User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd

I am now hosting this if anyone wants to make suggestions or give me hell. Maybe give me a while to work it up according to my usual "standards" before telling me what a bad job I've done. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, you may want to talk to User:Jayron32 who was the closer of the DRV and who had agreed to the original 7 day time window to see how he thinks this should alter that MfD deadline. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the article looks pretty okay. I'm going to post the additional sources I saw on the article's talk page. But I've about had my fill with it.
Feel free to proof read and go to work on it as long as you don't change anything in a way that I don't like. :) Is there another source for: "Boothroyd worked for John Battle, MP for Leeds West, and was as a research assistant for Ian Lucas, MP for Wrexham, after the 2001 general election." Because that's the first cited bit and both sources relate to the Wikipedia thing which would be nice to alter somehow with other sources. I don't know how to move that content and still be logical and chronological. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Conditions of userfication...

Since you have taken over hosting the userfied Boothroyd article, I thought you should be made explicitly aware that I gave JoshuaZ one week to bring the article into compliance with community expectations. An MFD will be started on or about June 15 to judge community consensus over keeping this. If the discussion yeilds a keep consensus, we can move it to the mainspace. Given the sensitive nature of this, please tread carefully here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah no worries. Do you know if the subject is openly gay or not? I've seen it reported, but I don't know if that was a concern of his or anyone elses as far as it being stated in the article.
Once I'm done reworking the article, can I put it in mainspace? What is the process going to be? I don't think it's the same article that was there before so my understanding is that would be normal practice for a substantially new article. I will certainly run it by you and hopefully Jehochman before actually doing any kind of move. I have enough problems without engaging in any rash article creations on this particular subject. :) But I'd like to know what the plan is, if there is one. Oh and I'd also like to know if it's possible to at least haev semi-protection and perhaps pro-active full protection so an edit war doesn't break out? I think changes can be worked out collegially and collaboratively on the talk page unless there is a particular BLP issue or something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Given the initial BLP concerns, I thought it more prudent to wait to move it until after the community discussion. I will start an MFD discussion on the userfied article, and probably place general notifications to anyone who commented on any of the first 3 AFDs or the DRV as to the MFD. Does that sound reasonable? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
My intention is to address any BLP concerns before the article is recreated. I don't think the existence of the article itself or the inclusion of the Wikipedia "incident" (which has been reported in reliable sources) constitutes a BLP concern if it is included appropriately. So I would prefer to follow standard procedure.
My concern is that an MfD and notification of the limited group of participants in the earlier proceedings is too narrow. I don't think this article should be treated differently than other BLPs and I see no reason why normal procedure shouldn't be followed. Aren't substantially new articles usually recreated and given a full AfD hearing? I think that's the best way to determine notability. I would like to see BLP concerns resolved on the appropriate boards before the article is recreated, in so far as possible. And as I said, I would be happy and in fact prefer, for it to be protected once it's reintroduced so that editing will be deliberative and nothing inappropriate will be introduced in haste. But I'm okay with it being reintroduced without protection and watched closely, if that's a better approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I can understand all of that, however up till this point, this BLP has been treated differently than most BLPs. I may not agree that it should have been, but I cannot undo what has been done. Occasionally, a unique problem requires a unique solution, and the unusual set of circumstances surrounding the recent history of this article seems to require special care. If you would like, I could IAR and nominate this at AFD instead of MFD; since the former does get more eyes than the latter; being a userfied article it technically does not qualify for AFD; however since the intent is for it to be an article, perhaps that venue would better serve our purposes? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to turn of my internet explorer feature where it occasionally cuts and pastes switching around stuff I'm highlighting while I'm working on it? No snark from the Mac users who can only manage one button on their mouse (clicker). Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not a feature, that's your jittery hand selecting text, unclicking, then clicking and dragging the highlighted text to a new place. Sorry if this is a real-life problem for you and I'm being insensitive... Bigger digger (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
If this is a real problem check your mouse settings, although this future is not set up by default, meaning you or someone might have changed it. Regards, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I checked the mouse control panel set-up, but I didn't see anything regarding using turning off the switcheroo cut and paste option. I don't want to be able to highlight and drag text without selecting cut and copy and paste and all that. Jittery or not. This PC has a mind of its own. Or bigger digger is remotely interfering in my editing process which seems a distinct possibility. :)ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Just make sure "ClickLock" is un-checked. Seems to me the most simple answer and solution to the problem. Good luck.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Roger, Roger. It is unclicked. But I just did a test and I can still click and drag text. Is there a way to turn off this feature created by Bill Gates to cause me personal aggravation? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lady of Shalott painting

Hey, you were surprised that Gwen Gale and I have the same image on our user pages. It just occurred to me to look and see how many others have the same picture. Take a look at the File links section of File:JWW TheLadyOfShallot 1888.jpg. LadyofShalott 05:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That is a lot. I still find it a very curious choice of poem and artwork. But I like to keep a very low profile so I'm not asking any more follow-up questions! Aren't you supposed to be out partying, or are you watching via mirror reflecting what's going on outside your window? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Although, they definitely do not all show the picture. I've only clicked on a couple of those pages, but I have no idea where it is they supposedly link to it. Oh well. Not sure why you think I'm the partying type, but I'm about to head to bed. I have to work tomorrow. LadyofShalott 05:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of those LoS image links are to editors who show the fantasy user box. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd

User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. rootology (C)(T) 13:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Jeesh Root. Not only do you go after an article being worked on with permission in userspace, which is against all precedent and appropriate procedure, but you go on to make all sorts of misrepresentations, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. Not your finest hour I'd say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Obscurity (recording)

Do you really think a bootleg is notable? The nominator and I have searched and found no sources. Albums ≠ inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're probably right. But I like Pink Floyd and I was hoping the content could be merged somewhere so it wasn't lost forever. Money, it's a gas. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reporting ChildofMidnight on Administrators' noticeboard

Hello, ChildofMidnight. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Using a trout safely

When wielding a trout against another editor as you did here it is helpful to explain your point of view. It is very little help being hit by a fish if it does not come with an explanation of why it was deserved. Even without a trout involved it is helpful to explain your point of view at a MfD and not simply say Keep. Perhaps you could enlighten us at that debate to the reasoning behind your position and fish swinging? Chillum 16:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I felt that the reasons why the nom is in bad form were already covered sufficiently by the the comments already in the discussion, if not wholly self-evident. I'm not sure there will be receptivity to further explication at this point, and I seem to have enough on my plate. So I'm going to keep my "indication of preferred outcome" short and sweet. You'll notice I suggested a trouting rather than carrying one out. Fish stink is a bother to get rid of and I like to keep my hands clean. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That is your prerogative, but please know that opinions on MfDs expressed without an accompanying argument are often given little to no weight. Peace. Chillum 16:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point and I trust my opinions will be given the appropriate weight they deserve (however much or little that is). Have a good weekend Chillum. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reggae Festival

I'm going to be jamming. So I'll see you all soon. Don't wait up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

I see that your friend has been blocked.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Better him than me. I certainly tried to direct him in a more constructive direction...


How are you doing Sky? Are you cooking up any interesting articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this month, Let's Go To San Francisco, Mutumuna Falls and Ravana Falls (all currently under construction). They all still need developing but it is a start. The waterfalls articles need pictures and one of them has a problem with a "blacklisted" external link. I still like vandalism patrolling more than creating articles though...

Hey, just a personal question, are you a fan of this band?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefere Tina Turner. She's simply the best. The waterfall article says it's wide, but only says how high it is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

re Sharing the joy

I think I will respectfully decline this offer at this point in time, though you may find some additional relevant sources at Politico's Guide to the History of British Political Parties and at United Kingdom Election Results. Cirt (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I shall think about it but that's my take at this point in time. If I were to write an article on the individual, I probably would not want that thing moved into my userspace but instead I'd just start a whole new one in my userspace at some point. Cirt (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Château of Vauvenargues

Your edits to this article were unsourced and completely incorrect. They have been reverted. In fact what I wrote is not quite finished - it is a stub, which will be the lede a more detailed article. Please do not edit like this in future without sources. It is completely unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how copy-editing, wikilinking and removing a redundant word can be termed completely incorrect and unhelpful. But I'll leave you to improve the article. It needs some tweaking and clarifying. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Vauvenargues is a rural village strung out along a valley, yet you, for some unknown reason, inserted the words "fortified town". Such an edit cannot be described as copyediting, wikilinking or removing redundant wording. It was an unhelpful error. I have no idea why you decided to introduce that misleading information. It was quite disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You used the word bastide in the opening sentence of your article and there's an article on that subject. So my mistake was quite reasonable based on that article and the word's primary definition. I notcied you unwikilinked it, but a better edit would simply have clarified that you're using it to mean a country house in southern France, and not the meaning covered in the existing Wikipedia article (which perhaps should be amended?). Perhaps now you know why I made the edit that I did. My tweak was based on the information available to me and to clarify content for which you didn't provide adequate context. A bastide can refer to a fortified town or a country house in southern France. So you would be well served to include a clarification so others aren't confused in the same way. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

HELP!

