects. --kelapstick (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let you two handle that one. I think I like the idea of Fuddy duddy though. Maybe I could do that.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just launched wet noodle. Will it last? Fuddy duddy is a good one. I don't know what I means. But there are those who will delete that type of article saying we are not a dictionary. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Fuddy Duddy's fudge? See [7].--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've never heard of it. But it's another example of the important significance that fuddy duddy has. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the speedy template (inappropriate criteria), you should probably come up with some sources of it's use as an idiom (it is isn't it?) or figure out what to redirect it. --kelapstick (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's figurative, I think it's literal. So I don't think idiom is the right terminology. We could ask Doc, but I don't know if I can handle all those commas and semicolons. Plus he's known to be very discriminatory when it comes to that and which. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Literal use in a figurative statement? I know of nobody whom has been lashed with a wet noodle, albeit I have been threatened.--kelapstick (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you think the wet noodle is meant to refer to then? The idea of trying to whip someone with wet linguini seems to me to make sense quite literally as an example of a punishment that would not be injurious. I am researching the subject now, and it's also very significant as something that can be pushed on one end without success in moving the other end. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe figurative was wrong, I meant that there is no real intent to actually lash. I have to think back to all the context in which I have heard it used.--kelapstick (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that practically, and I speak from experience, attempting to lash someone with a wet noodle is no easy task. So while the intent may be there, it's not effective. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the opening line. Much better. Snowpack is now up and running as well. I used the most reliable and expert source available. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think metaphor was the word I was looking for. Still not sure if it is right though.--kelapstick (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wet noodle

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wet noodle, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ched Davis encouraged me to create the article. I hold him personally responsible. An RfC might be in order or some type of appropriate punishment if anyone can come up with something fitting... ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy was rightfully declined. As far as my punishment ... I guess you'll just have to flog me with a ... <*cough, cough*> ... — Ched :  ?  01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The real reason I removes the tag was because anything Ched suggests is noatble by default. :) kelapstick (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kelapstick, I really needed a smile right now. This has been an absolutely horrible week, and the last few hours may have made it one of the worst in my life (R/L). — Ched :  ?  01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Rehi

I'm back, raring to go after nearly a year's Wikibreak :-) I don't have as much time for WP as I used to, so I'm going to be putting some long-overdue effort into improving and expanding WP's micronation articles, as my main focus. Given that this subject seems to be a source of profound misunderstanding and perpetual annoyance for some editors, I think it would be great if experienced, un-involved editors like yourself could offer guidance, and help mediate disagreements, where necessary. Is this something you might be willing to consider? If so, please think about registering at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Micronations. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

For later

• Tomas Gabzdil Libertiny ref name="" Rosecrans Baldwin April 23, 2009

The Digital Ramble | Furniture Design New York Times blog /ref

• AE statement

Puri (food)

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at Paalappoo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ninja miner

Another story this time by NPR, would be a good resource if we could get a couple pictures...--kelapstick (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I always want to see the pack or helmet or whatever it is that makes them look like Ninja miners. We have it pretty good here all things considered! Thanks very much for the link. Interesting stuff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You asked for them, here they are. Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Who knew you had snuck the link in here! Thanks for sharing. I had a lot of fun checking them out. I commented on a few. My other thoughts are as follows:

• I like that you got some Chix fried steak on your way out. This is a good sign that you're becoming a patriotic American. I've been to SLC several times. They have a pretty good brew pub there.
• I like the lizard in camo (on the marble type orangey surface)
• I liked the Mr. Potatohead omage to Amelie and the garden gnomes.
• I was less impressed with the Corona and Eco Domani... IN HAWAII!!!
• The cliff drive looked pretty awesome. I was also hoping for a helicopter ride with TC, but I assume you decided to save that for next time.
• There weren't any photos of you or your family, which is going to make it difficult to initiate a snide discussion about the personal attributes of you and your family over on Wikipedia Review. Still, your wife must be a real humanitarian. hahahaha. Who needs photos???!!!
• The sticky bun needed pecans, but looked good otherwise.
• Gorgeous scenery. I would have liked some more shots of the native flora and fauna, especially flowers, fruit, and tropical plants. But it's good that you were relaxed and just taking it all in.
• Next time get out of the aquarium and do some more snorkeling!
• The water shots and viewpoints are so nice. Makes me very relaxed. Not a worry in the world! Are you an Israel Kamakawiwo'ole fan (examples: [8] and [9])? Thanks again for sharing.

I hope my comments and critique have been helpful to you. :) Take care bruddah. Coppah is rallying! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Corona was my wife's, I was on the Kona or something local.

We did hit the Maui Ocean Center, it was pretty awesome, there are some shots there, also we had a whole day snorkeling, I just don't think we had our underwater pictures developed yet.

The chicken fried steak was on the way out, our 3 hour layover turned into 7 hours :S That was what the extra four hours of my life are worth to Delta.

We picked up one of Israel's CDs while we were there, throughly enjoy it.--kelapstick (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You've also gone a little light on the food reporting. Shave ice? Cold coconuts? Papaya? Fish (what kind)? Crustaceans (or are you allergic? all the better!). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Shave ice, for sure, cold coconuts and papaya no. Fish was ono and mahi-mahi, no shrimp or the like. Not because of allergies, but it just wasn't plentiful.

New definition

Picked this up when I was on recent changes. Check out the new meaning of the word Hardware.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 09:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads-up

Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.

As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.

However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The website looks very good! Thanks for the link. I don't have any problem with including it and I think it's helpful and I appreciate the full disclosure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Timelines

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Timelines.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Heath Ceramics"

A page you created, Heath Ceramics, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for companies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

thx and other stuff

Hey CoM, just wanted to say thanks for the kind words. I prolly won't get back up to full speed here at WP til middle or end of this week, but I'll try to get caught up asap. re: Jets. Actually, I'm a Steeler fan. Born and breed here in "da Burg". I saw that the Jets did win, but the only game I really paid attention to on Sun. was the Ravens game. (Steelers played on Thurs. night). Anyway, hope all is well, I'll get back to you soon as I get caught up. Cheers.

Oh ... by the way, I think you've come a long way. I think you do some damn fine work here, and I've noticed that it appears that you've been able to tone down some of the more controversial things. Congrats on that, I'm glad to see it. Keep up the good work. ;) — Ched :  ?  11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Lord Loss

Don't you think that merging the article to the series would be a better choice? Joe Chill (talk)

Never mind. I have found out that it is independently notable (which isn't surprising since the series is awesome and by a popular author). Joe Chill (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'm glad notability has been established. I have changed my vote accordingly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Very slow reply...

I only just now saw your reply: [10]. It makes me sad to read it, because it seems that you believe me to be the opposite of what I am. You said, "I often find myself disagreeing with your approach. I like to keep the focus on article content. I don't like a lot of discussion that isn't directly focused on how to improve content and I'm not big on process."

I, like you, like to focus on article content. That's all I was supporting in my post to you, and it's all that my approach is directed to. Apparently, you think I don't like to focus on article content, and that makes me sad. I wonder what you consider "my approach" to be.

For the last week or so, I've been working hard on setting up WP:INCUBATE, which has nothing to do with anything but improving article content. I'm mystified as to what you think I'm about. I'm glad you recognize my good faith, but I think you believe some strange fictions about my approach. My only point in that Jedi AFD was to save you the trouble of arguing, so that you can focus on content.

I am 100% in agreement with your priorities. My priorities are identical to yours. You said, "I often find that once positions are staked out there's not much that can be done." That's all I was trying to say to you. No more, no less. Same words, just about. Stubborn deletionists can not be convinced. Arguing with them is a waste of time. Let's find ways to waste less time on them, so you can spend more on content. That's what I'm all about.

I am entirely mystified regarding what you refer to as my "approach". Everything you say about it is alien to me, and everything you say you prefer to "my approach" is nothing more nor less than what my approach actually is. Maybe you can explain to me, but I don't want you to waste your time doing that. I want you to work on content. I'm not so good at it - I'm support staff. All I offer is support, of the kind that means you don't have to argue in AFD.

It truly makes me sad that you seem to think I care about anything more than content here. I do not know how I came across that way to you. I hope you'll check out what we're doing at WP:INCUBATE. It's not being created to add process or bureaucracy, but rather to solve the problem that you and others have complained about. I can't change the way AFD nominators think, and neither can you. All I want is a way to improve articles without having to argue with them one bit. When I suggested that there are ways you could spend less time arguing with them, you seemed to think that I was asking you to spend more time, and in your post on the 8th, you still seemed to think that. That makes me quite sad.

• "My feeling remains that editors who are willing to work on improving articles should be given as much assistance as possible in the AfD process". Me too.
• "nominators who treat AfDs in a way that doesn't seek to improve the encyclopedia or to find the best outcome, but to be vindicated and "win" is unfortunate." 100%
• "Any time someone is willing to come to a subject, determine in good faith that it's worth fixing, and to try to do so they should be given the benefit of the doubt and as much assistance as possible." That's the assistance I've always been offering.
• "I like the focus on what needs to be done to improve the encyclopedia, I think that's the whole idea behind the Ignore All the Rules guideline." I wrote WP:WIARM because I agree with this so much.
• "If there's disagreement then that has to be sorted out, but it should be done in good faith with a focus on how best to improve the encyclopedia." Yep.
• "I'm almost always willing to compromise and try to work things out in an agreeable way, but the time spent in trying to get rid of things that are useful and interesting when they can be merged or are fairly notable doesn't seem useful to me. There's plenty of room, so if things are reliably sourced, it's a matter of how best to include content." Abso-freakin'-lutely.

Every statement you made in your reply, I'm behind 100%. I wish you realized that I'm entirely your ally, in total agreement with you. All I said that seemed to be a problem was that you already are free from having to waste time in AFD. I'm more on your side than you are when it comes to that. You never have to argue with a deletionist. I've got your back. You arguing in AFDs is less efficient than you ignoring AFDs, and there is no threat of deletion, because I'm ready to undelete. I want you to know that you are free and empowered to stay out of those stupid discussions with those people who will not be convinced. It pains me that you thought I was saying anything else.

I don't really care if you reply to this. I'm kind of curious what planet you think I've been coming from - don't say Dagobah - but that's not important to me. You knowing that you don't have to waste your time on dumb debates is important to me, because you are much more valuable as a writer than as a deletionist-persuader. I've got your back, CoM. Whatever you think I believe that you disagree with - I don't actually believe it. Throw all of those bizarre conceptions away - I'm just your servant, here to make sure you have time to write. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I can vouch for GTBacchus, I am still interested in his motives, (the most influential and successful editors are able to find common ground in any disagreement) but he is doing wonderful work at WP:INCUBATE. Maybe you know something I don't, but from the brief time I have worked with Bacchus, he seems like a very helpful, intelligent, hard working individual, who believes in the goals of wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've followed the incubator development a bit. I'll be interested to see how it progresses. I don't have any complaints about GTB except that he really really seems to like discussing things. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just type fast. All the discussing I do is so that you won't have to. Some might be grateful... -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Loss

Hello Mr. Childofmidnight. We have talked briefly in the past. But lord, I seem to see your name everywhere. Quite a controversial figure.

The reason I am here is the Lord Loss AFD. I have asked the nominator to close the AFD[11] because of the new information establishing minimal notability provided by Mr. Chill. But I just realized that you may have to change your !vote also for me to close this. Please consider the new information and decide what you feel.

