User talk:Ched/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25
Talk archives from July 2011

Bad words

Hey Ched, hope you are doing well. I noticed your comments on the Lewinsky word AfD--where I am not commenting, just because--and felt like responding for some reason.

I definitely see your point, and think that it's quite valid to see it as odd or just plain wrong for someone to want to delete the Lewinsky article and keep the Santorum one. But I don't think that position, or its inverse, are inherently inconsistent or hypocritical. One could argue that only the Lewinsky article should be kept, because it seems to be the case that this word has actually entered the general parlance to some degree (or at least had at one time) whereas this is not really the case with the term Santorum--i.e. one is a linguistically notable neologism and one is not. On the other hand, one could argue that the Lewinsky word has had no meaningful impact on politics or culture, where as the thing with Santorum has had a direct impact on a presidential campaign--this is undeniably true--and been a prime example of the "Google Bomb" phenomenon and a minor touchstone in the debate over gay rights (which I also think is true).

Of course, one can also say that both of these are absolute crap and should be nuked, or even that both should be kept. People have gotten very heated about these two articles for understandable reasons, but I think the issues are a bit more grey and open to debate than some are suggesting. Personally I haven't read through all of the arguments and am not entirely sure where I stand on either of them (not that anyone cares).

Like I said I just felt like saying this, I guess because you've always seemed like a very reasonable sort of fellow and probably wouldn't mind if someone popped in to say "hey Ched, I think you are kinda wrong about that!" for no particular reason. Also it's probably a good idea to stagger awards and dissenters from your viewpoints throughout your talk page, so I'm totally helping in that regard. Anyhow, no big deal, happy editing and all that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WOW, I am truly flattered Bigtimepeace. I've been an admirer of yours for quite some time, and look forward to replying to this. Unfortunately at this immediate moment, I must run out the door, so this is simply a placeholder. Be back soon. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  23:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Last thought/post for tonight. Again, I am truly honored to be approached by such an established Wikipedian. To be honest, my early time here was spent trying to just fly under the radar. Edit articles, try to not be obnoxious, and avoid any controversy whatsoever. When I grew disgruntled, I took a break rather than speak my mind. I watched for a year, read the posts, and never spoke my mind. I decided that I needed to voice my thoughts here. I had avoided ANY political discussions in the past. The "santorum" issue caught my attention because I live in PA., and am familiar with the man and his views. (not that I share them). I had/have been concerned about our BLP policies. I view the entire ball of wax as a fork from what we are attempting to do here. I realize and understand that there are often some very subconscious thoughts that move people to voice the views they do. (myself included). I do my very best to disassociate myself from my personal feelings, and be objective. To be honest, I'd rather see a "Lewinsky" article, than a "santorum" one. But I know that it's an inconsistent view.
Yes, I agree and I believe you are 100% correct that cases can be made on both sides of the "santorum vs. lewinsky" debate. Rather than make a case for one or the other, I'd offer that neither one are really the type of things that an "encyclopedic" venture should be putting forth. Yes, there are strong feelings and emotions on all sides here; but I say leave that to the blogs and opinion pieces. I don't condem those who feel strongly one way or the other. I don't ever mean to patronize or deride those who don't share my views. I admire the entire "consensus" concept that we have in place.
Views: ... In the circle of people that I am in contact with, I will say this. It is often viewed that Wikipedia is considered a "liberal" slant to political articles. My thoughts are that perhaps the bulk of the editors here are mid-20's, fresh out of school, and have been exposed to an environment that encourages a liberal mindset. Not a bad thing. The dynamics of it all is in a constant state of flux. Sometimes it's a 60/40 thing, and sometimes it's a 50/50 thing. Where I live there is an old saying: "If you're not a liberal when you're young - you have no heart. ..., If you're not a conservative when you're old - you have no brain" I can't say that I subscribe to that in it's entirety, but I also see some insight to it.