Hi, my virtual colleague! I hope u r ok. Now it is time when I need your help. There is a very strange person User:Jasepl who is constantly accused of vandalism. Now he is trying to edit "my baby" :))) Aeroflot – Russian Airlines destinations in his own way, deleting everything he thinks useless. To whom I shoud address and how can I stop him of vandalism? Thanks! --Dimitree 22:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

I'm hanging in there Dimitree. :) I hope you are well also. I agree the changes seem unhelpful (I have no idea why a section on the Middle East needs to be eliminated and merged into a section for Asia for example). But judging from that user's talk page they seem to work on articles related to airlines quite frequently. I would have suggested approaching them, but I see you've already dialogued. Be careful about calling things "vandalism" and try to be polite. The civility police are very concerned about that kind of thing. Hopefully someone else watching my page will weigh in??? I don't have any great suggestions, but I will think on it and keep an eye out. I haven't seen your main man Scapler around in a while either. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The link he or she provided says desitinations can be sorted by "continent and region" so I see no problem with using the Middle East as a region and it seems to comply with the consensus guidelines. As far as Eastern European and former Soviet States, maybe you guys can work out a compromise? I don't think they should be included in the Europe section (I see Russia is included in Europe for British Airways which is preposterous), but perhaps distinguishing them from an overly broad "Asia" categorization would be good. And for Azerbihjan (sp?) I would say Central Asia is a reasonable standard (and seems to be used in other similar articles). So you can do away with "Asia" all together. Take a look at British Airways or Lufsthansa destination articles. Probably the article will need to follow similar standards. I'm not sure why the cities were removed except that one of them wasn't correct? Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanx for hanging in :))) I agree on some points (at least to keep continents, but in a correct way: Azerbajdzhan, Armenia and Georgia were always in Asia, not in Europe), but I disagree on deleting capitals of the countries, wrong editing of charters (even if there is Aeroflot press-release on this very subject) and some other things... So, Child of Midnight, would you tell who is admin here? I found one - Sandstein and have already addressed to him... Let's see what will happen :)))--Dimitree 10:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitree (talk • contribs)

No Greek Pizza

But an amazing stew of cuttlefish with wine, olives and a bit of its ink to give a musky flavor. Served with brown bread and white wine under a grapevine arbor on a lazy afternoon. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC) :~) :~) :~)

Yes indeed. Cretan cuisine is IMO among the best local cuisines in Greece, one of the few that have preserved the so-called "Mediterranean diet". Lots of fish and vegetables, fine wines and tsikoudia, far less meat or greasy foods than the mainland. Mmm, now I feel hungry :) Constantine ✍ 01:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
On Cretan cuisine in general, I have to completely agree. On tsikoudia, not so sure. It is a bit rough. Although, with a coffee and some slices of orange, maybe a sweet with nuts and honey, it does make a good finish to the meal. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
All of it sounds good. Where to next? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Staudinger synthesis

Hi there,

you put this banner on top of this brand-new article, saying that the article is impenetrable to the non-specialist. Two things:

  1. I know that already. It's a new article, it's a start, and it's not my day job to donate text here. I'm doing it because I had been digging through a stack of reviews on the subject all afternoon, Wikipedia had nothing on the subject, and the reaction is actually important. Why not ask a chemist colleague to chip in (you know where to find them), instead of scaring the reader with a banner?
  2. It's a specialized subject taught in advanced undergraduate classes. They know what to make of it. The man on the Clapham Omnibus wouldn't go looking for this kind of material.

Regards, Diesel-50 (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

...for letting me know. Turns out it was an article about an unrelated early 20th century politician from Victoria with information about a 20yo university student from my home city tacked on the beginning. Very odd - deleted it :) Orderinchaos 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting info

In order to complete the collection we have commissioned an elections specialist, David Boothroyd (author of The History of British Political Parties) to compile the fifth volume from scratch, but staying true to the format of the Times Guides of the era...

  • Dale, Iain (2003). The Times House of Commons Guide: 1929, 1931, 1935. Politico's. p. vii. ISBN 978-1842750339. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Came across this interesting tidbit of info whilst doing additional research for The History of British Political Parties. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You miss these during the Art Walk?

Scroll down... and no bacon jokes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.

Very cool. Looks like a lot of fun. More exciting than the art walks I was on anyway... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It is always a blast giving the expected in an unexpected manner. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Art of the Motorcycle exhibit

The discussions over here Category talk:Motorcycles in The Art of the Motorcycle Exhibition add some further details on this project, but I undid your tags because sufficient citations were already given to support what was on the list, and that the exhibit was of major importantance -- it broke attendance records for the Guggenheim and exceeded the yearly attendane of most museums worldwide in only 3 months. Google news and Google Scholar also shows it caused major upheavals in the art world -- I'm working on a separate article on the topic. Please post at the Talk page if you have further questions. Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much for the note. An article on the show would make sense. A list with no article on the show seemed very odd. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You have one. Law type! snype? 00:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey you

Nope, born and raised right here in the good ole USA. I do admit that I aspire to many of the qualities that the British have: Dignity, respect, civility, and honor. I also admire the friendliness of Aussies mate. ;). But no, I'm one of those arrogant Americans; born and breed. East coast don't cha know?... PA ... Pittsburgh, home of the Superbowl Champion Steelers, and the Stanley Cup champs - The Penguins. Sorry, couldn't resist that .. lol.

Hey CoM, I do want to thank you too. All humor, "moth to the flame" aside. I greatly appreciate your support, and all your efforts to keep things on a "real life" .. "what's best for the wiki" .. "let's not get buried in foolishness" type of thing. I may not always agree with you, but I do love the breath of fresh air that you bring to the place. Thank you so much for being you, and I wish you and yours all of the very best!!! — Ched :  ?  05:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, my "reluctant" support reflected the fact that you haven't learned to agree with me always... yet. But I was pulling for you just the same. Good job. Congrats. Very much deserved. Don't forget to go outside at least once or twice every few days... And thank you for your fellowship and positive vibes. It's much needed on this sometimes aggravating Bizarro Wiki-world. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Userfy req

 Done see User:ChildofMidnight/Arab–Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics. Cirt (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. Much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't show up empty handed...

So I brought a seven-layer salad courtesy of the elitist NYT. Scroll down the page till you get to the Obama photo in the right-hand column...the 7LS reference is directly across from it (or was)...I thought it was pretty funny and hope you do too. Seriously, I came here via the Connie Bea Hope article to let you know that I asked User:Billy Hathorn to provide some help in sourcing. He's written probably hundreds of these bios and is very resourceful (or lives in a library) at finding the old news articles that may not yet be online. I'm also seeing a lot more Google scans of old articles showing up in searches, so that may also help solve the sourcing issue when the Mobile archives are online.