Thank you for your time, and I hope things have calmed down for you. Ikip (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, hi fellow controversial figure. Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Glad you liked that. You need to work harder making waves Joe, because you don't seem to have the notoriety that Child has yet. Ikip (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If Ikip is telling me I'm controversial... gulp. :) It seemed a case where deletion wasn't a good option so merging was a fair compromise. I did say if it wasn't independently notable. For what it's worth, most of my troubles have been caused by Drmies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rrrrright. I'd give a you barnstar with one point missing, if such a thing existed. Has all that bacon grease finally clogged the arteries to your brain? Which reminds me: I told my lit class the other day about this great new invention of mine, a 5-second snack: a strip of bacon with hot sauce. Of course, if you don't have pre-cooked strips of bacon sitting on the counter you're not a good American. Oddly enough, they were not impressed! Drmies (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage! Funny. I hope things are going well down there. Cooling off is it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Did you see the latest vandalism to Bacon mania? Shocking. ^Bongo_matic 14:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm innocent! What is vanalism? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the link? ^Bongo_matic 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It was wonderful. I left it up. There is some brouhaha on ANI (in the Russavia thread) about a secret mailing list. So I'm trying to get caught up with that. :) What's new with you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, doesn't seem to be much there. Just the usual off-wiki collaboration and discussion by admins who are busy shrieking about being "outted" should their lack of transparency and cabalism get exposed to the light of day. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Philippe Torreton

Why are you tagging the Philippe Torreton article for deletion etc, notability etc.. He has won a César Award for Best Actor and has appeared in several notable French films. I created the page because its on the list of things to do at the French cinema 'task force' page. And references, well it's from the french wikipedia article so its o.k. and if its allowed to stay long enough I'll add references.Sayerslle (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Super. References would be very good. I will update the article according to your comment. Verifiability is very important on the English speaking Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Miniature horses

Please see my comments on the talk page. Are you an admin? Do you have any background with horses? Montanabw^(talk) 23:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw some of your comments on the talk page, but none about the bit you keep removing without proper discussion. I am not an admin, but I am very very powerful so it's usually best to just go along with whatever I say. What does my background with horses have to do with anything? You agree that miniature horses bite, so it doesn't seem to be an issue of fact (and I cited the assertion which I hadn't added in the first place and was considerate enough to modify TWICE per your edit summaries). Yet you continue to edit war, so I'd say it's up to you at this piont to explain why it makes sense to state how friendly and lovely the animals are without mentioning that they kick and nip. Are you trying to endanger our children and to keep thsoe reading Wikipedia's miniature horse article in oblivious ignorance of the very real dangers that can suffered at the mouth and hoofs of these dwarfs? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you thinking when you revert sensible changes to absurd wording like "miniature horses are found all over the world" and "they are still real horses"? Are you serious? You've edit warred to exclude note that they kick and nip, but readded a statement that they are real animals? I need a drink. Where's GTB when I need him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What did you think of this? Maybe you'll see me at ANI... Drmies (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it will be a while until this issue comes around again, per block. But the bottom line is that changes to the article can be taken to the talk page. There was no edit war, simply an example of "edit, revert, talk." I attempted to add some phrasing and rephrasing to the article to address the legitimate points being raised, even if they were raised in somewhat undiplomatic terms (see edit history of article). If this editor or any other has further questions, I do watchlist the talk page of the article, and article improvements can be further addressed there. Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A big mega hit at WP:ACN

Hey, have you seen this big mega hit incident regarding secrete cabal to systematically harass some user and to meatpuppet for content dispute for a long time Wikipedia_talk:AC/N#Eastern_European_mailing_list? --Caspian blue 01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned it above. ;) I'm way ahead of you Caspian blue.

Russavia is a difficult editor with a strong POV, but I haven't followed the situation closely enough to know if they've been treated fairly. That admins communicate off-wiki and think it's okay to to do so without transparency or the involvement of the parties they judge is pretty standard. Still it is amusing when they get all outraged and yell about OUTING, when flashlights and daylight are cast upon their dark coreners and spidey holes. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, Russavia has been treated unfairly for a long time.[12] I have no idea what content they are disputing, but all edit warring by the whole team look same to me, but Biophys has been weirdly saved by the involved admins including the temp.desysoped admin many times while Russavia has been straightly blocked or baited or wrongly accused of sockpupetry. Well, I have been also harassed by Japanese off-wiki site, blogs, but those are written in Japanese, so not much attentions were given to. So this case reminds me of them as well.--Caspian blue 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm hoping that the logs and such will be posted (with real names redacted). Nothing like the light of day to impart a little justice on those lurking in the shadows. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

CCD

I've moved your question and my response to the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A link would have been good. I don't really remember the specific issue, but I do recall it was one of your usual wholesale reversions towards smearing global warming skeptics. Doing so against common sense and basic etiquette isn't very constructive. GBD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that the talk pages of articles are to discuss improving the articles, not for soapboxing, per WP:SOAP William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from moving my comments around without my permission and refactoring them to your liking. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not refactored your comments, as I've said. I've deleted them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You have also refactored my comments, repeatedly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Attention to detail

(Discussion moved here by William Connelly from his talk page)

If you read the text carefully in this edit [13] you may find that it's a strange assertion to make that those who dispute global warming are misrepresenting the consensus. More often they are disputing and, perhaps in some cases, misrepresenting the science. Can you understand the difference? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a strange assertion at all. The septic literature is full of misrepresentation. You must have read some of it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem very enamored with a set of beliefs advocated by many of the same scientific "experts" that pushed the "investment" of billions of dollars into in the "promise" of hydrogen fuel. Needless to say this technology has been thoroughly debunked. Meanwhile, I'm sure many labs and snake oil salesmen profited from the funding while the getting was good. It's unfortunate that fables propagated by Al Gore (a polluter and hypocrite of the worst kind whose adoption of the pay for penance model of environmental destruction is disgusting to behold) and his many acolytes have resulted in the misdirection of so much money and effort. Instead of pragmatic and sensible proposals and reforms that would improve environmental conditions, increase security, promote prosperity, and encourage the development of useful technologies, we get pie-in-the-sky nonsense pushed by corrupt ideologues and their political allies. I would call those promoting this sort of bunkum half wits, but I think they are much worse characters than that and shouldn't be let off so easily as simply being naive and stupid. Those who exploit the dopey fad-followers who lack the critical thinking and good sense to look into the facts and find out that the fairy dust peddlers and fear mongers are just the latest in a long line of con artists exploiting half-truths and media campaigns for personal profit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, here we are again. What was it that you wanted to talk about? You long comment just above? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I would just suggest that you try to do a bit of critical thinking outside of your closely held assumptions and consider the facts and evidence from a scientific point of view. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting suggestion but a touch vague. I haven't noticed you editing any science related to GW (I presume that is what we're talking about), you seem to mostly stick to opinion pieces. But OK, I'll bite: which facts or evidence about the science of GW would you like me to reconsider? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is ignorance bliss? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Now, I *thought* that all these posting were an attempt to discuss something. If not, then fine, but it all seems a b it pointless in that case. So, consider my question above to be repeated William M. Connolley (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you were willing or interested in discussing the issues I've raised you wouldn't keep removing my comments, refactoring and misrepresenting my statements, and would refrain from making pointed and snarky comments. Cheerios old boy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm quite willing to discuss aspects of the science of GW, or for you to point out some aspects that would "open my eyes". If you are refusing to do that, then fine, I'll be off. But in that case, please don't re-post the same questions on my talk page please William M. Connolley (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea which questions you are referring to. I have asked you to abide by policy, to cease efforts to smear those you disagree with and to work collaboratively and collegially. I also suggested that your fanatacism may be preventing you from taking a balanced and scientific approach to the issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Laughter is good for you.

...it was just a comma splice...

Thanks for the laugh regarding the spelling (mine). I agree with you, it is not good enough and disturbs other more fixated editors, I will attempt to raise my game in regard to spelling. I usually get back round and correct my mistakes, but please feel free to correct at will. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My spelling is horrible, and I type too fast. If only people were allowed to fix the mash I produce... I'm glad you got a laugh out of my frivolous ANI statement. Many of my recent attempts at humor have been missing the mark entirely. I trust that practice makes perfect! Take care and stay out of trouble. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your spelling isn't so bad--it's the crimes you commit against established rules of punctuation (which are akin to the Ten Commandments) that will get you where you're going. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

My biggest laugh of the day for your post Drmies, very good, its a double whammy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have modified (refactored) my statement and both of yours. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reply

...and then stay off of my talk page, unless you want to accept my offer to userfy or undelete an article for you. If you do, don't try to make jokes. You're bad at it, and I'm not inclined to find you funny. I'm not your buddy or your friend, so just keep it businesslike, or don't talk to me. You're bugging the hell out of me, and I'm asking you to stop. I'd also like it if you quit repeating falsehoods (knowingly or unknowingly, I don't care) about how much I think you should discuss. I think you should cease and desist from it entirely. You suck at it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for ruining my morning. Your attempt at a "lighthearted" remark was hurtful. Ouch. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I referred you to an article I found on new page patrol that I thought might be of interest to you and pointed out an opportunity to follow up on mentoring out of respect. I apologize that my phrasing was offensive and I will certainly avoid commenting any further on your talk page. It wasn't my intention to bug the hell out of you, but now that I know that I have that effect I will do my best to avoid further contact. I'm not going to keep it businesslike, I'm just going to avoid interacting. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'm sorry we weren't able to get along. I'm de-watchlisting your page now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No hard feelings on my part. I disagree with lots of people but still respect them. I don't have any problems with your, or anyone elses, article work as long as it's done in good faith. This is supposed to be a collaborative encyclopedia so there's always an opportunity to fix each others oversights. I do find that discussion without resolution can become disruptive after a certain point. I've tried to note that in a lighthearted way, but obviously I did a poor job of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Man, that makes it hard to not reply. "Discussion without resolution." You still think I favor discussion. If you don't want more, don't leave crap like that lying out. A clean break looks like this: Goodbye. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never been adept at goodbyes. I'm never quite sure what to say. And then there are the awkward silences. The farewells that go on too long. It's a rough business all around. I'm much better with bad jokes and tweaking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dark Side?

I am always willing to revisit a discussion and reconsider an opinion... whether to keep or to delete. Harumph. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

dePRODing of articles

Hello ChildofMidnight, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Canyon Productions, by User:216.15.127.176, with summary '(no edit summary)'
• PROD removed from Bertram Wallace, by User:Struway2, with summary '(remove prod: subject passes WP:ATHLETE by having played in a fully-pro league, as the book reference presumably verifies. The stub tag suggests we can help Wikipedia by expanding, not deleting, it)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Neither of those article subjects are notable (although Wallace might be worth mentioning in a roster list of some sort). But I won't dispute that I have very high standards. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pastor Theo

You surely must know about this editor. It seems that there are admins out there that will not only push with their accounts to control the outcomes of AfD and RfA amongst other discussions but will also use sockpuppeteering to create their own majorities.

Is Wikipedia really still about building an encyclopedia or is it turning into some (and I quote another account's comment at a recent RfA nomination) "massive multiplayer role playing game". Because it's like another editor (can't remember who) said: "on it's own Pastor Theo was a very constructive and useful account" but operating sockpuppet accounts to get that extra vote is immoral, ESPECIALLY for an admin. I want to be able to WP:AGF on administrators but it is just too hard to trust people on here anymore. A few hours ago, after reading about Pastor Theo's incident with interest, going from one page to the next, I found a list somewhere displaying every time an account has been de-sysoppped since 2003 and, if I'm being honest, it was much bigger than I thought. Just think. If PASTOR THEO of all admin/ex-admin accounts was found to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, how many sockpuppeteers out there do you think could have used a "constructive" account to pass RfA? As a great contributor, I had trusted Pastor Theo since my very earliest days here. What a joke! So yes, I do believe that there are "secret admin-only areas", even if the admins themselves do not admit to it. How could there not be? Also, think of all the conspiracies that exist on Wikipedia. A lot of the drama on Wikipedia is a load of nonsense. I saw your admin "come clean" thread has been closed.

I'm going to take a few months absense from Wikipedia and hope that editors will see 2010 as the start of a fresh decade and a great chance to start new and refrain from any bad intent. From January 1 2010, all editors and especially admins edit using ONE account, do not keep any information behind closed doors, and go looking for articles to create instead of looking for drama. When I come back (which might not be until around Christmas time), hopefully when, and if, I return I will be pleasently surprised to see that everything is healthy and promising, like it was for me in March, before I knew much about the darker realms of this website.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 00:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, duplicity is a serious problem and it's one of the trade-offs of allowing anonymity. I for one don't want everyone in this cuckoos nest to know who you I am in real life. But it's definitely frustrating that there isn't more transparency. The chat rooms and e-mails also create opportunities for canvasing and coordination that's unfair and improper. But I see Wikipedia as a part of the real world and composed of humanoids with all of our flaws and imperfections. So even as we strive to make it better and to fix the problems there will always be issues that are unresolved.

As far as Ecoleetage/ Pastor Theo, I liked him and still do. I've followed the events to some extent, but I haven't seen any good examples of socking where they abused a second account to sway an outcome. The socking seems almost to have been playful, albeit inappropriate. The incident where that individual called another editor's work is more problematic. But I don't buy into the absolute and total separation of real life and Wikipedia argument. Wikipedia is real life, it's just online. So harassing people and being a dick on here is a problem, just as contacting someone offline and being a dick is a problem. Obviously extending contact off-line can have far more serious issues, and contacting someone's employer seems especially nasty, but I don't know exactly how it all happened or why that was done, other than assuming that they must have been pissed. Sometimes people do stupid things.

I've seen some efforts to increase accountability and to desysop troublemakers which I think is a good thing. I also think the second chances and opportunities to work through problematic behaviors are encouraging. As far as I'm concerned, the remaining obstacle to a more collegial editing environment is the lack of an effective dispute resolution process. Without suitable mediation, disputes escalate quickly and have no proper venue to be worked out.

I'm generally happy when people take a break or leave off editing. I find contributing to Wikipedia is a very stressful experience and that I'm often playing defense despite making every effort to edit in good faith and to abide by our policies. There's quite a lot of gaming that goes on and there's generally a lack of respect and collaboration. But again, it's not really that different than the "real world", and I try to keep a sense of humor about it all and to appreciate the good parts.