I realize that I have rambled on and on here, and I apologize for that. You offered me the chance to discuss these issues, and perhaps I took advantage of that. Regardless, I do so appreciate you offering me the opportunity to voice my thoughts. Cheers and best my friend. — Ched :  ?  04:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding and thanks for the kind words--you flatter me sir! I basically agree with everything you say so we're not really differing on this.
I've often thought it would be interesting to do a study--and maybe someone has--about political bias in Wikipedia articles and among contributors. Having worked in a number of political areas of the project, my guess would be that there is a strong liberal bias when it comes to "cultural" type issues in particular. That is, someone like Santorum will not go over well among most contributors here due to his social conservatism. Wikipedia is pretty queer friendly--which is quite admirable, I wish we were more female friendly--and I think in general the kind of people who contribute here are less likely to take a strong stance on issues of personal behavior from a moral or religious perspective than the population at large. So that would be a sort of "liberal" bias.
I would also assume that more contributors than not are strong civil libertarians, which has come to be seen as a liberal or left-wing position (though it really need not be). So on issues relating to state secrets, individual liberties, perhaps even war and peace, Wikipedia might well have what could be considered a left-wing bias (though circa 1940 these sort of views were not inconsistent with a aspects of conservatism).
Perhaps overall en.wikipedia is as much libertarian as anything, which is consistent with both of the above points. That's not just because of our somewhat Randian founder, but also because I think these "free culture" type projects attract a lot of libertarian types. Because of this, Wikipedia is arguably more conservative in the economic realm. For example, I doubt there is a particularly strong pro-union sentiment among editors here, indeed likely the opposite (for a long time now I've had in my sandbox a partially completed article--which I will finish one day!--about one of the most important strikes in the U.S. in many years, the Republic Windows and Doors strike of late 2008. It was an enormous news story at the time and an important labor action, yet no one bothered to create an article about it so far as I know.) So on matters economic I think more editors here are likely to be partial to "Chicago school" style economists, rather than Karl Marx or even Paul Krugman. I could be wrong about that.
Overall I'd say your 60-40 suggested breakdown (liberal vs. conservative) is maybe about right for the project. If so that would actually be better than it is in academia, which for a number of reasons really is more left-oriented in its thinking (conservatives who complain about that are right, though it's partially because a lot of smart conservatives choose not to enter academe).
Finally I'm glad you mentioned that saying from your parts. I've always heard that attributed to Churchill--substituting socialist for liberal and referencing ones 20s and ones 50s--but it never sounded like something Churchill would have said. I hunted around and found this blog post which suggested that the original quote came from Francois Guizot and then was popularized by Clemenceau, though interestingly even earlier John Adams said something similar (albeit more elitist--he was not much of a fan of the common fellow, or lady!). It's definitely been through a number of iterations and entered the realm of folk wisdom at this point.
Anyhow, thanks again for your reply, have a good one! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
OHHH .. don't go away .. I am fascinated by this conversation. Unfortunately I'm under a huge time crunch at the moment. (damn real life keeps getting in the way of my Wikipedia time .. lol). I have to admit, that I'll need to research a few of your references, as they actually went over my head. But I'll catch up ... lol. ttys. — Ched :  ?  21:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
No rush at all on a reply Ched, just drop me a note pointing me back here if you are so inclined.  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