I can't tell if you're being facetious, but I don't think there's a bias against anything not covered in the NYT. I use a lot of NYT articles in sourcing (or initially) because all the articles are free, accessible and stable. Most of the Google news search listings bring up the pay-per-view articles, and while some of them are free in the website's archives, I'm finding that more and more are not. And even so, their archives usually just include the last 10 years or so, while the NYT goes back to the 1800s. It will be interesting to see how the Google scans will affect Wikipedia...I think there will probably be an expansion of local and regional notability standards, but I do wonder how Google can post these copyrighted articles. Flowanda | Talk 19:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing a dish to pass. That's a nice tidbit. You might enjoy this comment from that article's talk page:
"This bizarre article attempts to argue that "seven-layer salad" is currently a popular American dish produced by restaurant chefs, yet the article also neglects to mention that it may have been popular fifty years ago in select U.S. states, and that no chef of any status would dream of making such a monstrosity, let alone think of making it in 2009. This is a good example of how not to write an article.
Little do they know! Seven-layer salad mania can't be far off!
The bias in favor of coverage by the NYT is quite real for the reasons you point out (and I often engage in some level of facetious and sarcastic overstatement because I find humor entertaining and amusing amidst the despair :) There's no arguing that the NYT's archives are available and free while most others aren't. It's also considered an excellent source despite its obvious bias on political subject, which can be a problem if it's not appropriately balanced per NPOV. Since the archives of many (most) papers aren't available and access to international coverage of subjects is difficult to come by, article contents and the criteria for establishing notability tends to favor that paper in its perspectives and coverage. That's also an area where many editors happen to reside.
If your friend has any sources for Virginia Greer, I would like to restore that article also. I think regional subjects can be notable and worth including, and should be differentiated from subjects that are simply of local interest. Adirondack chairs are a regional subject that's worth including, while a weatherman on a channel in that area (I would argue) isn't, unless he's made some notable impact. Sorry about the long reply. Just a bunch of stuff that's been on my mind I suppose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The Television Stations project is very active and inclusive oriented Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. I'll make a request there since I'm heavily into DoRAD (Denial of Rapidly Approaching Deadline) and it's either that or create the The Prune vs. Rice Pudding Smackdown of 1910.[1] Flowanda | Talk 20:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think posting a request on the above project's talk page now might just reduce the article to being an example or subject to undue scrutiny as part of an ongoing discussion. Flowanda | Talk 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

By adducing a general principle...

Mix some shit into the dirt and healthy plants grow, producing beautiful flowers like this one. Thank goodness the photographer remembered to focus. Lighting can be challenging on Dagobah, and holding a camera steady can be tricky when it's suspended in the air using the Force

...I don't mean to imply that you've violated it. I was just citing the principle in play, and I'm sorry if that came across as an accusation. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I don't even remember which bit you're referring to. The whole thing is an ugly mix of POV pushing, the crusade against real and imagined copyright violations, and admin enforcement run amok. That being said, I always welcome the input of a Master Jedi.
It is my humble opinion, oh wise one, that using admin boards for dispute resolution should always be frowned upon because it is pernicious and damaging. It's a sleazy way to target an editor one disagrees with, and abusing Wikipedia's processes in this way causes lots of tension and drama. The copyvio discussion should have taken place at an appropriate forum. C'est la vie. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You speak well, Grasshopper. Do rest assured that not everything said there is taken seriously by anyone who necessarily matters. You keep sailing above the sleaze, and you'll be fine. Remember the power of boredom. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom sanctions coming down the pike say different old friend (now you're going to be accused of partiality...). That whole thread should have ended after the first reply there by another wise Jedi. And as far as boredom, I think it's an affliction whereby admins can't be bothered to properly investigate disputes and will simply block or sanction if they see someone's name enough, which is one of the reasons repeated inappropriate ANI reports should be strongly discouraged.
I still laugh when I remember the original discussion, so long ago now, where you were involved. As soon as you suggested a focus on the content... the canvassers disappeared! Hahahahah. Such is the way of the world on Wikipedia, but there's always another admin out there, and it only takes a few clueless buggers to muck things up.
Speaking of article and content work, when are we going to hunker down and do some? Surely you need a break from all your essay writing? :) Lay it on me. Math topics? Party games? Astrophysics? You should see what I did to deepwater diving topics! Bring it on... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No... you're right. I think I write well, when I bother to do it. Lately I do most of of work in gnomish tasks such as page moves and stub-sorting, when I'm not manning the fire blankets. Also, I've started taking photos. It's fun!

I really ought to get after Fractional coloring, which my MS thesis was about, so I know a little bit. The article is hardly transparent to a non-specialist at this point.

ArbCom sanctions... yeah, I read something about those. Was it the Obama case, or the Date Delinking case? Not both, I hope. I don't keep up with the dramaz nearly well enough. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Excelent. I LOVE coloring!!! Isn't there some saying about a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?
The Arbcom thing is no big deal, just the usual misfired overreaction based on a total misunderstanding of the issues involved. I have a dream that one day dispute processes will focus on content and the appropriate application of policies and guidelines. But until then the wikilawyers and game players will continue their disruption and abuse by seeking behavioral sanctions against those with whom they are in content disputes. It would also help if there was a real improvement in the dispute resolution processes as they relate to content.
Anyway, thanks for your collegiality and sense of humor. Always appreciated. I'm headed out, so have a great weekend if I don't hear from you. I'll check in on the fraction coloring article (sic) when I get a chance... I'm sure I can find some trivia and popular culture tidbits to add. Has the subject featured on Family Guy at all? (ec) If there's a Nascar tie-in maybe we can get Chedsky to help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Somewhere in this thread there is a touch of "snatch the pebble from my hand" humor. I'd look for it, but sadly it would likely come across as very morbid, and in poor taste. "Boring" and "Math" in the same thread? ... naaa, I'm not going there either. I think "da wiki" is playing Jedi mind tricks on me today. ;) — Ched :  ?  21:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Heh. WP:BOREDOM. Red? That goes on the to-do list. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, bless your hearts, I couldn't have set this up better myself. How about taking a look at this: [2]? Flowanda | Talk 21:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ratel isn't a member of my fan club, so I hestitate to investigate and offer up my two cents. BLP is sometimes abused to keep out content that some editors don't like. The focus should be on reliable sourcing, appropriate wording and weight (up to and including exclusion if there's a lack of notability or significance). Aron Bielski has a similar dispute and I hear there's some issue about David Bothyrood's article, but I'm focused on flowers and coloring now. GTB has inspired me! Oh and food too, food is always safe (unless it has hormones, is artificial, fattening, has been contaminated, spoils easily, or causes allergic reactions). Although it's occasionally subject to ethnic dispute, environmental concerns or is involved in health related difficulties, in which case it can be controversial. Fortunately, everyone loves bacon and dessert salads... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks...I didn't know. There were requests for uninvolved editors, and I take that to include previous interactions with other editors, not just with the article itself. Flowanda | Talk 23:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilaterals

I am staying out of the debates, just making slots in the "Foreign relations of ..." articles to hold content, and merging some obvious stubs. Almost all countries are done now except the US and UK, which scare me - 80% of the flak will come from these two. I may just skip them - these articles have enough editors that they can look after themselves. Next phase is to systematically merge in stubs, add redlinks for obvious gaps and clean up the articles. But that is a huge job and I have a short span of attention. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I remember. Dogged vandalism. Well maybe if I move to fusion cuisine I will be o.k. Italian American cuisine, Malaysian Chinese cuisine, that sort of thing. Mongolian Costa Rican cuisine. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at Glane23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gerald Walpin firing

Hi. Thanks for your help with Gerald Walpin firing. While trying to fix the major damage to the article, it's possible that I may have unintentionally changed some of your good edits. It's so confusing what happened, and I tried to fix it. But if I undid any of your good edits, I apologize. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, can you try to integrate the content added by Benjiboi? It wasn't perfect, but I think it needed tweaking rather than reversion. And most of it could be moved to the body of the article. Keep in mind what it's like when another editor comes by and removes all of your additions or changes to an article instead of fixing them... Cheers. Have a great weekend. Thanks again for all your great article contributions. I hope you don't get discouraged by Arbcon. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I will go and do that regarding Benjiboi's edits. Yes, I do know how it feels, and I don't want to make someone else feel that way. Thanks for the suggestion. You have a great weekend too. Thanks. Bye! Grundle2600 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, as was to be expected (if you didn't get there first) he reverted. :) I think it's usually best to move forward unless it's really a damaging edit or series of edits. I tried to move some stuff out of the lead and trim it a bit. Are you going to add something about the CUNY part? Also, I don't know if you noticed but there are now other firings being looked into. I'm not sure how it should all be handled, and I recommend treading lightly so as not to tip over the apple cart, just saying. Cheers! Have a super weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I'll be adding the other firings. If there's a trend, I think it would be worth noting. I think the CUNY thing was a different person - so if I add the other firings, I guess I would add that. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
CUNY was him too I believe. He found that they were paying for stuff that was already covered. Pissed off the wrong people it looks like. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy stick photo

Hi, Child,

Your user page indicates you'd like a different Flickr photo for the Candy stick article. I checked into the photo you mentioned [3] and found that its use is licensed by too restrictive a license for Wikipedia because it limits derivative use. The specific CC license is described here: [4]. Alas...Geoff T C 19:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. We need to take our own shots I guess. Freaking flickr! I'm going to end up very fat buying and making all these candies and desserts so I can photograph them. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Too late for me! Geoff T C 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Eve

Thanks for coming by and doing some copyediting. You may or may not be aware that the article is a current WP:PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Eve/archive1‎‎. We had some organizational discussions at Talk:Arthur Eve/GA2. Any assistance you might be able to lend in reorganizing the main body text would be greatly appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

RE : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling.