It's pretty amazing to be able to help write up and improve an encyclopedia that's avaible for free to hundreds of millions of people. So that part of the experience is fairly awesome and inspiring. Just think, thanks to me, people do not have to ignorant about bacon mania and fruit hats any longer! I also like doing articles on subjects that are interesting, learning new things, and sharing my findings with our readers, whoever they may be. And there are lots of interesting, generous, and surprising personalities on here, so I enjoy some of the social dynamics, the friendships and collaborations, and the theatrics as well. Take care and good luck with all your pursuits! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I plan to be back in 2010 if I feel the air is clearer, like I said. But you are right, some things will NEVER change, although I still believe there are answers to some of the flaws on here. And just for the record Pastor Theo was my 2nd favorite admin (after User:Bongwarrior whom as of August 23rd seems to have mysteriously disappeared) and I really enjoyed collaborating with that particular account (he has actually done a lot for some of the music-related articles that I have created). As far as theatrics, I can't lie. AN/I is a very addictive page and some of the drama that occurs on here is actually quite hilarious. But we all need to draw the line somewhere, don't we?

Lastly, as far as friendships, while I do prefer to keep my "Internet/Wikipedia life" and my "Off The Computer/Real life" seperate, I must admit that I have felt a good spirit between myself and other editors on here over this seventh-month long journey such as User:Bongwarrior, User:Tide rolls, User:Drmies...the list could go on! But mostly with you CoM, I have felt a close Wikipedia friendship and it has been an honor to work with alongside side you on this project.

I have to also admit that some of my edits of late might be seen as "strange" or "insane". It might have just been me leading up to this day on here, although I do recall a conversation that we had where you said you knew a Dr./Professor who was fairly sane until he started hanging out with you on here ;). I don't know if you worked your magic on me, but I don't regret hanging out with you on here and having the chance to work alongside an editor such as yourself on a few articles was a rewarding experience to me. As I say, I plan to be back. As for now, peace out.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 03:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind words Sky Attacker. I appreciate it. There's definitely a lot of craziness here, and it may be spreading. Still, you're always welcome to drop in any time. Wikipedia will still be here, and I always have bad jokes, sarcastic comments, criticisms and all the "right" answers at the ready. Thanks for your thoughtful contributions and for helping to make Wikipedia the fun and collaborative experience that God intended. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You're edit warring at Scientific opinion on climate change. Please don't; and please be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you were once an admin your lack of policy knowledge is very surprising. I added a POV tag and raised the issue on the article talk page. Feel free to continue the discussion there. It's highly inappropriate to remove the tag until the issue is resolved, because the tag notifies editors that there is a dispute. You have a habit of edit warring and pushing your personal point of view on the global warming debate. I suggest you consult the WP:NPOV guideline to better familiarize yourself with how we write articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification.

CoM, have you seen this at Arbitration enforcement requests. [14] . Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks the restraining order hasn't done much good. The long string of abusive and absurd reports against me continues. Very frustrating. I'm open for suggestions on how to make stalkers and harassers leave me alone. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said anyway, your response is measured and clear. What I do is ask them to leave me alone and then I make them disapear by taking them and the disputed articles off my watchlist, this is especially easy if you move to editing articles that you have no interest in, like random articles, or even working to improve articles of people or things that you don't like, that is so funny. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• I'm going to go read. I hope everyone has a nice evening. Hopefully tomorrow will be better. I don't like being treated like crap by admins who think they are above the law and above discussion. I edit in good faith and I'm happy to compromise and work out resolutions to any problems that arise. I ask for some modicum of respect and consideration in return. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I want to go read, but my Wikipedia addiction has me chained to this @#$% computer chair, and it is hot, and some ... erm... FINE AND WONDERFUL EDITOR... has cut the warnings I placed to encourage the editor not to POV push and not to add wp:OR into my user page. I feel for you... your day has been much worse. I am sorry to see it so. Hope the book is good. "Fire and Ice" by J. A. Jance is out if you like her work... reading it now... not her best. *ducks to avoid incoming from talk-page police* - Sinneed (talk) 04:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) - edit - Sinneed (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it was mostly a fun day. I got away with making several bad jokes that weren't funny to anyone but me. I was sorry to see iMathew's RfA go poorly and he seemed to take it hard if anyone cares to offer some encouragement. I don't really have much to complain about. Thanks for the note. The hypocrisy of those demanding civility and then treating editors like this is very frustrating after a while, but I guess that's life. Have a good one Sinneed. We should work on some fun new articles together sometime. Trying to fix existing articles with entrenched crazies trying to impose their will is draining. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You might give a very early version of an essay I am writing a read: An essay on a conflict of interest: Wikipedia's best interest vs. the editor's best interest as a Wikipedian.

I am trying to visualize WP when it has, say, 1 billion active editors. (!!!) All comments (even really nasty ones) welcome. (edit conflict) - Sinneed (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I click my watchlist and notice this bullshit. Just wanted to drop by to agree that merely editing an article that mentions Obama's name is a far stretch for enforcing a topic ban. A month block for making minor tweaks to prose in areas wholly unrelated to Obama. Beyond stupid. Lara 04:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, a month block was a ridiculous, even a week would have been excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight 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—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,  Sandstein  07:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears I am autoblocked, so I'm unable to respond to your abusive actions where they are being discussed (just as I would have been unable to post in those discussions after you imposed a policy violating month long block on me despite all the comments showing there was no consensus and little support for it other than from those who want me censored). It's common for thugs, cheats, crooks, and liars to smear people and attack them after they are prevented from responding, so you're in good company. You even suggested I'm not allowed to respond to those making malicious and false reports attacking me. A rape victim should suffer in silence eh, Sandstein? Harassment must be endured without comment. Lovely.

Treating good faith editors like shit and having them deal with this kind of abuse seems to be status quo for you and other abusive admins. I would simply ask that you and other rude, uncivil and incompetent characters leave me alone and cease the harassment and stalking.

As far as our history goes (which you lied about) you ignored my comments on your talk page related to the contempt of cop article (where you were trying to push your radical personal beliefs and original research) and you've rudely ignored my comments regarding the blue cake article you created. I'm well aware that you don't like me, so I'm not surprised at all by your abusive behavior, misrepresentations, and ridiculously abusive and policy violating block. Admins frequently engage in personal vendettas and go hunting in packs like rabid dogs.

I have complied with all of my restrictions no matter how unjust. The much more limited restriction on the individual stalking and harassing me has been flouted repeatedly, even on ANI, but no one has enforced it.

Ganging up on an editor with this kind of relentless harassment and abuse is a form of censorship and Wikinazism that is utterly disgusting and totally unacceptable.

Your block was correctly undone by an admin in possession of common sense and judgement.

You can ignore all the statements by uninvolved editors that it's a stretch to suggest ACORN is Obama related. You can ignore the civlity guidelines and refuse to practice common decency and discussion before you impose your will. You can refuse to simply ask me to avoid an article if you think it's not an appropriate subject. You can misrepresent my edits and block history when in fact other admins have been desysoped for actions including those abusive blocks. You can ignore all the editors and admins who have disputed the harassment and stalking I'm enduring and the grotesque administrative actions encouraging it. But pretending your actions are valid when when they are based on lies and fabrications just makes clear how abusive and despicable they have been. It's no surprise to me that it takes more lies and abusive misrepresentations to try and cover them up. Keep digging.

I suppose in your perverted world view you can justify treating other people like shit and lying, even when the other party acts only in good faith and hasn't done anything wrong, because you think your ideology and beliefs are right. So you think it's okay to impose these views on others. But attacking those you disagree with in this way is disgusting. This kind of ignorant intolerance should make you shudder. You are no different from other book burners, censors, and those who abide other forms of abuse and harassment like rape, beatings, torture and other thuggery used to intimidate and silence people. You see Sandstein, Wikipedia is part of the real world and your actions have real consequences. When you abuse your position of authority to go after an editor you disagree with, you cause real pain and do real damage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't go near the eastern europe, missile, Kanye West, PETA, or fly articles as those are clear violations of your Obama topic ban. Soxwon (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I had to deal with a lot of abusive admins. They were partly the cause of me using my right to vanish. My opinion is that most admins need their power (yes, power) taken away. Joe Chill (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Joe Chill. I was sorry to see Fritzpoll, one of our best and most patient editors, chased off by the POV pushers. Maybe he's still editing with a new identity? The lack of a dispute resolution process is also a big part of the problem. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have copied your statement to the arbitration requests page. Should you desire to participate directly in the proceedings, you can request a lifting of the autoblock by using the procedure described in {{autoblock}}.  Sandstein  19:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I should have to disclose personal information in order to be unblocked.

The contortions of logic to try and claim that I violated a restriction on editing article content related to Obama are amusing to behold. The ACORN article mentions Obama once 3/4 of the way through (a portion of the text I didn't go anywhere near). Your lies, deceptions and misrepresentations are pretty sickening. You and the other abusive stalkers have a lot in common. From everything I can tell you are a very sad, lonely and antisocial individual, so aybe lashing out at people you disagree with makes you feel better? I suggest you try collegial collaboration and discussion to resolve disputes in the future. You might even make a freind. If you aren't competent or honest enough to do that I understand. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Please see WP:AE - I intend to interpret the mutual interaction restriction between you and Wikidemon to include making reports. I have also filed for a request for clarification. Your input at both is welcomed.--Tznkai (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I prepared a long response that I can't post because I'm autoblocked, but what's the point? Editors and administrators can misrepresent and lie about my edits and history to smear me. They can harass, stalk, and attempt to intimidate me with impunity. I've had enough. I don't want to discuss it any more. Let Arbcom do what they want. If they choose to continue to encourage liars and thugs then so be it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can stand a msg from a "thug/cheat/crook/liar" for a moment, the way to deal with this is Template:unblock-auto Tarc (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that ok?

I hope thats ok? I added the template for admin assistance to remove the autoblock. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole disruption was caused by a stalking harasser who is continually allowed to pursue me with impunity. It was furthered by an abusive administrator acting against policy and consensus. Let them sort it all out. They will try to blame me for the disruption they've caused and are trying to exacerbate (even while I can't participate in the discussion).

This is all part of a concerted effort to censor me, and I can live with whatever is decided. I've dealt with this kind of abusive thuggery and lack of decency, common sense, and judgment before. No worries. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Distortions, lies, smears, stalking and harassment from thugs

Editors and administrators can misrepresent and lie about my edits and edit history to smear me. They can harass, stalk, and attempt to intimidate me with impunity. Fine. I don't want to discuss it any more. Let Arbcom do what they want. If they choose to continue to encourage liars and thugs then so be it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

About running for adminship

Hi, CoM. Regarding this comment: It's been a little over three months since I last ran, so I'm a bit more confident that I'll pass if I run again. Feel free to add my name to whatever list you have at WT:RFA. Timmeh (review me) 23:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to support you Timmeh, even though I opposed last time. There was a discussion on the RfA page about how no one was running and I noted you as one of those who I thought would make a good candidate. But my endorsement is probably the last thing you need and I don't think my nomming you would be helpful. :) Anyway, good luck. Please keep in mind that it's important to make welcome those with alternative viewpoints and unusual perspectives. Also, collegial discussion and problem solving through mediation should always be the first option in resolving disputes and blocking should be the last option. :) Sadly even our Arbs don't seem to get that, which may explain the high level of tension, incivility and disatisfaction. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't take this in the wrong way, but I don't want your nomination, and I think you know why. I was just saying that you could put my name on that list at WT:RFA, in case one of the RfA regulars is looking for someone to nominate. Timmeh (review me) 00:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand. No worries. You might check with Skomorkh or ThaddeusB. They seem to be the ones leading the charge, and seem to be working up a vetting process they are trying out that might interest you. Good luck! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look into that. Timmeh (review me) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

hey CoM

Unrequested advice, remember to be civil and nice and if you can't then don't talk to them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Being nice works both ways. Misrepresenting an editor's good faith contributions, smearing them, lyng about their block log, and trying to block them for a month when a simple note to avoid a particular article subject would suffice doesn't seem very civil to me. I'm coming to understand that the lack of collegiality and the tense and uncivil environment here starts at the top. Thanks for the note. I certainly appreciate your efforts to help. If other editors, admins and arbcom worked to resolve disputes instead of playing cop, this would all be a lot more fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is a lot of that, I try to avoid it. I think this is better... keep it in mind that the last thing to be done is to block an editor, don't go to any noticeboard and encourage it, try to avoid it at all cost, resolution is the way to grow. I was going to say to you, stay away from those editors and those articles, chill on some other work. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New articles

What are we going to create??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one aeon for because (a) you used the word "Clinton" in an edit summary; (b) "Clinton" is a former US President; (c) Obama is the current US President, so therefore (d) you are in violation of your topic ban.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ^Bongo_matic 01:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

:) You got me. I was fooled at first. Things have gotten so ridiculous that this block is entirely believable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you extend that? This edit clearly deals with seeds. An example of a seed is an acorn. ACORN and acorn are spelled the same, and therefore are Obama-related articles. Law _{type! snype?} 01:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell that was confusing. Funny though considering how true it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Archives

You're welcome. I was just cleaning up from the fallout of a nasty bug with the archiving bot. Graham87 05:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for a change of pace

If you want to work on something big and meaty that couldn't possibly be related to Obama, allow me to suggest http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_States_and_state_terrorism . This article has been a chronic stain ever since it's creation and could use someone dedicated to go through and clean house. Jtrainor (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think a stalker can make any editing I do to that article out to be Obama related you are sadly mistaken. But I appreciate the thought.