First they came...

There's been some recent discussion to the effect that citing First they came.. in any way which could refer to the actions of editors may be regarded as comparing them to Nazis, and hence a personal attack. I'm not sure that I entirely endorse that view myself, but I noticed that you've used it a few times and so you might want to be aware of how it's perceived by others.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Indeed. Amazing thought experiment, isn't it? But thank you for your note, it is actually appreciated Will. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  23:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • BTW, if this in regards the shameful BarkingMoon incident, then I am most certainly willing to discuss it further. The entire episode has left a very foul taste in my mouth, and I'm not ashamed to state my views on it. Cheers again. — Ched :  ?  23:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No, it's unrelated. I was searching for use of the term and your name kept popping up. If you'd like to discuss BarkingMoon I'd rather do it off-line.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • done .. email sent to you. — Ched :  ?  04:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely-unfucking-believable! Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
glad I'm not the only one that thought that. — Ched :  ?  04:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Impersonator alert!

  • Hi Ched, I wish to make complain about a newly registered user Dave1184 (talk · contribs), who is currently going around to impersonate as me vandalising/irritating others and/or reverting some of my edits. Can you help? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 07:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I have asked for the associated IP 203.223.238.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to be blocked also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hey Dave. Well, if you have someone going to the trouble to impersonate you, then you must be doing something right. :). Glad it's been taken care of. — Ched :  ?  10:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, that's not the first time that me or Bugs had been impersonated and it most certainly won't be the last. Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said: "if you carry out a policy or scheme that dehumanises others, in that process you become dehumanised as well." So true. So... knowing that these impersonator thinks that they got a kick out of it but no... they've actually lost it without them knowing of it. Peace, out. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
And he was smarter than your average bear. :) — Ched :  ?  21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

bits4crats

Hey Ched, I just noticed your bits4crats subpage, and I have to say I agree with a lot of what you're saying there. I also just wanted to point out this RFC in response to your point about inactive 'crat accounts. I'm sure you saw already, but just in case you hadn't :) Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 22:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know Pedro too then? .. or just from my contribs? ... Anyway, thank you for the link. It seems the discussion is in several different places. I've commented in some, but I can easily imagine that I'm missing a few too though. Early results seem to be favoring them gaining that ability. I hope it just turns out to be a technical thing, but I sure can see the potential there for some real problems if it would get used wrong. Anyway, thanks for hooking me up there MacMed. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  00:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable topic?

I'll take a look shortly Dave. Why are there so many RevDel items in the article history? Did something get out of hand? Anywho .. brb. — Ched :  ?  00:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • (struck ... saw they were copy-vio issues)
OK, I did look, and I left a note on their talk page. Since they haven't edited in several days, and they are a very new editor, I'm not going to block at this time. That would simply be punitive, and I don't see a need right now since they aren't currently editing. Looking at the article .. I'd say 1) There really only needs to be one expansion tag for the article, not one in every section. 2) actually? .. Ya might want to put the whole thing up for AfD (or PROD it). I'm not really seeing anything there that's establishing any WP:N. Just IMHO. Cheers Dave. — Ched :  ?  01:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Meh ... looks ok to me. Ping me next Sunday and I'll delete. You got the notability part mentioned, I'd say that should suffice. If I was more knowledgeable on the individual Wikipedia:Notability (academics) I might even have put a CSD on it, but this at least gives it a chance. If they remove the PROD, we'll try AfD. — Ched :  ?  02:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
never mind ... schools are exempt from A7 — Ched :  ?  02:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • On another note, can you grant me autoreviewer rights? I'm in the middle of something and I need it to assist me, disregard if you can't, thanks in advance. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean "autopatrolled"? Looks like you already have the reviewer right. If so, then sure ... np. — Ched :  ?  02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done for the autopatrolled. Seems some wording's been changed over that PC/FR/Recent Changes trial. Hadn't read through all that for a while. — Ched :  ?  02:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry Dave, I'm too tired to look at this objectively ... I'll check it out in the morning.
I took a look, and it looks like Ged UK is on top of the Singapore article, and TerriersFan has dealt with the other one. Let me know if there's any more I can help with though. Sorry I wasn't on enough to take care of it for you. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  23:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment you made

In this diff, you said "WMF has even posted their desire to move away from the fair use stuff". I took a look around foundation-l and couldn't find anything regarding this. Where did you see this posted? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll dig out the difs tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  03:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Any idea what's up with the user OrangeMarlin? Any news? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything. I might go ask Mastcell later today, he seems to be pretty close to the guy. I'll let you know as soon as I hear anything Bugs. — Ched :  ?  11:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I've posed the question to him. I wouldn't be surprised if OrangeMarlin is undergoing a recuperative process, and that wikipedia is way down his list of priorities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes .. that's the same impression I got. — Ched :  ?  05:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
He said he's heard nothing so far. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea, and likely be at least a week before he gets home if things go well. (which I pray they do). — Ched :  ?  12:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Family

You know, she passed away almost 9 years ago, but I guess its still a touchy subject. I for one will never bring it up again. Peace. 12.191.118.28 (talk) 02:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummm ... ok. I a little lost here. There's obviously something here that I'm not aware of. I'm not sure what to say or do here. Can you clarify (here or email), and let me know what to say or do? — Ched :  ?  05:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

12.191.118.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is probably a sock (or pretending to be) of the guy who made some comment to Off2riorob about "kissing" his mother, or some such, several days ago. Rob took great offense to that. I would have also. The pic of Lawanda Page is probably just further taunting. Note that the guy is pretending to be a sock of some other user also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Now Bugs, this has nothing to do with socks or taunting. Lawanda Page was a terrific actress and a perfect Lady, I have no idea why Rob gets all riled up when she is mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.118.28 (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the only reason you and your socks aren't already blocked is that Ched is a patient sort. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