The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at Glane23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timmeh 2

Hi! Regarding your oppose here, the exact count of Timmeh's edits at User talk:DougsTech is 35. By the way, I've been browsing his edits to that page for a while now and still haven't found anything that would make me believe that he'd abuse the tools (my criteria are probably a little looser than yours, tho). Is it just the talk page behaviour you're opposing over, or am I missing something (an AN/I thread, edit warring or something)? Jafeluv (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post Jafeluv. There may be additional diffs on Timmeh's page and perhaps elsewhere. Self-control and knowing when to disengage are important criteria for admins. So I would say 35 posts of an adversarial nature to Dougstech is way too many. But I appreciate that others disagree. I've seen a lot of good editing from Timmeh. If after a few months have passed he demonstrates dispute resolution skills that reassure me he won't add to the flame wars and will step away from situations like this in the future I would support him. I don't enjoy opposing at all. But I think it's important that admins have experience dealing with content issues including disputes and have the maturity and restraint to defuse rather than add to problems when they arise. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about edit that got reverted

In regard to the Mark Hammil edits I was just posting which characters he voiced what is wrong with that? 173.18.28.177 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Best to ask the editor that reverted it. But perhaps given your history they didn't think it was a legitimate edit. Do you have a source for the information you added? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes take a look at imdb.com they are right most of the time in their cast lists and the characters they played, so could you please restore them?173.18.28.177 (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw on that edit "Sean leader of the fairies". I took "fairy" as a form of vandalism (an synonym for "homosexuality"). If I am incorrect, then undo my revert and accept my apologies. Thank you, MuZemike 01:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes he was the voice of the leader of a fairy village173.18.28.177 (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, then. That was an error on my part. Sorry, MuZemike 01:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As best I can tell the voice for Sean, king of the fairies, is accurate attribution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

oops

sorry ... I couldn't resist the obvious. ;) — Ched :  ?  03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for bringing that one to my attention - if you look up "Utegate" on the web, you will see what it relates to. The guy's a minor public servant who's unexpectedly become the centre of political attention after some comments he made under intense pressure at last week's Senate Estimates hearings. Orderinchaos 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh well.

All I ever did was add well sourced material to articles. And now they are blocking and censoring me. I see they got you too. Oh well. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Shit happens my friend. The people in Tehran are experiencing much worse. I remember the many volumes that made up the World Book Encyclopedia on my family's bookshelf growing up, and who would have imagined that we'd be able to contribute to it one day?
You've written many great articles and done a lot of good work. As I said before, I'm sorry you got mixed up with the swamp characters and POV pushing game players who infest Wikipedia's political coverage. It's an unfortunate part of contributing here, and it's obviously very damaging to the encyclopedia's integrity. I know it's distressing to see the bias, censorship, and harrassment carried out by these individuals encouraged, but the world and Wikipedia aren't perfect, and we do the best that we can. :) Take care of yourself and have fun. Thanks again for your good work and your many contributions. I have great respect for your collegial approach and patience. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

veritee

here you have references from the largest papers in switzerland , what else do you need for notability!

^ Market Magazine] ^ 20 Minute News L'Extension Magazine Geneve: Une Boisson Fortifiante http://www.lextension.com/index.php?page=actu&actionActu=det&id_actu=13144

Lifefair-Magazin News: VERITEE neu in der Schweiz erhältlich http://www.lifefair-magazin.ch/index.asp?newsid=527&topic_id=2

Veritee® Wellness Drink Nutri-Pharma http://www.agroligne.com/contenu/veritee-r-wellness-drink-nutri-pharma

Eau Taillefine : ultime sursis pour un symbole http://www.bloob.fr/la-presse-en-parle/eau-taillefine-ultime-sursis-pour-un-symbole-5087.html

Montreux Jazz News Magazine http://www.nightlife-mag.ch/azzaronow/NLSuisse.pdf

Wikipedia is not a marketing service for consumer products. I don't find the drink notable or particularly interesting, and I don't think it meets our guidelines. Why do you think it's important that it be included in this encyclopedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

More Bacon

Check these bacon and egg sandwich photos I just uploaded to Commons: [5] and [6]. Same sandwich - one open-face and one closed and cut in two. Nothing fancy - just buttered toast. "One small step for a man, one (slightly bigger) step for bacon." (I was nonplussed when I found no such photos in Commons. Nothing would suffice but to rectify the lack.) Cheers! Geoff T C 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Gorgeous! And I saw the photo you added to the bacon egg and cheese sandwich article. What's for dinner? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I ate the sandwich for breakfast and it sustained me all day, supplemented by a salad, some fruit and a little pasta with pesto at lunch. Perhaps some chili and cornbread? But nothing means bacon like 'The State's' "Bacon Skit": [7] ;o) Geoff T C 01:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Images that you might like

for the newest article, Food and sexuality[8][9][10][11][12][13]. I think the second image looks like "avant-garde performing art" (means not looking sexy at all). I hope you enjoy the images, regards.--Caspian blue 03:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the skittles and the cherry one. But who knows what others will consider "encyclopedic". There was a discussion of the topic and the image that's tehre on another users page and I thought it would be a good article. It needs a lot of expansion. Thanks very much for looking for me! I did a bunch of searches on there, but didn't come up with much. I'm also wary of being accused of sexism or heterosexist (is that the right term?) or who knows what else depending on what image is chosen. But maybe I'm being paranoid. A still from the movies might work too, especially for that section. Have you seen Tampopo? Haha you have some rivals from Japan if I'm not mistaken. But there are some interesting visuals. Are there any sexual foods in Korea that differ from the West? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
"Sexual food" (that sounds very sensuous!) in Korea that does not much differ from Westers'. In 1980s, South Korea produced a lot of films dealing with erotic subjects due to the gloomy political situation, and some popular films that even earned high film awards are titled like "Wild Strawberries" (not to be confused with Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries), Mulberry and etc. I can not recall any specific Korean food that may be interesting for you. I think Lasse Hallström's Chocolate is directly related to sex and love? Or 9 and half weeks. --Caspian blue 03:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
So I guess we've come a long way since this: File:HA WhippedCream.jpg. Or have we? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
That image would be great to use, but is non-free. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
A side note, bunny is a symbol of sexuality in Korea too.... I recall Playboy. --Caspian blue 03:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ain't it da truth! :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Any proper sex symbol can lay eggs. PhGustaf (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
"Here's the Easter Rabbit, hooray! ..." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For other issues please press 5 now...

You have a very advanced directory system for leaving comments. Makes me feel silly for just wanting to stop by to give you a hard time for your "does Migros carry it" notability criteria. Have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the Migros question was a tiebreaker. I thought the product was borderline notable, so that was going to be the final decider. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

ChildofMidnight. I have created two articles recently - both started as stubs - and you have appeared almost immediately to make not very intelligent changes to the stubbed version. This applies to the Chateau of Vauvenargues, where you described the small village of Vauvenargues as a fortified town. In the mathematical stub Butcher group, which is about to be expanded, you similarly appeared out of the blue and made an unhelpful change to the stub separating closely linked sentences. This is a formal warning that if you continue following me around like this, you are likely to be blocked. Your editing behaviour has been analysed by ArbCom who found it problematic. You now appear to be gaming the system. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please make sure the articles you write are clear and well written. The articles you've created recently have needed a lot of work. You might consider using a sandbox. I also suggest reviewing wp:mos and wp:lead for more information. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Your further edits were removed by another editor. Since you seem to have no expertise in mathematics, one more edit to the article will presumably result in a block of a week or more for you, considering your past history. You have no idea what the article is going to contain and are purposely being disruptive, like an annoying little child. I don't think any administrators will look on your editing behaviour at all favourably. You will be reported at WP:ANI if you continue to wikihound a senior mathematics editor and presumably can expect a block. I have no idea what is going through your head, but you have a very poor history on WP. Antagonizing editors seems to be a particular specialty of yours. In this particular subject area your edits seem completely clueless. Mathsci (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of that article is a pathetically organized run-on that violates our style guidelines. Your rudeness and threats make you look like a real jerk. If you did a better job writing, your work wouldn't need so much fixing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You have been reported at WP:ANI. If you had the slightest amount of experience in editing advanced mathematics articles, you might possibly have been taken seriously. This does not seem to be the case and you seem to have been stalking me. This is a repetition of your recent highly problematic and tendentious editing patterns. Mathsci (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisu (2nd nomination)