All I can do is edit in good faith. I do my best to abide by the decisions made by Wikipedia's community elected bodies, even those with which I strenuously disagree. The arbitration result was a joke to begin with, and I expected that such a misguided and ill-considered outcome would embolden those who engage in abusive tactics and intimidation. I hope that at some point I will be allowed to edit in peace and that collegial discussion and collaboration will replace the gangland environment that's been created by abusive cliques and their admin enforcers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone follows you to that article and adds Obama-related junk to it, I will gladly back you up with a WP:ANI report. I'd be most pleased to see some of the jerks around here nailed to the wall. Jtrainor (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Another ANI report is the last thing I want to be any part of. :) I'll take another look at the article when I get a chance. I think I've wrapped up the mass of comments needed to respond to my present circumstances. I'm looking forward to returning my focus to article creation and improvement work and away from the drahmaz.

Whether I'm a jerk or not is for others to judge, but I hope I'm not going to be the one nailed to the wall. :) I'm still hoping a proper mediation and dispute resolution process will soon be established so we can all keep our focus on article content, sourcing, and the appropriate policies and guidelines that apply. I think this would go a long way in helping to modify behaviors so as to promote constructive collaboration and collegiality and allow us to weed out those who aren't here to build articles and edit constructively. The relentless feuding and disruption from POV pushers is all a bit much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Georgia Right to Life

Thank you so much for all the help. I really appreciate it. I hope I can make this page as neutral, informative, and credible as possible. (````Mission: Life````)—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

You're welcome. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a webhost for the organization and the article should cover what is notable and significant to encyclopedia readers. So I repeat my suggestion that you try to source the article to reliable independent media such as those available on Google news. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For dropping by my page. I was out of line. I find it difficult sometimes to deal with the far left. Leftist Latin Americans make me regret that I even speak the same language. Most of the meltdowns I have are when I see the extreme bias that I encounter on certain pages. Most of the things I object to eventually get changed. I really might write an essay "Please disrupt Wikipedia tomake a point" as it seems only disruption gets any attention drawn to the issues and so change can be effectuated. Not an essay to be followed, but one to provoke thought. All the articles that even tangentially bear a relation to US Cold War foreign relations towards Latin America have been hijacked. Well take care. I now know what line not to cross (although I don't understand how people who personalize things can cry when it gets too personal and seek blocks).--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I would say that's a pretty bright, shining, and clear line in that particular example. :) I understand from your comments that there was provocation, but ummm best to avoid lashing out. I too sometimes lose my cool with all the craziness. I need to take up yoga.

I haven't edited those articles... yet. The intensity of your feelings related to those subjects indicates to me that you may need a break from that area of the encyclopedia. Surely there are lots of lovely Leftists down there who (without commenting on the the merits or demerits of their views) mean well.

Upholding our core NPOV policy is certainly a struggle on divisive issues. I've stumbled into working on some of the climate change articles and its pretty heated (get it, heated???).

Have you tried posting areas of dispute to a wider audience at the relevant notice board to get additional input? Independent opinions and outside views can be helpful. I also find that it puts things in better perspective and reminds me that whatever little area I'm toiling away on is connected to a wider network of editors. The dispute resolution process here is pretty bad, but it's definitely worth availing yourself of what exists and is of use.

Another approach is to ask an editor you think is fair (ie. one that is as happy to disagree as to agree with you) for an opinion about an issue that comes up. I leave it up to them whether they just want to give me their opinion, comment in the discussion, or get involved. And I try not to offer my opinion when I request their views so as to get a fair and as unbiased as possible a perspective. Usually I just provide a link or enough information to direct them to the issue. I don't think that's canvasing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Shipbuilding

Thanks for "cleaning" up after my (and some other's) edits. My only intention (and connection in regards to this article) was to keep some repeated spam out of it. Hopefully the IP editor won't be so bold and blunt in the future and reverse to his/her last edit w/o paying attention to other editor's contributions. Cheers, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No problem. My edit summary ("let's try to be accurate") wasn't directed at you, I was just expressing what I was trying to do. Usually I just put "tweak", so there's no chance for miscommunication or misunderstanding. :) I didn't look into the edit history, only the most recent edit that popped up in my watchlist. So I am not up on the broader history or any issues involved other than what I tried to address with my edit. Thanks very much for the courteous note. Take care and have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think your edit summary was directed at me. I just wanted to thank you for your recent edit (which I could have done by myself but as I somehow pointed out above, I don't think I'm obliged to do so). I knew someone would come around and fix "the rest". Cheers (again), The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time to express appreciation for my work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm new here

But when looking at the history on some of the articles I've been reading, I see lots of good info coming from your edits. Thanks for all the hard work!! Kocs (talk) 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Subterfuge

Compared to most people in the community, I agree with you. Hell, I even think that Mantanmoreland shouldn't have been run off of the project, and I spend a long time working to prove his socking. We literally cannot stop socking from happening, and I think it's much better to have people edit with stable accounts—the devils we know, after all. I just draw the line on people who aren't ready to give up their games. I just think it's clear that he's not done gaming. I'd bet a week's wages that he's still running another account. Cool Hand Luke 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can eat fifty eggs! ^Bongo_matic 03:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I don't know if I can eat 50 eggs, but I've often got nuthin'. Cool Hand Luke 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can eat 50 eggs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, sometimes nuthin's a . . . ^Bongo_matic 03:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Real good cool hand? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost ;) ^Bongo_matic 04:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think I ever realized remembered that was where the name of the movie came from. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's cuz yer really not that smart. Law _{type! snype?} 06:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You got your mind right, Law? Cool Hand Luke 14:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Some men you just can't reach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I could, and have eat fifty eggs. ϢereSpielChequers 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• What .. we got here, is a failure, ... (I'll let someone else fill in the links and blanks) ;) — Ched :  ?  15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

I think that this has just the right number of article issue tags.--kelapstick (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. I posted it to ANI for the inspiration of other good faith editors who may not be using tags to their full effect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an ANI post was required.--kelapstick (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it didn't go over well. Oops. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Climate change modeling

Why isn't there an article on climate change modeling? Isn't that a pretty big and important subject? Is it under a different title? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess because one does not model change one models climates to predict change? Global climate model Climate model? --BozMo talk 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected climate change modeling to global climate model. That way, people won't hit a redlink if they search for it, and they'll be directed to our existing information on the topic. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell. I'm still very surprised there isn't an article on climate change modeling. I think there's an important distinction between climate modeling and climate change modeling, even as they are related. People model climates and try to predict weather patterns, but this isn't the same thing as modeling climate changes that are systemic. Climate change modeling has to incorporate dyamisms and accelerations that a climate model doesn't. The erath's climates aren't static by nature, but the factors related to the change are quite critical. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong in this case. There's absolutely no difference between a climate model and a climate change model other than the specification of GHG concentrations. They're exactly the same code. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What is GHG? If what you say is true, that's very disturbing. Understanding how a climate operates and understanding how changes to a climate system effect climate are not the same thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

GHG = greenhouse gas. I know less than nothing about climate modeling, but part of the reason to model anything is that you can then change parameters in the model and see how other parameters are affected. So a "climate model" and a "climate change model" are probably semantically the same. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@MastCell, yes, thanks for explaining. Apologies for lapsing into jargon. @ CoM: The physical principles that govern fluid dynamics and thermodynamics don't change when the concentrations of greenhouse gases increase (or decrease). Perhaps this should be moved from William's talk -- your place or mine? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. But it still seems a bit like the difference between addressing something in two dimensions or three dimensions. Or leaving out or adding a variable in a math problem. A climate model and a climate change model aren't necessarily addressing the same thing. To use another metaphor (that may or may not be helpful) it's like discussing velocity as opposed to acceleration. Dynamisms and feedbacks over time are critical to a climate change model, but a climate model may just look at an annual cycle and normal fluctuations that occur year to year. If the earth slowed its spin, or solar radiation didn't just fluctuate but changed directionally, or the greenhouse gas component is materially altered, then that may change how the system itself is set up. But back to how this is covered on Wikipedia, can we at least separate out a climate modeling article from global climate model? The global climate model (where climate modeling currently redirect) is only one model and there are regional models and other types of climate modeling are there not? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to explain as a non-climatologist (Boris - correct me if you are watching and I am wrong; I think I have the gist of it if it is anything like the models I use). A general circulation model (or global climate model) is largely a bookkeeping system for mass and heat transport. The idea behind them is to be a physically accurate model of how processes on the Earth operate. This is why the same kind of GCM is usable for many scenarios: they are entirely based on laws of physics, and the inputs and outputs play in the model with respect to those bounds. If a certain input term is large, it will not change the backbone structure. Feedbacks would occur when an input term causes another input term to be activated (e.g., greenhouse gas - induced warming leading to arctic methane release leading to more greenhouse gases, etc.). Does this make sense? It's like the inputs are kindergartners, and the model is a gymnasium in which they are required to act and interact in ways that obey the laws of mechanics and thermodynamics. And the scientist gets to choose which kindergartners to put in the gymnasium.

For that reason, it is 100% not the difference between velocity and acceleration, in which transferring from one to the other adds or removes information (the constant of integration) and the value in question fundamentally changes. Perhaps a better analogy that is still close to what you say could be that the model is an operator which acts on the input. Awickert (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahem...

This time you've gone too far. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That IP traces to Virginia. Isn't that where Tarc lives? You're going to get me in trouble Doc because I'm not sure I'm even allowed to use the O word, and I don't mean Oprah or Ontario. One must not talk about him in vain, apparently. I walk on eggshells, he walks on water. For all I know I'll be blocked for commenting in the bullshido.net AfD discussion because one of el presidente's kids is taking karate lessons. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

remember our secret cabal, crew, whatever?

Check out Martin Seemungal, Cocktion, Buntil, and Matthias Pliessnig. Since those articles are created by you they are probably not about notable subjects, so I didn't remove the recently added tags. Hey, I got some myself too! (Check my history.) Drmies (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Groupies! I notice the deleted article on Toe Hole, or whatever that group is called, still replaces your user page now and again. You mentioned something about blocking me Doc, but of course you need to run the RfA gauntlet first! What's taking so long? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nothing--I'm just scared! Oh, I see what you mean now--I have been missing a whole lot of vandalism on my user page. Haven't checked for toeholes yet, since I'm off to edit war again! Later! (No I'm taking a nap.) Drmies (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Talking

You seem to feel that I don't talk to you enough [15]. But then you do stuff like this [16]. I've already told you that you can't have it both ways. I can't force you to be polite. But I can and will refuse to converse with you on my talk page while you remain rude William M. Connolley (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to discuss climate modeling (a redirect to the Global Climate Model) with you. My understanding was that you had some expertise on that subject. If you don't want to engage in collegial discussion with me related to article work, okay. People have disagreements sometimes and I like to leave differences in the past. If you want to hold a grudge and remain bitter, there's not much I can do about it. I don't have any problem with you other than requesting that you be more collaborative and respectful of your fellow editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Escalating dispute?