BarkingMoon

fyi, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Found one more who says makes me sick, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clear words in a clean thread, that is a bit better than the mess we had so far. Back to content, as said before, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Hey you

Hey life is great and I took a break a while back but now I'm back to do some work. How are you doing. Pedro J. the rookie 00:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Always good to get a break to recharge those batteries. I had a rather long one myself. Life is fantastic here, although a bit hectic at times. Hope after my daughter's wedding next weekend I can get a bit more of my WP time back. Got a few articles in mind that really need attention ... lol. Always good to see buddy. All my best. — Ched :  ?  13:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

GLAM-Wiki Baltimore meetup

You are invited to the first Wikipedia Baltimore meetup on Saturday, July 23, 10:00am-12:30pm at the Walters Art Museum. Come meet Wikimedians, learn about GLAM-Wiki partnerships, get involved, and discuss future wiki outreach and activities in the Baltimore area!

There also is a Wikipedia & Cultural Heritage at the Young Preservationist Happy Hour on Friday, July 22, 6:30pm at the Midtown Yacht Club, an unpretentious neighborhood pub.

Note: You can remove your name from the Baltimore meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Just a comment

When you changed the usergroups for PumpkinSky (talk · contribs), you added a couple that he really doesn't need: 'autopatrolled' should be removed, as he has not created enough articles to demonstrate that he doesn't need anybody patrolling his articles; and 'filemover' is usually reserved for users who are knowledgeable about WP:NFCC and the various file policies. I hope you don't think I'm badgering either you or PumpkinSky, and I fully understand that these user privileges are no big deal. However, he has only been here a week or two, so his use/knowledge of these tools may not be particularly great yet. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Good morning there RE. Never a problem (badger) to ask about my edits and actions, I encourage that from all editors. Ummm .. yea, they are fairly new, but "meh" .. I'm a pretty soft touch for things here. I did exchange and email or two with him/her, and did look over their work, and was actually quite impressed with their ability to take advice, and how quickly they are learning. (already doing references, which often takes a while for some users). I will certainly keep an eye on their work (more for the "rollback" than the NPP stuff). He/she also seems to be doing the prerequisite reading on policy and guideline stuff. The autopatrolled seemed appropriate if they want to do NPP, as it seems rather redundant to patrol a patroller. :). Please feel free to drop a note if you spot anything out of line. The NFCC [for "move"] is a good point, and I'll drop that link to them. Also, if there's any of these tools you feel could help you out, let me know and I'll gladly hook you up too. Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  14:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I met the user on DYK where s/he raised a good question, observed well and probably understood my answer better than a long-time user. (I have no time to deal with it right now.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject National Archives Newsletter

The first ever WikiProject National Archives newsletter has been published. Please read on to find out what we're up to and how to help out! There are many opportunities for getting more involved. Dominic·t 21:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dominic, I'll take a look early next week. My daughter's wedding is Sat. .. and just don't have the time through this coming weekend. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  22:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Dominic, I'll take a look early next week. My daughter's wedding is Sat. .. and just don't have the time through this coming weekend. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  21:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DC Meetup, July 29

DC Meetup 21 - Who should come? You should. Really.
DC MEETUP 21 is July 29! This meet up will involve Wikipedians from the area as well as Wiki-loving GLAM professionals. See you Friday! SarahStierch (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong person?

Hi Ched, I saw User talk:Jimbo online#Completely non-wiki topic and thought you might like to know that you appear to have confused him with someone else. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey there Jenks ... yea ... I think I must of hit the enter key on the wrong "Jimbo" on that. I thought I remembered that Jimbo lived somewhere near Atlanta at one point, and wondered if he (Jimbo Wales), saw or heard about that 19 inning game and controversial call at the end. Guess I was in too much of a hurry to notice which Jimbo page I was on .. lol. Oh well, kinda stale by now, so I guess there's not much to do at this point. Guess I'll stop by and apologize to "Jimbo online". Thanks for the note. Cheers and Best Jenks. — Ched :  ?  19:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries :) Yeah, those bloody search boxes can change on you just as you click. Best to you too, Jenks24 (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

DC-area Meetup, Saturday, August 6

National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really.
On Saturday, August 6, the National Archives is hosting a Wikipedia meetup, backstage pass tour, and edit-a-thon in College Park, Maryland. Meet staff and fellow Wikipedians, go behind the scenes at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Dominic·t 21:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ched/Archive_19&oldid=1143539060"