Thank you for your kind comment. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I had that AfD and article on my watchlist. The subject seemed to border on a dicdef of a translated word, but there were some indications that it was significant and maybe worth including. We'll see what happens with it now, but your efforts were very constructive. Hopefully it will survive, as coverage of it has been established. I've noticed that you do a lot of thoughtful contributing at the AfD discussions and I (for one) appreciate it. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


re: Usefulness

All done .. and I even got some help tweaking the things I haven't learned yet! I'm starting to like this! — Ched :  ?  20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

have to refactor at the moment. — Ched :  ?  02:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci

Hi there -- pursuant to Mathsci's complaint about you at ANI, would you agree to refrain from editing articles that Mathsci (and anyone else, for that matter) is actively editing? Even if your edits are making corrections, it can be quite confusing when two editors are having a go at the same text at the same time. It doesn't take too much effort to wait until they are done for the day. I would also ask that you agree to discuss content disputes in a civil manner, and I would ask Mathsci to agree to the same. --Laser brain (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What ANI report? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
This One. Gee.... Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
And by "Gee....." I mean I'm staggered the editor is after a "block of some kind" over this, and not your comment at all - just realised that could be misconstrued - apologies. Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Pedro. Mathsci left a note above that he filed an ANI complaint but I should have linked it here as well. --Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your apology

Uh...no. I stand by my comments. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean I own you an apology. As my Aussie friend would stay...buck up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

CoM, don't bother, see this He even said his another opponent to be executed. So what do you expect? --Caspian blue 22:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose you're right. Anyway, it's better to be blocked than hung. :) Fire and pitchforks are also bad, but a firing squad would at least be quick. Another exciting day on the 'pedia! ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
It's actually better to be "hung". To be "hanged" is bad. To be "hung"... well, that can open up all kinds of career opportunities. The sheriff of Rock Ridge, for example. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Given Bugs' huge interest in any of my conversations with CoM, it is obvious that bunny loves CoM so much! (or me? oh, no thanks, I'm allergic to rabbit)--Caspian blue 23:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I spread the love wherever I can. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
You and Caspian are getting all uppity because I called for you to be blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Well, a thousand pardons for suggesting that an editor who has had a dozen or so (give or take) ANI and AN posts have some consequence to his behavior. A thousand pardons indeed. While CoM is requesting (more like expecting) apologizes), do me a favor Caspian and look at his record on ANI and AN while you are having fun digging things up. You will see that not only do I not owe him an apology, I was more than correct in suggesting he be blocked for disruptive editing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The point actually Neutral, is that I didn't do anything wrong in regards to this report. The others are similar. I'm no angel, but I'm a pretty collegial and collaborative kid. And I actually know a thing or two about writing good articles. Take care bro. There's no grudges or hard feelings here. Shit happens, and we humans make mistakes. Even Casp and I, and we're pretty darn near perfect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Incivility: blocked

This [14] is not tolerable. I've blocked you for 24h for invicility William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You've messed up badly. I would have expected you to get consensus at ANI where Mathsci's disgusting behavior is under discussion. But some admins, the worst kind, have no restraint and incredibly bad judgment. It's a shame. Wikipedia has lost many great editors because of it and made quite a few enemies.
I hope you'll come to your senses and apologize soon. This might be a good opportunity to resolve once and for all that erroneous blocks like this one should be oversighted from an editor's history so they aren't maligned by admin stupidity going uncorrected.
And for what it's worth, he said "You... are purposely being disruptive, like an annoying little child... I have no idea what is going through your head, but you have a very poor history on WP. Antagonizing editors seems to be a particular specialty of yours. In this particular subject area your edits seem completely clueless." But recognizing an enfant terrible I showed restraint. So, I hope you're kidding with this block. My response after being templated by that nasty editor making false allegations against me was quite reasonable and accurate. I came across his article on new page patrol. Look at my editing history. This is an atrocious block Connolley. A magnifique fuck-up of the first order. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, CoM -
1. I agree that William overreacted here.
2. HOWEVER -
Your recent behavior to a number of editors has been rude and abusive. You know why our civility policy is there - if discussion is abusive, it makes it harder for everyone to discuss and find consensus, and degrades the quality of everyone's participation.
I have asked that William unblock you. However, you owe Mathsci an apology for the tone of a couple of your responses. The two of you butting heads was annoying - but did not justify being that rude.
If you can't find an apology in you today, perhaps you need to take a short break. If you're editing when you feel like attacking people, it does not help articles or the Wikipedia community.
If you can take the step back from the headbutting I see no reason to have you blocked right now.
Please try and de-escalate things and behave more collegially towards your fellow editors. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Listen George. You can't have jerks like these people running around making false accusations, personal attacks, shitty blocks, and then expect me to be all sweetness. The opening sentences of that article ARE POORLY WRITTEN!!! Go read it. I edited it once, left a clean up tag after my change was reverted, and left a comment on the talk page. That's it. Nothing since.
I came across it on new page patrol, despite the numerous policy violating accusations made against me which you haven't said shit about. I made one edit to the content of that article, one of many improvements I made to the encyclopedia working on dozens of new article articles on new page patrol at that time.
Not one of these assholes making false accusations against me can be bothered to look at my editing history to see that the accusations of stalking and harassment are 100% untrue! Don't expect me to be calm and nice in the face of some jackass unilaterally blocking me when the discussion at ANI clearly shows that my edits were reasonable, the other editor has wp:own issues, and has engaged in grotesque incivility. Where's the consensus? Where are the policies that are supposed to apply to them?
If you think I've been uncivil show me where. I have Basebull Bugs and Phgustaff baiting me and following me around. I have this joke of an Arbcom decision based on manufactured bullshit. I dare you to look at the supposed "templating" and my "refactoring" where I corrected two spelling mistakes. So if you want to be on my side then unblock me and ask Connelly for an apology. Otherwise, stay off my fucking page. I think I've put up with enough bullshit for one day and should get a civility barnstar for my measured response. You go help out on new page patrol and get this nastiness from some jerk and see how sweet you are back to them. I didn't follow them around. I responded appropriately and I have no patience for this dishonest incompetence. If you don't want to fix the situation then fuck off. Look through my edits today and see if you think I've been collegial. Don't make bullshit false insinuations against me. I don't appreciate it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I am going to repeat myself, briefly -
Yes. I think you're being abusive and rude today.
That's why I'm suggesting the break.
I do not disagree that your edit change to the articles was reasonable editing, in line with your general cleanup work.
Mathsci's comments were over the top. But only borderline rude - wrong, and trying to drag admins in inappropriately, but not terribly rude.
Your responses to him have been rude. Your response here has been rude - you got extremely defensive and counterattacked as opposed to asking for clarification and defending specific comments or edits. We don't require recently blocked people to be sweetness and light after the block - it's a specific exception to the civility policy, within limits - but most people don't react this strongly. Which leads me to believe that yes, something has gotten to you today, and that you're pissed off.
I don't want to butt heads. I want you to take a bit of time and stop butting heads.
I am not going to unblock unless ANI consensus develops, and I'm going out of contact for a while, but your reaction is probably going to convince people that you are upset over something today and reacting in a nasty manner, and that leaving the block on for the 24 hrs is a good idea.
I'm sorry that something's made you this way today. You normally, while not exactly noncontroversial, never push people's buttons like this. I hope you feel better and can get along with people better tomorrow. I think unblocking you and letting you come to that conclusion yourself is the best thing, but as I said, I'm going out of contact so I'll leave that to ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Herbert you're living in fantasy land. The guy leaves a templated warning on my page making a bunch of false accusations against me. He says "you have appeared almost immediately to make not very intelligent changes to the stubbed version" and "You now appear to be gaming the system." That's just from his FIRST message here. I make a perfectly civil response to this rude fellow dropping in, and then the guy goes on to say a bunch more like "You have no idea what the article is going to contain and are purposely being disruptive, like an annoying little child." And, "You will be reported at WP:ANI if you continue to wikihound a senior mathematics editor and presumably can expect a block. I have no idea what is going through your head, but you have a very poor history on WP. Antagonizing editors seems to be a particular specialty of yours. In this particular subject area your edits seem completely clueless." You think that's civil? Save me the bullshit. This block stinks horribly and anyone who defends it or tries to suggest that I've caused it, when I've largely ignored the circus on ANI and the baiting by this Frenchman, is either misguided or a moron. HIS COMMENTS ON ANI DEFINE INCIVILITY. And if you want to defend them and cast aspersions on me, then shame on you! Again, I came on a single article on new page patrol. I made a helpful edit. I've been harassed and attacked since. It's indefensible, and if you think helping is suggesting that I'm the one who's been uncivil, then you're fooling yourself. You haven't read my edits. I collaborated on an article recreation, helped out in a sandbox, contributed at AfD, and did countless other things with lots of editors with no problems. You're making shit up that's just not true. Mathsci behaved like a jerk. That's the truth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Bad luck for tripping over a drunk. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a bad block. No reason for it. The other editor has called CoM ignorant of HIS those articles. The Admin blocked the wrong editor.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