Please tell me how I escalated the dispute since it started before January? It deals with multiple pages without any relationship between then except the same group of people using inappropriate tactics. I am also not the only one this has happened to by that group. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the other disputes? The one I saw was over a particular description of Oscar Wilde. If you insist on following through with Arbcom I suspect you will be restricted. That's what they do. They stop activity that's become disruptive by sanctioning whoever is at the center of it. Their investigations and decisions have very little to do with who's right or wrong. And they don't do much to untie knots. They simply smoosh whoever is "causing" the problem. Your approach is pretty confrontational Ottava and the feuding has spread to numerous boards. So I'm suggesting you slow down a bit and try to sort some of the disputes out by getting outside opinions or let them go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read. I also mentioned it at the ANI thread and on other threads. It seems like few of the responders want to actually read the links given which show a very long history of problematic actions. I have been receiving prompting from dozens of people to take this to ArbCom for the past month. I have sent many emails to Arbitrators from the beginning of the recent reoccurance of the problems. This is not something I do lightly or without advice. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

What outcome would you desire from Arbcom? You're making accusations against several editors, and my experience suggests that our consensus guidelines tend to favor whoever has numbers. I have limited experience with the Fringe board, but I my experience make me tend to be sympathetic towards your complaints. But your go it alone strategy doesn't seem prudent to me and I don't see an outcome that's going to be contructive to your interests. If you'd like more independent eyes on those boards and opinions on the disputes why not ask for that? Isn't that how disputes are worked out here? Arbcom looks at behavior and hands down sanctions. So what sanctions would be appropriate? You already have Jehochman, who is a very experienced editors, trying to put you under editing restrictions. The course you're taking doesn't seem like one with an outcome that's going to be favorable to you or the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The outcome I want is simply - probation and desysopping. All of them who are admins have abused their authority and used the position in order to further intimidation. A probation would be to keep them from backing each other up in such a manner with 24 hour blocks if they continue to do so. They have abused consensus, pushed things that were directly against policy, and caused many problems with their actions. If you think that allowing that group to continue to operate in the manner they do is favorable to the encyclopedia, then you haven't looked at what they have been doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, "go it alone"? Where did you get that idea? I constantly work with dozens of editors when I write my pages, and I was not the only one attacked. At the Persian Empire page, they first pulled their games in edit warring against Wizardman even though he told them what they were doing lacked consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

By "go it alone" I was referring to your Arbcom request. I reiterate my suggestion that you try to resolve the disputes by bringing in a broader sample of opinion and using dispute resolution means that are content focused rather than enforcement and behavior focused. You seem adamant about pursuing an arbcom hearing, but their decision is likely to be adverse to your editing interests as much as anyone elses. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So, you want me to get a bunch of people to meat puppet for me at my ArbCom request when I am putting it up solely because others do the same to me? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, have I said or suggested that anywhere? My suggestion is to withdraw the Arbcom request because it escalates the dispute and is unlikely to bring about a helpful outcome. You've brought attention to the disputes and the issues of concern. Now try to work through them calmly and respectfully. Escalating confrontations, as you now seem to be trying to do with me, isn't always helpful and can become self-defeating. If you insist on following through at Arbcom that's up to you. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just offering my opinion and some suggestions.

I understand you're frustrated and I've tried to note that I respect where you're coming from and that I think you have some legitimate concerns. My issue is with your approach to get the situation improved. Arbcom and enforcement noticeboards result in long drawn out drama fests, when I think your best interest is in getting assistance resolving the content disputes so you can get back to article editing. I understand that cabals of editors and/or admins can be problematic, but a large scale confrontation with several editors is also problematic. They have a right to be here and to edit also. So the solution is to get all of you to deescalate and to work through the disagreements appropriately without personal attacks or incivility so we can all focus on collegial collaboration and improving the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, please read my statement at Arbcom. Since before last January, a group of editors have been joining together and causing problems. They have used their group to intimidate and bully others in order to push views that directly contradict our policies. It has come to ANI and other places many, many times. I have also had many direct communications with Arbitrators over the matter since the beginning of September because of their edit warring on Persian Empire and other problems. I have been told by over 25 people through email, messenger, IRC, and the rest that ArbCom is necessary and that I should do so. I was only holding back because I wanted to finish the WikiCup and real life matters. However, they continue to cause disruptions so it needs to end via ArbCom. You don't seem to understand the issue if you can think it is capable of "deescalating". A group of 8 people do not simply back down. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good luck Ottava. I appreciate your taking the time to discuss the issue with me. I don't like your odds. But I'll be folowing the matter with interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There was massive edit warring and a major page is gone because of it, so, there is a lot of content damage they are responsible for and ArbCom has known about it for a while. I am sure the bravado of a few people will be ignored and the actual case will be focused on. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think that page should be deleted I suggest posting a neutrally worded request for outside opinions on the content noticeboard. I don't see how Arbcom can desysop of ban those editors over it. Their close collaboration may be problematic, but I don't see particular behaviors that are punishable. And as far as addressing the disruption related to the disputes, you're likely to bear the brunt of any enforcement actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM - there were two consensus gatherings. There was edit warring for multiple weeks. There were long term attacks by them on multiple pages, and that was not the only page they operated in that manner on. The reason why it was noticed is that Persian Empire is a major page where they previously kept most of it to obscure pages. It was also noticed because one of the users, Wizardman, was an arbitrator and not just some new person that could have been bullied out of existence like they did before. However, it deals with many, many pages besides just one. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If there's edit warring the page can be protected while additional opinions are sought. A straw poll or other consensus determining method is implemented. Your approach to editing tends to be confrontational. That sometimes happens when people get frustrated, but several editors have suggested you tone it down. If you aren't willing to do that and escalate to the Arbcom proceeding I think you will be sanctioned. I'm familiar with the problems associated with packs of editors trying to impose their POVs (see top of my talk page) but there's no magic wand that Arbcom can wave to solve the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a straw poll - no consensus to change the page. Followed by edit warring. Followed by protection. Followed by straw poll - no consensus to change the page. Followed by edit warring. Followed by protection. New straw poll shows no consensus to change the page and they edit warred it out again. Child of Midnight, please actually look into things instead of just responding without. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments here I hope it has the right effect. I used WP:3RR here in an attempt to highlight a problem. I don't respond to personal attacks anymore, or posts containing them. The level of incivility that is now considered ok and the non-stop assumptions of bad faith is just mind bending. At least one Admin suggested that if accusations are being made they should be backed up or removed, your approch would be equally welcome if it has the effect your hoping for. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As I thought, and now have come to expect, regardless of what editors are asked, the accusations keep on coming! --Domer48_'fenian' 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Those articles seem to be very contentious. Frustrations are obviously high all around. I agree that the confrontational approach and personal attacks aren't helping. Could you be a little more thorough in addressing the concerns brought up by Jdorney. Some of your responses are so short it's hard to divine exactly what your objection is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right that the articles seem to be very contentious, but that is no reason for incivility. "Frustrations" as an excuse have already been offered to condone some of the personal attacks I've had to put up with and yet I have remained civil. I have not allowed "Frustrations" to get the better of me, because I don't allow myself to get frustrated. Lets be honest, when you get the amount of personal abuse I get, breif is best when it comes to comments. Review some of my recent talk page discussions, thats the great thing about page histories. It's the editors that make the articles contentious, not the other way round. If you just happen to notice any accusations being leveled at me, it would be nice if you could ask for a diff to support it? Here is a diff free discussion i decided not to get involved in, because comments like this are a real put off for me.LOL. Now that I've burned and bended your ear enough, I'll apologise for taking up your time, and will just be on my way. Thanks again for comments again. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Malleus certainly has a way with words. :) I hope your editing experience improves. Getting attacked all the time is no fun. Been there done that. If you have article editing interests that are free from politics that helps. Although I've seen some food fights at culinary articles that have been pretty wild... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no real problems editing, and the personal abuse I get is to my mind based on an inability or as an alternative to presenting logical arguments. Can’t find a source or reference to support your views, start an argument. Throwing out a few accusations usually does the trick to deflect a discussion. All I’d like to see is an editor being challenged to support their claims, and failing to do so, being told to comment on edits and not editors. While you can always try to fight fire with fire, I prefer to use cold water. By not responding to insults, you can remove the fuel they need, but prevention is a much better option. At the end of the day it’s the project that suffers and it just discourages content editors. A well, there is me ear bashing again!!!! --Domer48_'fenian' 12:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to fill up the AfD page with side discussions...

I believe we have a different opinion on what constitutes significant coverage. What you put is more of an indication of notability for Samuel Browning, which redirects to David "Race" Bannon#Bannon's arrest. --kelapstick (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he's notable too. But the section I quoted is about Bulshido.net, it's owner, and the role these subjects played in outing Browning. It gives pretty substantial coverage to that. Combined with the other sources I think it's enough. I notice that this topic has been discussed on the net in relation to Wikipedia and Ashida Kim, which was AfDed numerous times. I'm not up on what all the hubbub is about. I've also indicated that a merge would be okay since there is an appropriate target. But deleting well sourced content about the organizations and its notable accomplishments doesn't seem helpful to me in building an encyclopedia representing the sum of human knowledge. Don't make us ignorant of these subjects K! We want to know stuff!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any more mention of the site than a sentence (if there is more behind that paywall, than all the better). If there is more, than it should have been provided and worked into the article (sometimes offline sources are difficult to work with). I would likely support a merge, but as it sits now the only thing that I can gather from the sources provided is that bullshido.net is a website, and is used for outing fraudulent martial artists.--kelapstick (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And who the owner is and where he's from. And that it's played substantial role in outing a notable figure. And whatever other content is in the various sources, for example how popular it is, when it was established, etc. etc. :) What's on tap for the weekend? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If all he/website did was out a notable figure, than he isn't notable by WP:BLP1E. I would support an article about Browning before the site, probably would anyway as I think he has the coverage. You know, I was once in the Thompson Citizen for participating in Operation Red Nose, they even put in a picture. Does that mean that I pass the GNG? Working Sunday, not sure what I am doing tomorrow...we shall see.--kelapstick (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So you worked for an escort service? How interesting. But no, you're still not notable. And remember, it takes more than one event! It's best if you are cited in numerous sources over several years the way Bullshido.net has been. And even then we may merge you if you aren't independently notable enough for more than a mention in the Canadian troublemakers in the United States article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net has been mentioned. Not given in depth coverage, or do you mean that they were the source of information for the newspaper, in which case is bullshido.net a reliable source? Maybe I should be getting my sources from them as they are completely qualified to provide reliable information to a reliable source, maybe we should use the bullshido.net website to establish notability, despite it's not being independent. My head is starting to hurt. If I wanted to I could get mentioned in the local paper here, I had the offer to be a judge at the rodeo parade, I would have for sure made the Mason Valley News, that would be multiple international sources for multiple events. Then I would pass the GNG, there could be no dispute, why didn't I take that offer, I went to Vegas instead.--kelapstick (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashida Kim and Bullshido.net

It's even prettier in reality.

Since you are interested about the connection between Ashida Kim and Bullshido.net, I have outlined why there were multiple AfDs about this article. This defaming BLP was kept after multiple AfD debates because a group of editors believed that he was notable, even though there lacked significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (For most context, see Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s comment at a DRV). In the first AfD of this article, Ashida Kim himself nominated his own article for deletion. Reading his nomination will reveal the connection between him and Bullshido.net and how the Wikipedia article about him was a blatant defamation. See this archived link of the "Ashida Kim" article in 2005, which is a major BLP violation.

DGG (talk · contribs)'s comment at the final AfD, which resulted in a delete, is an objective summary of why Ashida Kim was ultimately deleted. DGG wrote, Looking at current and previous versions of the article, and at the sources, and the discussions, this is clearly a negative BLP with inadequate sourcing. I cannot imagine that if it had come to us fresh in this state now for the first time, that it would not be quickly deleted without much argument. I am generally very reluctant to give much weight to the subject's views with respect to notability, but in this case he is complaining not just of notability but fairness, and he seems to be correct. I am , frankly, amazed at what was said during some of the earllier afds, particularly the 1st one in 2005. Delete, and courtesy blank this and all previous AfD discussions.

I oppose a merge to Bullshido because both Bullshido.net and Bullshido lack significant coverage in reliable sources. Both are composed of original research, and both do not belong here. I plan to AfD Bullshido at the end of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination).

This article also cannot be merged to Samuel Browning, since Browning does not have enough coverage to pass WP:BIO. The only sources about him are the sources that are about how he exposed David "Race" Bannon; not sufficient to establish notability per WP:BLP1E. Furthermore, according to Slideyfoot (talk · contribs), Samuel Browning is not the owner of Bullshido.net: "[t]he site is actually run by Neal Fletcher, not Browning". Therefore, even if Samuel Browning were notable, this website cannot be merged since it is only tangentially related to Browning. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. I'm still not clear on why there is such a strong push to delete the article on the website. There isn't an enormous amount of coverage, but there is some substantial coverage in reliable independent sources (and I don't think it's fair to describe it as "mentions"), and the site and its owner were involved in a notable outing. It's also been cited in other sources apart from that incident. So I'm just not getting why it's important to delete this article on this website that has received some coverage? I recognize that it is in a gray area, all joking aside, as far as whether it meets guidelines or not, but my preference is to lean toward preservation unless there is some compelling interest (advertising, difficult to maintain, BLP issues) to delete something. I also like to crush Drmies and Kelapstick by winning disputes with them when our views differ. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, the owner is not Browning, the person who exposed David "Race" Bannon and is the person covered in the sources that you are referring to. Browning is only a member, while Neal Fletcher is the owner.

Why should this article get deleted? It lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The article is filled with original research and fails Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability. There are no merge targets because a) Bullshido is a non-notable topic that has the same OR problems as this one. b) Samuel Browning fails WP:BIO and meets WP:BLP1E. c) David "Race" Bannon – The article about Banning should be about himself; it should not discuss a website that is only tangential to his life.

I strongly disagree that the sources provide "substantial coverage". Substantial coverage means that the topic is discussed throughout an entire source or at least a substantial portion of the source. A trivial mention that provides a little background about a different topic does not constitute significant coverage.

Crushing Drmies and Kelapstick? No, I think their superior arguments are karate chopping yours to shreds. ;) But of course I'm not an unbiased judge of all this. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

CoM, I hate to disagree with you on your own talkpage, so let us pretend that I don't agree with Cunard. Anyway, since I am currently overlooking the Gulf of Mexico, where the water is clear and blue, the beer is cold, and Bama is beating Arkansas, I feel extraordinarily generous towards you and others who wish to crush me. After all your weak arguments are blown away like so much sand in the wind, after what you think of as strong argumentative foundations are revealed to be nothing more than whirling eddies in a strong current, I will not gloat and I will not laugh, but, in the spirit of friendship, I will offer you a spot in the hot tub, and share a beer with you and some blackened fish. My regards from the coast, Drmies (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Some issues

Remain on the Sustainability discussion page and article. Your discussion voice is requested. skip sievert (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There are too many other article to work on than to bother with the incivility and nastiness on that one. Sorry. The article certainly needs lots of work. But if several editors like it the way it is, then so be it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose most special interest groups like it when people say that. skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:-5-

A fantastic user who has left Wikipedia...--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No note on why he or she left I noticed. Easy come easy go? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See here. ^Bongo_matic 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Bongo. I've thought about clearing my watchlist for that sort of reason. Time to move on to new territory? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're a sui generis content creator and windmill-tilter. I'm a creature of habit. When I want less, I just spend less time doing the same old thing. ^Bongo_matic 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

a dress

I saw this and thought you might be interested --Snowded ^TALK 10:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I prefer the bacon bra. But I still think it goes best with eggs or on a sandwich with avocado. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Law fought the . . .

and the . . . won. ^Bongo_matic 05:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

<blink> I suppose the law (as opposed to just Law), won....--kelapstick (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading between the lines it looks like Law disclosed who we was to people more or less knowing it would come out. I'm not sure why. I think pushing people to the shadows and then acting shocked when it comes out that they have a history is a bit of a joke. Participating in RfAs I would say most or at least many of them have undisclosed histories.

When a frequent editor disappears, do we assume they've left for good or that they are editing under a new account? In recent discussions very experienced and powerful editors have suggested that reemerging under a new identity is basically assumed and accepted. I've long suggested that encouraging transparency and accountability would be better, but that's not the way people want to set things up. Oh well. Interesting.

I like Law. I like Pastor Theo/ Ecoleetage too. I don't agree with all of their actions any more than I agree with anyone else all the time. But they certainly did good work to benefit Wikipedia. Shouldn't that be the standard by which editors are judged? They did a much better job then many other admins and editors playing politics and pushing POVs. Anyway, the politics and game playing here is ridiculous. I can't believe how hard it is to just edit articles and contribute content without getting caught up in the POV pushing and MMPORG circus. Frustrating. Oh well. What are you hiding Bongo? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your sentiments for the most part. And I "like" lots of editors who I don't like at all—by which I mean I hope they stick around and continue doing what they're doing on the content side even if they annoy the cr@p out of me in other ways. What am I hiding? Nothing on WP, that's for sure. I ran across an incredibly interesting editor here (who ought to have a WP page about him) who argues that even small amounts of anonymous data with sufficient tagging to correlate it makes us all totally traceable. So probably, nothing anywhere. What about you? ^Bongo_matic 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I try to be pretty straightforward, but with all the game playing and wacky rules it's sometimes tricky. I feel fortunate to have a sense of humor about it all, because this place is nuts and it takes all I've got just to maintain some sanity. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmm

Looks good. ^Bongo_matic 08:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article. I like regional foods like that. Fun. Thanks for the link. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisting

This is notice of relisting at AfD of an article you commented on one year ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeeChat (2nd nomination) Miami33139 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking of AfDs, I think you should weigh in on this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pork client. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tit for tat

Hi, CoM. Just ignore the frivolous provocation. --Caspian blue 01:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Caspian blue, long time no see. How have you been? I don't see our mutual friend around much either. A loss if he's not around, but maybe he is editing under a different identity? That seems to be quite common, especially among admins. :)

Sorry for not being more helpful on the city article. I'm not great with all the demands and specificities of meeting Wikipedia's grading process. I'm more concerned with having interesting, balanced and well written articles. :)

Speaking of which, all these dramas have really cut down on my contributions. You suggest I ignore them, but experience dictates that the mud slinging sticks and the lies take a toll. Just look at Sandstein's abusive behavior which he still hasn't apologized for. He's also made no effort to correct the many inaccuracies and falsehoods he states. So maybe it's worth fighting some of these battles?

Admittedly, I'm not the best at engaging in them since I treat them as the ridiculous nonsense they are (I'm holding fast to the naive assumption that we're here to collaborate on encyclopedia building), but no one's perfect! We are all quite set in our ways. Old dog, new tricks and such. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm good. Don't worry about the city article. Many have helped and copy-edited. 2) The "mutual friend" would not consider me his friend, but his absence is really a loss of Wikipedia. He sometimes edited as an IP user, but per his character, he may feel betrayed by the community. That is really regretful. He may need more time going back to the pace that he used to do. 3) Admins' socking seems to be a current trend, but well..some of "former" admins may need to still lash out against the rightful decisions. It is funny they blame ArbCom for their wrongdoings and think of themselves as ArbCom's martyrs...That's why I suggest you to just ignore the all silliness-Caspian blue 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I used to refer to another editor as being Yoda-like, but you're making a good case for your own Jedi designation! :) Thanks for the encouragement and sage advice. I appreciate it. As I'm hard headed, it may not have much effect. We'll see. :)

Wikipedia is set up to encourage deception. I just had a very long argument on ANI advocating for an approach that encourages leniency in allowing reform and promoting forgiveness for mistakes instead of expecting people to establish new accounts and looking the other way as long as no issues re-emerge (in other words as long as the deception is effective and people are good at keeping secrets). But if other people have a preference for shadows and puppets, so be it.

My understanding is that Law basically chose to out himself (gradually) by telling more and more people about his past account. Now he is being punished and criticized for doing so. That's the way things go here. If he had stayed quiet he would have been fine. But no good deed goes unpunished. And I don't buy the arguments that he should have been straightforward all along. Not if he wanted to be an Admin. Or didn't want to be hounded for whatever mistakes he may have made in the past.

Honesty is the best policy on Wikipedia as long as you don't mind being blocked, harassed, harangued, and don't have any ambition to be an admin. Indeed honesty is the best policy for any editor who is willing to be dumped on by the abusive powers that be. Wikipedia is organized to imitate Orwellian insanity at every possible opportunity. So be it. At least there's still the occasional opportunity to help write an article. :)

On a lighter note, I was very pleased to see kind editors pitch in and help out on that article in response to your request. I felt bad, but it would have been worse if they didn't alleviate my guilt by doing the work that was needed for me. :)ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think I have a different view on all fiasco regarding User:The undertow/User:Law from yours. I'm strongly criticizing Law's lying and his admin friends' immoral behaviors. They should be desysoped accordingly. However, the above reference about "former admins" that I mentioned are more related to the other who has tried to "get you". You can see what I'm talking about how one of the "former admins" is trying to make a conspiracy. I think you should know about User_talk:Jehochman#CoM--Caspian blue 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly respect your integrity. I also note that your chances of passing an RfA are close to zero. :) In the RfAs I've participated in candidates are rarely asked about their prior account history (if any) and aren't expected to disclose it. So if we're going to make that a policy, fine. But since we push editors to start over with clean slates and then punish them if they are honest about past accounts, it seems self-defeating.

Also, by refusing to engage in leniency or working to encourage reformI think it's ridiculous expect editors who want to contribute constructively to out themselves when they're only going to be punished for it. I would much rather see those abusing their privledges and socking or colluding in cabals get rousted.

In Law's case he chose to disclose to an ever widening circle of editors about his account history, and now he's being punished for it. Maybe he should be applauded for doing so instead of being castigated, or we should at least use the opportunity to fix a system that's broken. I think it's messed up to encourage deception and then get outraged over it. Speaking of which, if you set up a new account I won't tell anyone who you are. I suggest the name "user:SantaHelper" or "user:Baconbit". ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

He is punished for what he did because he has not been punished by evading his ban. As for RFA, I have no interest in such bureaucratic things to "listen to" complaints/whining/nagging/pleas from various people. :-) I do not agree that there is no way for the banned user to avoid past haunting. If you're more interested in me, you will see how I've suffered from all craps and harassment from sockpuppeters. I think Wikipedia should not allow all sockpuppetry, and need so verification for editors to stick one account. Too many times have been wasted for removing vandalism and malicious sockpuppetry by same vandals. Law could've chosen other ways, like working on other Wikipedia project until his ban is expired or requested for unban. After his first unban request is rejected, he soon created the "law" account. There is a big difference between a friend not talking about his buddy's socking, and a friend trying to promote his banned buddy to be an admin. Since the promise is false, I have to disagree with you.---Caspian blue 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with editors starting fresh as long as their work is focused on abiding by our policies and improving the encyclopedia. I too prefer transparency, but the powers that be have chosen to discourage honesty, so there's not much choice for those who want to edit in good faith but have a problematic track record. Work on other Wikias? Sure. Are they interesting? Maybe I'll check them out if the campaigning against me is successful. ;) Don't forget me! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM

I don't have difs, but I was under the impression that you had some off-wiki interactions. I could be wrong. After a while all the users start to meld together in ones head. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to correct that. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I'll be really happy to correct that since that means that the situation isn't as bad as I thought. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Corrected and clarified. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Smear"

Emails in which he takes a distinctly friendly tone with me because he thinks I'm you, refers to me as "buddy" and (when eventually realising I'm not you) admits he only told me he (Law) was the undertow because he thought I was. These aren't really admissible on-wiki. To play devil's advocate that only shows his appreciation of you, not a mutual friendship, so I'll refactor to take that into account. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My point about the unblock was not critical of you, it was pointing out that Law's actions would have been judged differently if we were aware that he was biased in such a situation. It did not infer or imply, in any way, that you knew Law was the_undertow. I responded to your initial request politely and immediately amended my AN/I statement, so there's absolutely no reason to resort to threats. Ironholds (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the refactoring, but I will assume good faith that it clarifies that there was no indiscretion on my part and that (at least as far as I know) there was no interaction between myself and The Undertow (an account I was entirely unfamiliar until very recently). If my comments seemed assertive, it's because the smear that I had some history with The Undertow is going around (and I think it started with your post?) and is being used to besmirch me in various venues.

My work here is very open, and in fact I didn't even use e-mail for months so as to keep everything transparent and on wiki. I don't use IRC, don't post on Wikipedia review, don't e-mail admins with requests or engage in any of the other improprieties that seem to be so common here.

I was certainly friendly with Law as I'm friendly with lots of editors and admins, especially those who are decent and competent. I'm an active editor so I'm on good terms with lots of admins and editors. Law and I agreed on some issues and disagreed on others, as is normal. I don't want to be involved in any of the score settling or disputes except in so far as continuing to be outspoken for the refocusing of our efforts on improving article content by pushing for more transparency and reform so that POV pushing, abuse of noticeboards to win content disputes, and cabalism are addressed. I would also like to see the drahmaz kept to a minimum. These stressful and frustrating distractions are a great big suck. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto on the dramah front; see my posts on User:Daniel's talkpage. My apologies if my (poorly phrased) assertion is being used elsewhere to smear you. If you ping me the locations and users involved I'd be happy to leave a message along the lines of "if you got this idea from my post, please be aware that I was in no way implying any kind of poor judgement or impropriety on behalf of Child of Midnight and was simply referring to the rather 'friendly' attitude Law showed to Child of Midnight in his dealings with me". Would that help? I appreciate it's in some respects a firebreak, and I'm sorry if I've caused you any problems as a result of my actions. I'm also currently having some lovely theories about my motives put around, so I do sympathise. Ironholds (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

.

ANI

In regards to your question at ANI, I have answered it there to the best of my ability. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a funny idea to me that editors and admins can't be friendly with each other. I try to be friendly with everyone who abides by policy and works to improve the encyclopedia. Sandstein and I have had repeated problems because he refuses to collaborate collegially and respectfully with his fellow editors. And even now he's continued to go after those he disagrees with in a score settling campaign that shows he hasn't learned a thing.

So compare those actions with Law's sensible corrective action to correct Sandstein's improper block. And note that Sandstein had no problem taking action against an editor with whom he had numerous prior disagreements. Sandstein imposed a policy violating block, maintained false smears and lies which he still hasn't backed down from, and refuses to resolve the disputes appropriately in a way that minimized drama and encourages productive work on the encyclopedia. And even after his abusive block against me, he went and pulled the same kind of stunt with Giano, wasting an enormous amount of time and occupying oodles of editors who could otherwise be contributing to the encyclopedia. And then Sandstein followed that up with more disruptive and time wasting proceedings, instead of just acknowledging his mistakes and working to do better in the future. Is doubling down on stupidity the best way to proceed?