CoM: I'm very sorry to see you were blocked. I hope you can take what George suggested in the spirit intended. There is wisdom there. I'd like to see you back working on interesting articles again soon. Jonathunder (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this block was an error in judgment. — Ched :  ?  02:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But one that will not be recorded in the blocking administrator's log, unlike the block that he drunkenly imnposed. Welcome to whackiwikiworld, where everything that administrators do is automatically OK, and when it isn't it's swept under the carpet. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Malleus .. surprise, surprise ... I actually agree with you - to a point. Administrators are human beings, they make mistakes, some more than others. I don't think it is right to heave a huge bolder at a stereotyped glass house of "administrators". No, I don't agree that "everything that administrators do is automatically OK", but you can read any AN board on any given day to see that I'm not alone in that evaluation. We're people here Mall, we do the best we can with our given talents. Please don't try to make every admin. out to be a bad guy. — Ched :  ?  03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you even understand what I'm saying, as is evident from your response above, so I very much doubt that you agree with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Just won't give me an ounce of credit eh? ... That's ok, I can respect the requirements to earn respect. OK.. should a note be made of a "bad block"... my opinion .. yes. Should bad blocks be expunged (oversighted and removed) .. yes. IMHO — Ched :  ?  03:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
... but will they be? No. Will you fight for them to be? No. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You ask the question "Will I fight for them to be?" .. and then you assume my answer will be "No". You tell me... how do we make these changes? — Ched :  ?  04:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read all of the discussion in this section but after finding out about ChildofMidnight's "block for incivility", I was wondering what was meant by this edit summary.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sky. I was just kidding with you because the initial edit that added that content was this one [15]. So it was a tribute to someone's chemistry teacher, or something like that, if I remember right. So I was just trying to kid with you, saying that tributes go on your page, since you restored it (I think not realising that this was the original basis for that addition?). Sorry if it wasn't clear or funny. Most of my jokes aren't. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's okay CoM. After all, Wikipedia is not always a serious place. I saw that the "drunk" comment above caused a discussion on ANI. I really do hope that there is no policy on being perfectly sober when editing. Because I've been known to edit while enjoying a beer...--The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly best not to issue unilateral blocks wholly unsupported by ongoing discussion when drunk. You're not an admin, and as far as I can tell you're not a complete jerk, so if you want to have a few beers I give you permission. :) But if you do become an admin, best not to block anyone while you're sauced before passing out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

GTBs finger

Someone go tell him I hope he's okay! Too much lifting. Even using the force (especially using the force?), you can do serious damage overworking your index finger. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My first stab at a Supreme Court case

Can you mutilate User:Kelapstick/Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council‎ when you get a minute.--kelapstick (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The notability and significance of the case needs to be indicated in the lead (opening paragraphs) and covered earlier in the article. I would move the plotline of its course through appeals and such down. For encyclopedic notability I think the issues involved and how it was deicided are more pertinent than a chronological description of the legal proceedings themselves (though that should be described also). I would dig in, but I'm under attack for my clueless editing!!! :) You might also ask Bearian to have a look. Seems like an interesting article to me. I don't know what those Libs have against a little infill. Seems perfectly natural to me. Isn't that what National Parks are all about? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, since I know about as much on the law as I do about mathematics, I went ahead and made a bunch of changes. Feel free to revert as necessary and please do check it over so you can fix any damage I did. It's a good article about Justice and the Rule of Law prevailing over a few fish and perhaps some snails and frogs, which are only relevant if you're French. :) Drill baby drill. Keep those shiny baubles coming, Daddy needs a new pair of shoes, or something. Come to think of it, does the article even say what was mined there? Are there any studies about the tailings and whether they're toxic or not? How about since the dumping has taken place? You still have a lot of work to do my friend. An article on the lake (or ummm, the hill as may be the case now) is also needed. GET TO WORK!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweaks, I received a first pass blessing (at least by one editor) at WP:SCOTUS. I put it up at DYK, how does ... that following the Supreme Court's ruling on Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Coeur d'Alene Mines share prices increased by over five percent ? sound? Sorry to see all the shizzle manizzle below, it's a raw deal for sure. As usual Caspian's wisdom is something to heed. you should take a nap, I wish I could. I was up at 5:00 with the boy this morning...I didn't know there was a five o'clock in the morning too...--kelapstick (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note K-stick. Sorry about your early wake up call. But you're still a heck of a good guy. I took another look at that article last night, and saw that while I think my edits were headed in the right direction, there was a lot of construction debris and mess left lying about. Unfortunately I'm not in a position at the moment to fix things, but when I get a chance I'll expand the opening sentence into 2. (One sentence does not a paragraph make, not even one of Doc's comma and semicolon laden monstrosities... :) The opening sentence should also be tweaked to "determining whether Coeur Alaska had a the appropriate permit to dump mine waste in a lake. The case was decided blah blah blah. Then the rest of it, or something like that. I've written down some other tweaks I want to do as well. Anyway, have fun brother. "It's gettin' hot in here..." RENO!!! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That hook seems lame. I'd like something about the supreme court upholding the mining company's right to fill a lake with mining tailings. :) But maybe you want something fluffier? Environmental groups were unsuccessful in their suit to block an Alaska mine's tailing disposal procedures? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
mmmmm....well dumping tailings into a lake is nothing new, it is why Kirkland Lake directs you to the city and not the lake, because there is no lake any more. I will think about those hooks...--kelapstick (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey man, you don't have to tell me about it. I've bouldered over many a tailings pile in my day. I can't help it if most people think their tin cans and gasoline come about magically like manna from heaven, and that we'll soon be building cars out of hemp and powering the planet on "natural" wind and solar power. I'm just trying to provide you with fun hooks that the boobs will read with interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheating Scales of Bullamanka

I used your hints and just finished a cleanup and expansion of The Cheating Scales of Bullamanka to address the nom's concerns. Anything you might add? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey MQS. Always a pleasure to see you. I hope you are well. I don't have much to add to that. Maybe just some tag reduction and a tweaks here or there. Someday if I'm unblocked I'll try to have a look. Take care of yourself buddy. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed the AfD nominator is busy removing "redundant references". Haha, too funny. It can be hard to establish notability when you have characters like that one making abusive and disruptive edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's pile it on...

What's your poison?

Hey CoM, I'm having a beer. Want one? Pop it open, have a sip...the first sentence of Butcher group was not a run-on sentence, strictly speaking. That's the bad news. The good news: that tweak of yours did actually improve the legibility of the sentence. But hey, I'm just a grammarian who dabbles in rhetoric (or the other way around). I also agree that that block was over the top. Whatever followed that, in general I like to think "que sera, sera," and hope that you will feel the same way. Mathsci was behaving in a less-than-civil manner, to put it politely, and filing that AN/I thread, well, there was no need for that kind of knee-jerk reaction at all. You'll be back soon, producing content and tweaking to your heart's content, I hope.

Sippy and Rosie are snoring, Gina and her female friends are sipping Bellinis (I cater other people's So You Think You Can Dance parties, apparently), and I got a cardboard guitar for father's day. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. Very kind of you. Much appreciated as always. I was pretty fired up for my flag football game on the beach. :) I've seen the way you use commas, so it's no surprise to me that you don't think it's a run-on. :) Cheerios. Best to you and your family. Did you see the article I posted an K-stick's page? Freaking awesome. Have fun. Don't stay up too late. And remember, rarely is the question asked: is our children learning? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Haha, our oldest child are watch Super Why! right now, so of course they be learning! Drmies (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My editing history

Here's my editing history from the time I've been accused of stalking Mathsci. These are all new articles I worked on at new page patrol that were created around the same time. So the attacks and false accusations on me are obviously lies. But this kind of abuse gets rewarded by drunk and incompetent admins.

05:33, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Rolf Potts ‎ (tweaks) (top)
05:27, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Daniel Edward Lopez ‎ (prod reasoning)
05:27, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Daniel Edward Lopez ‎ (prdo)
05:24, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Andrew Evzona ‎ (speedy nom)
05:21, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Sam Blacketer ‎ (comment) (top)
05:14, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Butcher group ‎ (tweaks)
The above was the one where I made a single edit to improve the poorly written opening sentence of a new article. As it turned out, the poor writing skills of the arrogant, rude, nasty, uncivil, and policy abusing editor who created this article was the least of his problems. It's unfortunate that good faith editors on Wikipedia have to put up with jerks like this one, who comes stalking my talk page making all kinds of false and abusive statements. Even worse are the incompetent sleaze bag admins like Connoley, and those who would defend their abuse. These cancers encourage attacks on our best contributors. It's wrong to disregard our policies and to ignore ongoing discussions, but no corrective action was or will be taken. The vast majority of admins lack the spine and integrity to fix the problem. Admins like the one that blocked me are like shit in the toilet. They should be flushed out of the system so we can air the place out.
05:12, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Aditya Kashrap ‎ (redirect to movie article) (top)
05:10, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Suzhou Polytechnic Institute of Agriculture ‎ (+China project) (top)
05:10, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Suzhou Polytechnic Institute of Agriculture ‎ (unreferenced)
05:07, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Jacqueline Mukansonera ‎ (the assertions need citations to reliable soruces)
05:04, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Wolfgang Gratzer ‎ (+unasourced and notability)
04:59, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Grass emperor ‎ (+hoax tag)
04:58, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Okth ‎ (+translate tag) (top)
04:52, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) N Talk:Tu Do ( Freedom) Stadium ‎ (+wikiproject Vietnam) (top)
04:50, 24 June 2009 (hist) (diff) Boxboarders! ‎ (reasoning)

And of course there's lots more incivility, false accusations, personal attacks, and other violations on the ANI board from the usual circus clowns. But it's par for the course here on Wiki. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Your editing history isn't in question. The point is your incivility. Quite how you think the poor writing skills of the arrogant, rude, nasty, uncivil, and policy abusing editor (can you see the double standards in that quote?) is going to help you I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Consensus is obviously against your block. Even those who don't like me agree you were out of line. You're quite a daft fellow not to understand that abusing your bit and acting foolishly while drunk, is highly uncivil and inappropriate. Even if you could fix what you've done, the best start would be to apologize for acting like an ass. If you're unwilling to do so, that's on you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to be unblocked, put up an {{unblock|reason}} template. I'm neutral on this block, but otherwise I would have indeed lengthened it for the PAs on the blocking admin above. That kind of talk is not on here, stop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Abusive blocks against consensus aren't on either Gwen. Given your recent inappropriate behavior towards another good editor I would have thought you'd have figured that out by now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not putting up any unblock template. Undoing William Connelley's abusive behavior shouldn't require any such action on my part. That abusive blocks elicit a strongly negative reaction from those affected should come as no surprise. If the drunken lout that blocked me or some other admin who possesses some shred of integrity and good sense wants to take the appropriate action they're welcome to it. If none of you have that much devotion to righting wrongs and lack the courage to fix a grotesque mistake of this kind, it won't surprise me in the least. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Ok, I can understand your thinking on the template. Please have at it, if you like. As I said, I'm neutral but however worthy the block may have been, I'm also seeing a game of "bait the admins," gettin' mossy, that one. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
How is pointing out admin abuse a game of bait the admins? In case you haven't figured it out, I'd like to be left completely alone by admins. As they can't be bothered to address trolls and stalkers like Baseball Bugs and Wikidemon who come on my talk page and harass me (despite repeated requests to stay away since their comments have naught to do with improving the encyclopedia), I have little use for them. Go revert some vandalism, you don't appear to have a clue about how damaging admin abuse and incompetence is to our project, let alone any idea or plan for fixing the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Seems like Gwen is only able to see what she wants to see, not what is patently clear to most everyone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
PS. If I were able, I'd unblock you CoM, but as you know I can't. I completely agree with your attitude to the unblock request, they're just a humiliating waste of time. Speaking of which, your block will be over in a few hours anyway. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Mall. Indeed Gwen Gale's long history of abuse is well documented on other internet sites. That she still hasn't mustered a clue after all this time is rather shocking. I notice also that she's taken to misrepresenting comments by taking them out of context. It's pretty disgusting behavior to be sure. It's very hard to describe her actions in terms that are civil, and I don't hold out much hope that she'll get her act together any time soon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
And there I was, about to ask WMC if I could unblock you. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hahaha. That's the best one yet Gale. Terrific stuff. Conan O'Brien could use your talents. I apologize if I wasn't holding my breath anticipating your timely unblock. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Suggestion

Child, I understand your anger for the bad block by the admin who is notorious for his numerous questionable admin actions and conduct issues. However, Gwen (though she is not enthusiastic about unblocking you) has tried to help you. Do not expect that everyone would be sympathize your wrong block. You have attracted a lot of enemies and trolls for the Obama case and they will take an advantage of your ArbCom sanction just like Mathsic who has rather made horrendous accusations and threats has done to you. However, at this time, I suggest you to stay away from the Wikipedia right now. Having been told, you're really poor at defending yourself just like in the Obama Arbitration. I think you have some odd prejudice on the unblock template. That is made for anyone who wishes to be unblocked regardless of whether their blocking admin is wrongly blocked (in this case) or not.Your rant here is rather firming your blocked status. Please be practical and calm down.--Caspian blue 16:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor your statement that Gwen is trying to help me. It's making me feel nauseous and sick.
I think I've done a fabulous job of defending myself. I suppose it depends which measurement standards are applied and on what basis. Oh well. It's hard to please everyone, especially when so many people want to play critic. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, well, even if we are twins, I can not share a "same idea" with you all the time. :).
  • Some practical suggestions
  1. Be calm, and no more rant
  2. Well, if you still strongly feel a justice need to be done, take one of formal WP:DR methods for the issue. Either file a RFC/User conduct or Arbcom case on Mathsci or WMC (the latter has already has two RFC/U and ArbCom cases).
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests & Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct - DR venues
    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley
    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2 (userfied though)
    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William_M. Connolley
    Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley
  3. Or forget about this fiasco and concentrate on editing and avoid editors with problems.

So the decision is purely up to you.--Caspian blue 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I object to you refactoring my very accurate and reasonable characterizations of those undermining the integrity of Wikipedia and launching a full scale attack on NPOV, one of our core policies. But in deference to you and your kind friendship, I will let it stand. To refer to these swamp creatures as "editors" causes me to gag uncontrollably. Take care Casp. Go work on those beautiful list articles with the fabulous photos. If and when I am unblocked I will try to join you, but more likely I will be waylaid by my usual work on more frivolous fare. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion take 2

CoM, I agree with many others this was a bad block. It was a cool down block, made after some incivil remarks of yours, by an admin who stated he was drunk at the time. I think that stinks. That said, you have been your own worst enemy since. Cool down blocks simply don't cool one down, I know, but if you could try to take the advice Georgewilliamherbert and several others gave you, tried to be kind, even when others were not, and used the unblock template, you probably would have been unblocked some time ago. I am sorry this happened. Others clearly made mistakes here. But the only one you can control is yourself. Jonathunder (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Glane23

Nice rumaki photo! You da man. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A light snack

And this one. Classic! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - there are those in the world who believe that sandwich is worth a pilgrimage to north Cedar Rapids, Iowa! Geoff T C 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Shallots

I saw you posted stats on my marking as patrolled. But it seems to me that i patrolled many more articles than that. But I believe when they are actually edited, they are marked as patrolled, but don't show up in the log? Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, that's what it looked like to me. It's rare that I just mark something patrolled because usually new articles need some work. So most of those I mark that way are redirects, or new articles by established editors. Anyway, just thinking "out loud" I guess and noting that the listing you posted is a small fraction of the articles I patrolled around that time. Unless I'm mistaken, which does occasionally happen... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the log I linked only lists articles where you specifically clicked "mark this page patrolled". If you don't click that on articles you edit, you may well have looked at lots more. No matter - there were enough there to make the point. LadyofShalott 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Roger. I appreciate the clarification. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take a break

Really until your block is expired or "Some Sensible" admin would unblock you.--Caspian blue 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S if you want to rant more, well....send me an email. --Caspian blue 17:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I will not remain silent in the face of grotesque censorship and abuse of this kind now or ever. Some things are worth fighting for and I will never kowtow to ignorance and bias or the thugs that advance it as their cause. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Doppels and case-insensitive redirects