This is in stark contrast to Law, who is a great editor and was a top notch admin who wasn't afraid to stick his neck out when there was abuse and showed restraint when it was called for. Law is basically being punished for moving to disclose his history to an ever widening circle of editors. The Orwellian policies here encouraged his behavior and only punished him now for disclosing to others who he was. That's how Wiki works. Tell the truth get punished. Look at Lara and Casliber, same thing. But the liars, cheats, and incompetents continue to wander around causing disruptions and aiding POV pushers in their damaging campaigns. It's all pretty disgusting. But I try to keep the faith and hope for the best going forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You're dancing on thin ice..

Look. CoM.. I'm one of the few people who bent over backwards to AGF during the whole thing with Sandstein, but I will be blunt. The well of good faith has run dry. You continue to treat Wikipedia as a battleground, go after WMC, disrupt various areas of Wikipedia, insult other editors willy-nilly ("usual stalking and harassing POV pushers" ring a bell?), and you will be blocked again, and probably well on your way to a community ban. You were lucky that ArbCom did not reinstate the block of one week before all this drama interfered. So, I'm giving you as blunt a warning as possible. You are heading down a very steep, very slippery slope. SirFozzie (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I think people tend to "skate on thin ice" rather than "dance" on it. This is because ice (of whatever thickness) is a traditional venue for skating (ice skating in particular—I am unaware of rollerskating being a popular activity on ice), not for dancing. ^Bongo_matic 23:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually ice dancing is quite popular in some circles. If the ice is thin it is likely to be even more risky than just skating, so I think the analogy works. Speaking of sports, are you an American football fan Bongo? NFL Europe is no more. Kyle Vanden Bosch seem like a Dutch namem, althoug his team is 0-3. They should've stuck with superstar Vince Young. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First: ice dancing is ice skating. Second, not really into American football—I tend to root for the Libyan synchronized swimming team when following sports. ^Bongo_matic 00:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM, as much as I appreciate your work here, and as much as I understand the frustration that comes with work in contentious areas, SirFozzie is right. It is never going to help the "collaboration" end of anything by referring to other editors as "liars, cheats, and incompetents". Please learn to leave the grudges at the end of the threads. Please. The content is what we need to concentrate on, not the who. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll make you both a deal. You guys put a stop to those abusing noticeboard to try and smear me and I will cease responding and defending myself against these malicious attacks. In the meantime am I supposed to stay quiet while people spread lies about me? And Sandstein's going after editors he's in dispute with is unacceptable. Period. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't make your decisions for you, but I will suggest this: Just because someone else is digging themselves a hole, doesn't mean you have to follow suit. When you post - the reflection is on you - much more so than it is on them. When they post - the reflection is on them. Remember - when you point a finger at someone - you've got three other fingers pointing back at you. It's just a thought, and I'm only saying it because I'd like to see you continue your work here. If you can keep your cool when all about you are losing their's, you'll stand much taller at the end of the day. ;) — Ched :  ?  21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

These are noble statements Ched, but the fact is that my experience proves that the smears and abuse of noticeboards works. If a lie is repeated enough times, people start to believe it's true. No good deed goes unpunished on Wikipedia. Just look at the treatment I've received despite making every effort to abide by misguided restrictions based on a bad block. The smearing and attacks continue as before and the abusive admin actions have only intensified. So what good does it do to just turn the other cheek in the face of ongoing abuse? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certain that CoM should've toned down and presented powerful "diffs" instead of making allegations because people never know without evidence. However, SirFozzie got the wrong idea. CoM is not going after WMC, but WMC going after CoM instead.[17][18][19][20][21] If he had gone after WMC, there were many chance for him to contribute to WMC's ARbCom case. It seems to be a trend that people are busy exploiting the Law's sockpuppetry and all the fiasco. The initial block by Sandstein for one month is out of line and should not be repeated. That is no excuse for the admin who has been working in AE for a long time. I'm wondering the former admin's "going after" and incivility are not treated on the same ground.-Caspian blue 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Look, it's not within my abilities to resolve the animosity between 2 editors - I've tried a couple times, it just doesn't work. They have to work things out between themselves. As Caspian mentions - 1 diff is worth 1,000 "you're lying, I did not, but you did this" posts. If you want to find what pages editors have edited in common, then you can use this tool. If someone is stalking you, bad mouthing you without cause - then create a text file, copy the diffs, and when you have a solid case to present - then is the time to speak your mind: BUT, do so calmly, rationally, objectively, and without emotion. The person that SCREAMS he said, she said, he's lying, she's making it up is not going to get the attention that a person who says: "Will you please look at [diff 1], [diff 2], [diff 3] and assist me in resolving this problem" will get. — Ched :  ?  22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice

To have more creative overview on the Sustainability article as you claimed you might do originally. Example of people reverting the article with reasons such as this amongst other things. Good faith and civil editors are in demand currently for positive editing on the article. skip sievert (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Skip, there is a level of nastiness and incivility on the sustainability article's talk page that doesn't make it inviting. I brought the article to a couple of administrators' attention and discussed it a bit as an area of problematic behavior. I dipped my toe in the water on the talk page by suggesting a more collegial approach and tweaked the article. But it's just not a subject I'm interested in enough to be willing to endure frothy smears and personal attacks. I get enough of that as it is. I'm sorry if my decision is disappointing, but I can't undertake every battle on Wikipedia. There are lots and lots of bad articles and nasty editors. Most of the admins seem more interested in punishing editors for calling each other names than helping to resolve editing disputes, so it is what it is. That article is heavily fortified by editors who have made clear their unwillingness to collaborate. So I suggest just moving on to another subject where your effort will be useful and well received. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your probably right. skip sievert (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Gelato Fiasco AFDs

I've closed the second AFD on this article which you commented in and left the first one open. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it Ron. I haven't seen you name among those commenting on the latest dramahz. That seems to indicate you are here to improve the encyclopedia and have self-control. Kudos. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Undertow (wave action)

A tag has been placed on Undertow (wave action) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. My weekend has been busy with essay writing, but I also found the time to write a number of articles as well. Finally, all the post-invasion American Governors of Guam have articles! The Missing articles project has led me down interesting paths. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

lawl. If I have to explain why that's funny... ah, just don't even ask. XD Lara 05:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, and it's even illustrated now. Lara 05:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Now on to the Governors of American Samoa! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Great news

Hi CoM. Is this really true? I can create an alternate account to edit contentious areas where nasty POV pushing editors engage in harassment and stalking. That does look like what is being said there. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no I don't think it's true. But apparently it's allowed or tolerated for some editors? I have no idea. It seems over the top ridiculous to me that an admin made that statement about their socking, and that an arbitrator commented in the same discussion without contesting it. But what do I know? Needless to say, if I created an "alternate account" I think we all know what the outcome would be. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tolerated for some but not all......WTF? I hate crap like that. It makes no sense to allow some but not all. Should be blanketed across the board. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a blanket involved, but I think it's more of a Dutch oven type effort. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If another user is doing it and that is ok then I am going to do it, Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As Newyorkbrad has commented in the discussion he should be asked if the situation that has been declared is ok, and then if it is ok for one user then it is ok for all. Something is dodgy here, first Chillum downs tools and then when challenged about his second account he gets all protective, and goes on a wikibreak, what is there to hide?Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

All joking aside, Newyorkbrad seems to be a nice chap. You can ask him under what circumstances (if any) it is appropriate to set up an alternate account so you can edit contentious articles without getting smeared on your main identity here. I suspect you'll still be putting him on the spot about a fairly contentious issue, but he is an arbitrator, so he should be able to handle it. Just don't go in guns blazing (like I do). There may be a very good reason why there is one set of rules for those in positions of authority and another for the rest of us peons. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There can be no good reason for allowing some editors to have undisclosed sock accounts but not others. Plenty of bad reasons though. My opinion of Chillum wasn't very high before this revelation, and so I'd encourage Off2riorob not to emulate him. Get "official" clearance from someone like Newyorkbrad before you do anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have left brad a note requesting clarification regarding this matter. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Kudos

Thanks for starting the survey and your continued help.--Tznkai (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Once I'm done shaping admins in my own image to my liking all of our problems will be solved. :) Thanks for your nice note and for fixing up the survey. I'm sure all the numerical results and the resulting charts and graphs will be pleasing to the nerds. :P Seriously, thanks for the nice note and keep up the good work! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR

Did I tell you? Anyway are these last two edits [22] by the IP vandalism, they look like it to me, I am on 1r already and unsure if I could revert as vandalism, what do you think? If you think they are vandalism you could revert them while you were there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell. I don't know which name is right or if there is a controversy over it. But it looks like another editor has already reverted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, I have opened a debate with him about it, it was a false name, and likely the name of the ip or a person the ip knows, it is so annoying not to be able to revert it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

1RR doesn't apply to vandalism. You can always use an edit summary of "vandalism?" which is cautious but indicates that you think it is vandalism. Sometimes something I thougth was vanadlism was legit or at least done in good faith. But definitely don't revert again if it gets put back in. You can leave a note on the talk page with diff instead and let others deal with it.ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. I am working with this and seeing the advantages of it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. :) I will watch to see what other have to say. Maybe someone will come up with a reason I can vote keep? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Signature page

I am glad to see that you are back to contributing to the important sections of Wikipedia again.--kelapstick (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about the naked people. Maybe I will just have to find party goers? Figuring out the colors has been a nightmare! This is hard work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And your dancing monster is out of whack, what happened to him?--kelapstick (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I used to have a free app (computer crashed, and I haven't gotten it back yet) that would tell you the whatever colour your mouse was over, in the three main formats. If I find it I will let you know.--kelapstick (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Found it, luckily I keep all my MSN logs. It's here, really handy, gives you HEX, HTML (and by HTML I mean "How To Meet Ladies"), RGB, CMYK, and HSV.--kelapstick (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think some dream crusher deleted my dancing creature :( The orb I found isn't nearly as cool. Very frustrating. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there was a copyright violation, and J. D. beleted it. The penis shaped engine is pretty cool though. --kelapstick (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I found that on WP:ANI. I don't know what it is, but I think it is very encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Billy Bush

Thanks so much for restoring the text! Unfortunately, the same user tried to remove everything again, but I undid her change and hopefully I'll have time to add the refs before she removes everything again! Wish me luck!! :-) Shymian (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Whew! I think I was able to add refs before she removed the text again :-) But I hate how I had to ref practically every sentence in there :-( Can you advise on how this can be done neater, or do you think that's sufficient at least for now? Thanks again! Shymian (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

New content that is added is generally expected to be sourced. As far as what's already there, if an editor disputes something that is unsourced, then a citation is usually required. But there are many great articles with no citations (and apparently lots of articles were written here before they were required). There are also many crappy articles with no citations. And there are many great articles with lots of citations, and there are many crappy articles with lots of citations.

Everything is done by "consensus", and consensus is dynamic and amorphous, so answers are sometimes hard to get a hold of... But generally the majority rules, unless it's acting against guidelines and policies in which case broader input can be solicited on various noticeboards in which case the rules and sanity sometimes prevail. Does that help? :)

Thanks for adding those citations. I didn't look closely at the sources, but if they are reliable that should be fine. I'm not sure what the problem was in the first place. But the standard these days is pretty much for every line to be cited. So if editors want to be difficult and dispute stuff that has every indication of being factual and having been added in good faith, that's their privilege. It doesn't seem very collegial or collaborative, but the standards for civility here don't put a lot of emphasis on cooperation. :) Let me know if I can be of any help in future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, clear as a muddy brook now :-) I would have thought, though, that even when refs are wanted for every sentence, that the reviewer would at least note that they're needed instead of removing practically everything! Or is it just this particular user? I think a lot of her "contribs" seem to result in the LOSS of (substantial amounts of) text rather than adding to it :-( Too bad there isn't a wiki guideline for them... or is there one that she's just choosing not to follow?

Also, I just realized that although I'd added this via the "new section" button, it seems to have put this under "Goya Vey" section? Oh well, at least this wasn't the only one that went into there :-)

And oh yeah... did you intentionally spell incompetent as "incompent" at the top? ;-D

Cheers, and I'm sure I'll talk to you again soon! Shymian (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to copy-edit my writing, but don't do it to other editors because some of them freak out if their mistakes get corrected. I often find myself inventing new words. I happen to think good writing and effective communication has a place on a Wiki encyclopedia and that making corrections is collegial, especially when someone is going to make a comment anyway. But what do I know? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I know enough to bite my fingers when it comes to mentioning typos on people's pages :-) Under normal circumstances I wouldn't even have mentioned the one at the top, either, but I figured that with the wiki-soap opera that seems to be going on around here, your statement might have a little more umph to it without the typo :-) Shymian (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I like to see stuff fixed. I thought that was why we were here, but many other editors seem to have different ideas about our program. ;) Having worked on Billy Bush, the Mojave cross article, and Georgia Right to Life today, I think I must now be on a list. But I saw the cross story on CNN and it seemed interesting, and the other two articles popped up on the new article page and noticeboards I was reading. Oh well. Maybe I really am part of a right wing cabal? Why aren't the other members more helpful??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, I still have no idea how you came across Billy Bush, but I'm very glad you did! What "list", and what "new article" page? I get so lost on the noticeboards... I'm terrified of posting anything on there!! Shymian (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't a noticeboard I don't think. I had thought I saw Billy Bush mentioned on Jennevecia's talk page with a request for help, but when I looked back it was gone. I couldn't figure out where I saw it. So it is a great mystery. :) But I decided to lend a hand anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Could it have been Elonka's page? Because I did asked her about it, but she had said something about staying "uninvolved" which hadn't made much sense to me at the time. I thought maybe you had found it on some auto-generated list due to the tags or removal/addition of large amounts of text :-)

Hmmm, which reminds me, can you help me with one more thing? How do I go about changing the direction of a re-direct? Julie Berman usually goes by Julie Marie Berman so I thought the latter should be the "primary" page, and Elonka had suggested that I ask for comments first on the talk page (there were none) before I do anything. However, now I'm not sure what to do because it seemed like the wiki pages that she has pointed me to, wanted me to post on a board somewhere for "help/request" and like I said above, I'm rather terrified of doing that :-( It looks like a "move" is something I'm allowed to do, but can I "move" 2 pages at once?? Shymian (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As both names lead readers to the same article I don't see much need for a change. But if you insist on making trouble you can try Wikipedia:Requested moves or you can ask at user talk:Ched Davis. You should be terrified. Wikipedia is full of curt know-it-alls and noob biters. If a move is going to be contentious it's probably a good idea to discuss it first. You can also be bold and blank the redirect page while putting a {{db-empty}} on it with an edit summary noting that you're going to do a move over a redirect. There's probably an actual template for that kind of deletion request, but it's best to keep things simple. :) Once a page is deleted you can move another page to its title (but you can't move a page over an existing page even if it's just a redirect to the same page unless you have superduper admin powers). You can move pages around otherwise as long as the new title hasn't been created as an article or redirect page. Just brace yourself for complaints, warnings, and tongue lashings from those objecting to whatever you didn't do quite right. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. Ok, I'm gonna have to think about that one... I don't think I'm prepared to do any of that correctly at 2am local time while watching TV :-) Maybe when I've had some sleep and get a little braver! Heh. Shymian (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Buck buck buck buck buck... ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How did you know I had chicken for dinner tonight?  ;-) Shymian (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm off. Good luck chicken little. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Me too! Don't let the sky hit you tomorrow! Shymian (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker butting in.) Sometimes you can just be bold. I moved it and the sky won't fall. If someone objects or moves it back, just discuss it. Jonathunder (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks!! That was a nice surprise!! I was definitely not looking forward to attempting something that I'm sure would have ended rather badly :-( Shymian (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

:)

Be more careful

In the future when you are tweaking your comments [23] try not to delete other people's comments.--Crossmr (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'll try. I don't seem to get a notice sometimes, so I'm usually unaware when that happens. Thanks for the courteous note and especially for fixing the mistake AND restoring my comment. I appreciate it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Bonar Law

No, feel free to comment. The article certainly isn't finished, but I wanted to get it "out there" as it were. Ironholds (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Racism Against Pretzel Articles

• Sad to see this redlink in my watchlist today! George W. Bush pretzel choking incident Is there an easy way to republish a deleted article on a blog (preserving the references mostly, I guess is the main problem) to preserve it for googling? Not sure if the "rules" allow this?--Milowent (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem I see is not that it would be against the rules, but that it would be copyright infringement. You could ask to get the page userfied, but if you post it on another website, then you would need to include an acknowledgement of its licensing, and a list of every editor who contributed to the page. If you did this, then there should be no problem, as many pages are put all over the web. If you hurry, the text is still here, but you still need a list of authors. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yummy!

Check out my addition to Suckling pig. Will you help me beef (haha) this article up to FA-status? Drmies (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unable to add this to thread on ANI in response to Protonk

If you were able to note that appropriate dispute resolution was tried first in a collegial and collaborative manner, appropriate warnings were given, and that Vintagekits was unresponsive or refused to self-revert, then you would be in a better position to justify a one week block for a 3RR violation. (post ec) I trust Tarc's trolling will be met with an appropriate response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Abusive block from John Carter

Objecting to an admin stalking a good faith editor is not disruption. Please rescind this abusive block and apologize. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for harrassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

John Carter (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of my harassment. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You were warned at ANI that continuing your harrasment of Sarek could lead to a block, and you received it. The block could have just as easily been over disruptive editing or tendentious editing, but, in any event, despite your apparent belief to the contrary, you do not have the right to contiue to hound an admin over what you believe to be misconduct when virtually everybody else, including admins, clearly disagreed with you. There is also the violation of civility with the all-caps content, etc. The list could actually go on. You may have an opinion on this matter, and that's fine. What is not fine was your ongoing badgering of Sarek, and, should it continue after the block expires, I would expect the next block to be much longer. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your block is contrary to the wp:hound and wp:harassment pages which you apparently haven't read. So it's not surprising that you are unwilling (being unable) to provide any diffs.

There is no excuse for Sarek's pursuit of Otter to an unrelated discussion thread (where he opposes Otter's viewpoints) after Otter was told to drop his accusations in an ANI thread where he complained that Sarek was stalking and hounding him. Obviously Otter was absolutely right. It was entirely appropriate that he and I reported the continuation of Sarek's problematic behavior in the ANI thread as they continued AFTER the discussion was treated as resolved (with the usual admin backslapping). This new issue disproved the assumptions and judgments made by those who weighed in during the discussion because it showed that Otter was, absolutely, in the right that he was in fact being hounded by Sarek.

Furthermore, that you blocked me after I had noted that I considered the matter resolved, assuming Sarek disengaged from his hounding and harassment of Otter, is particularly troublesome because there could be no expectation of any ongoing problem unless Sarek's abusive behavior and violation of the trust, vested in him as an admin, continued. (Unfortunately, Otter had already been blocked for pointing out Sarek's pursuit and taunting behavior AFTER he had already gotten his way at ANI thanks to his admin buddies). That you support condone and encourage that kind of behavior is disgusting.

You should be ashamed of yourself and reflect carefully on your judgment and moral compass. Contrary to your inability to provide diffs to back up your false accusations against me, I would certainly be able to provide them for all of my statements. So that illustrates a substantial difference between us as far as honesty, competence and judgment are concerned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

and you have no right to "presume" that someone will cease to behave in a reasonable manner because of your own beliefs. Nor, for that matter, do you have the right to violate WP:NPA as you have repeatdly done above. I regret to say, having read your little diatribe above, I am very grateful for the differences between us you cite at the end of your scree. Otherwise, I believe I may well have extended the block. John Carter (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not nearly as grateful as I am. I am not a fink or a liar. Put up or shut up on your accusations. There was no harrassment by me, only by you, Tarc, and Sarek. I commented in an ANI thread about a matter in which I was not involved. Your actions are despicable and that you stand behind them is sickening. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To John: are you saying that you would consider extending the block because of comments made to you, the blocking administrator, or are you saying that your own personal attacks are somehow different from the personal attacks you believe your blockee to have made? Whichever, both stink.

To CoM: I suggest you calm down. No good can come of arguing with an administrator. They're always right and you're always wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A true statement of the perversion that persists on Wikipedia. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with him here CoM, you need to calm down, as calling someone a fink, literally a contemptible person, is sort of a personal attack. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I said I am not a fink or a liar. As far as John Carter is concerned, I'll let his actions speak for themselves. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize, it looks like I misread it. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see this. I do thank you for your support of my priviledge to do what I did, with out your having agreed with what I did. Were that more were more principled.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scapler and Dix. I appreciate your notes. Unfortunately, admin abuse is par for the course on Wikipedia. You'll notice that John Carter was trolling Malleus and Giano before seeking me out. Perhaps some day he will be culled from the herd like WMC was. It's just frustrating that the rest of us have to endure the putrid rot of the bad apples in the meantime. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, I know what it's like to constantly have "well meaning" administrators on your case. I've come to the conclusion though that most of them are just way out of their depth, and are more to pitied than vilified. I've also come to the conclusion though that it's better not to hand them a gun, or at least if you do, don't then offer some bullets. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in fact there are several competent admins. But they generally avoid the muck on ANI and the petty nonsense that the lower order engages in (and they seem to be under attack along with our best content contributors unfortunately). The fragile egos of these infantile admins and the tantrums they throw when their misbehavior is pointed out gets old after a while. The irony of the stalking and trolling that goes on while they block content contributors is awesome to behold, but you're definitely right about handling the weaponry with care. Instead of shooting themselves they might injure an innocent bystander or (heaven forbid) me. And I'm far too precious to be made a victim by these hoodlums and their thuggery. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Honey

Would someone be so kind as to explain to WMC and his compadre Mathsci that the construction and wording of this sentence is improper on multiple levels: "Honey is a sweet aliment produced by honey bees (and some other species)[1] and derived from the nectar of flowers."

I certainly appreciate having my work tweaked (it is a wiki after all), and I am prone to making mistakes, but restoring confusing, inaccurate, and poorly written content doesn't do anyone any good. I know that's standard operating procedure on the climate change articles, but honey is a topic of general interest and our schoolchildren deserve better. Perhaps the article should be left to those willing to make sensible improvements. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is a bit awkward, but I don't see it as being nearly as horrible as what you make it out to be. I got from it that it's an aliment (which I'm guessing means food or something similar), bees and other species produce it, and it's derived from nectar. Going from my superficial knowledge of the subject, this all seems right. What's so bad about it? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Veinor, I don't think I'm familiar with you so I am going to go ahead and assume good faith and treat your question respectfully by trying to answer and explain (Some of WMC's amigos behave in a less than savory manner so I am a bit wary).

First of all, it's not clear what is meant by the part in parentheses. Are there multiple species of honey bees? Other bees? Other animals? It needs to be spelled out. Second of all, as written the sentence can be read to imply that honey comes from bees and flowers. Even if it's silly to think that someone would make that mistake, this is an encyclopedia so the wording should be clarified. Honey is produced by bees using the nectar of flowers. Stylistically it's also unnecessarily awkward and unseemly. Mathsci despite all his whining has also failed to notice that aliment leads to an article on nutrition. Given that there are all of these issues in the first sentence of the article, I would say it is pretty horrible. If they would stop the bludgeoning, slow down, and work with me on the article I'm sure we can get it fixed up in no time. If they are simply stalking me to cause a disruption, lauch smears, and make personal attacks, then the article will remain in an almost incomprehensible state of inappropriate awkwardness. For comparison you might like to check out Britannica's article which is quite short, but far more logical. Stalking and harassment are quite common on Wikipedia, and with admins like John Carter abusing their tools to go after the wrong people, it's really no wonder. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM's editing of Honey did not improve the article: he inserted un-disambiguated wikilinks to hive, flowering, colony in the lede; the implication that all beekeepers are commercial; misleading statements about hibernation and pollination, etc, etc. Besides, for reasons which are not at all clear, he later also restored the recently deleted George W. Bush pretzel choking incident, speedily deleted in the course of the day. Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you see my improvements and restoration of the George W. Bush pretzel choking incident as being related to my work on the honey article? How so? I also worked on the suckling pig article. Can you connect the dots for me, because I'm not clear on what you're getting at?

While I did make some mistakes in working up the honey article it was headed in the right direction. What you've restored is a monstrosity that is poorly written, poorly organized and contains misleading innacuracies. But perhaps that's how people write en Francais? I stick to the international languages. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No on all counts. The Bush article has been speedily deleted today, because it had hardly changed. I've no idea why you mention French. Is it because you're French? Mathsci (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Non. But I have noticed some severe Napoleon complexes. I never got a chance to thank you for making the corrections to your chateau article after my work helped identify what needed fixing. Perhaps next time you would be willing to collaborate instead of coming to my talkpage in a fit of yelling and screaming like some sort of infant? When I wikilink an esoteric word that you've used I cannot control that Wikipedia's coverage is limited to a meaning that is not the one you intended (especially if there is no disambiguation to suggest other meanings). So either clarify what you mean in the first place, or why not just fix something like that in the relevant articles instead of behaving likea spoiled child? Do you have something against collegial collaboration? WMC isn't going to be able to do your dirty work anymore monsieur, and that kind of thing isn't very becoming regardless. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)