Once you're back in action, you might consider registering User:Childofmidnight and User:Child of midnight; the CamelCase in your name means that the case-insentitive search function doesn't work properly. –xenotalk 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I'm hard to find? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No, but for people like me who hate using the shift key, it would help ;p –xenotalk 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
What would registering those accounts do Xeno? Are you suggesting they could be redirected here? I'm more inclined to want to make it more difficult for most of the simians around here to drop in than to aid their efforts. :) I'm thinking of adopting Stifle's method. Or a password system of some sort. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
<snerk> yes, I was talking about registering them for redirect purposes. though you'll probably need an admin or acc to create them. so if you were joking above, and want them created, let me know =) –xenotalk 18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, something completely off-topic I've been curious about: is your user name related to Midnight's Children, the novel? Jonathunder (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Although some folk singer seems to have written a song under this name (about a chick he fancied), so many editors seem to think I'm a woman. Or maybe it's my soft touch? Fortunately for the hopeful and lonely, Jenna, Lady, and Iridescent are all better looking and a lot more fun than I am. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. The abuse of good faith editors needs to stop

I don't really care that much about the harassment I'm receiving. But this wp:ani#Never-ending disruption by Grundle2600 monstrous attack by pov pushers like Tarc, Allstarecho and Bigtimepeace is totally unacceptable.

Grundle has an interesting approach to be sure, and he's not perfect, but he's one of the most collegial and patient editors on here. He's created numerous good articles on many subjects including political topics like these:

That he'd be banned from creating new articles of this kind by editors misrepresenting his work here is outrageous. The evidence they cite includes perfectly legitimate article subjects like Gerald Walpin firing that was censored and deleted at AfD. And now they're going after the Gerald Walpin article too, even though a simple google news search shows he's been notable for a long career of interesting legal work. Incompetence, dishonesty, and abuse appears to rule the day here on Wikipedia.

The editors going after him can't hold a candle to his article creation talents or good nature. Shame on them and all of you reading this for not stepping up to his defense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. I am very moved by what you said. Your statement really means a lot to me. Thank you very much. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My sympathies

For what it's worth, that block is complete BS and Mathsci is overreacting. I used to think WMC was cool (he handled the whole Giovanni33 situation quite well), but this and a number of other recent things have caused me to revise my opinion of him.

I believe you're getting dumped on simply because you're unpopular with the segment of the community that wants to whitewash all Obama-related content. Jtrainor (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know what WMC has to do with it but this note prompted me to look through the arbcom thing and on the diffs presented I agree at any rate the penalty looks a bit disproportionate to the crime. At the same time Arbcom have a habit of being too lenient with everyone to perhaps this is a brave new world. --BozMo talk 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Was referring to the drunkminning thing. WMC is not terribly related to the Obam article crew as far as I know. Jtrainor (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you got blocked too. At least I'm in good company! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Responded to your comments on my talk page, upset at the personal attacks contained therin.

Firstly, I must say that I am thoroughly hurt and offended at your blatant personally attack left on my talk page. I have been nothing but fair and balanced in my entire life at Wikipedia, and I have done nothing in my interactions with you to deserve such a rude and baseless attack on my integrity and character. However, buried within your baseless and incivil personal attacks were some legitimate concerns. I have responded on my talk page to those concerns; please read my response. If there is anything else I can do to accomodate or alleviate your concerns please let me know, but please also do so in a way that does not impugn my character or otherwise make rude and baseless claims against me which are patently untrue. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

More accusations of personal attacks. That's what I get for trying to discuss my concerns over an admin launching into campaigns against good faith editors alongside aggressive POV pushers and policy abusers. Oh well. Live and learn. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you seem to be unaware of the problems with your initial comments, that you state that I "appear to have signed on with the POV pushers in hounding and targeting editors with whom they disagree over political issues" I find to be a baseless accusation. I make a single AFD nomination, and you extrapolate that into the idea that I am now signed on with POV pushers? And then you accuse me of censorship? I find that to be baseless and rude to attack me in that way. Seriously, I want to address your legitimate concerns over the article in question. Firstly, you seem to want to preserve the information on Obama firing this attorney. I think that is fine; there seems to be enough reliable sources to indicate that such an event is worth noting, even if it is not worth creating an entire article on that. The information is good, and if worded correctly it should probably be included somewhere. Secondly, that the person may be notable based on the number of "interesting cases" he has worked on. I find that to be a weak thing to hang a WP:BLP on, the fact that they worked on many "interesting cases". BLP-violations are a serious issue at Wikipedia, and I personally feel that borderline cases need to be handled carefully; this person is a real person and we should take the "do no harm" ethic seriously. However, I will concede that if sources can be produced which clearly meet the "directly address the subject with sufficient detail" standard at WP:N, I would gladly withdraw my nomination. If my comments above seem harsh, it is only in response to the personal nature with which your comments directly attacked my character. I was genuinely hurt by the personal nature of the comments you left. I had not once, before you accused me of POV-pushing and censorship, ever made any statements about your character at this level. If I have done something which has given you that impression, please let me work with you to fix this problem. I do not want to leave with anyone this impression, and I would like to work with you in fixing the legitimate concerns you have with the AFD I have made. I am reaching out in good faith, asking for you to help me find the material you say exists which prove this person is notable. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Jayron, it's simply not true that all you've done is "make a single AfD nomination", you've also been aggressive in pushing a topic ban on a good faith editor who has created numerous valuable articles on political subjects. He's being hounded, and you're playing a part in it. If you consider that a personal attack and can't assess your own role in the proceedings, I'm not sure how I can help you.
I tried to discuss my concerns with you on your talk page, and you came at me with highly uncivil accusations and implied threats. As I've indicated to you on your talk page, I'm not going to comment further, because your aggressive behavior towards me and your accusations that I'm making personal attacks are caustic. I consider myself censored from commenting on this further, because as an admin you have the power to make unilateral inappropriate blocks on me just like Connelley did, and there ain't nobody going to do shit about it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If the comments above are what are causing the problem, then I will redact them. I have struck them through. I also want you to know that I have no intention of blocking you here. I wanted you to know about the effect that your comments had on me; that they were hurtful and upsetting, not that I have any intention of blocking you or in asking any other admin to block you. Let me take that off the table. I have no intention of doing so, and I apologize for giving you that impression. It was not my intention. Let's put that out there so that we can have a civil discussion over this. I will not block you, I will not ask any other admin to block you, and I will not endorse any block of you over this issue. I just want to see this worked through; and if that is what is concerning you and preventing you from feeling comfortable in discussing this, then please let me offer you my solemn word that I have no intentions in that direction. If you feel that other admins have treated you unfairly in the past regarding situations like this, I can do nothing about that. Given that I have been clear on this, can we please discuss ways to improve the Gerald Walprin article; as I stated on my talk page to Grundle2600, I am not opposed to saving this article, if you feel that it can be saved, I am open to being convinced. Please let me know what else you want me to do so you can feel comfortable in working together to resolve this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this comment very much. It was not my intention to attack you personally, and I wouldn't have brought up my concerns at all if I didn't think you would be willing to consider them. I haven't worked with you, but I know you are an experienced admin, and truly I was very surprised to see you caught up in this affair.

I recognize that it's entirely possible you didn't know what you were getting mixed up in, but here's a brief primer for you. Numerous editors including Allstarecho, Phgustaf, Bigtimepeace, Tarc, Seicer, Wikidemon, Neutralhomer, Magnificentcleankeeper, Baseball Bugs and others have been very aggressive in going after editors with whom they disagree. NPOV is a core policy, yet I've been harassed and harangued, and have had these editors coming at me for months with numerous ANI reports, taunting, baiting, personal attacks, refactoring, collapsing comments etc. The situation has become so toxic and vile that most editors including veterans won't touch the articles in question. I participated in the Arbcom after a request from Wizardman to do so and in the hopes that at the very least the incivility could be reined in.

Despite the smear campaign against me I'm not any sort of right wing radical and I haven't advanced any fringe theories or edited any articles related to birth stuff or any of that. Grundle appears to be a libertarian (although people's personal politics shouldn't be relevant at all, but it's a testament the climate of fear and intimidation that has become so nasty that anyone trying to balance an article or to include something that isn't flattering of Obama has felt it necessary to constantly defend themselves).

Eventually after 7 ANI reports (as best I can recall) against me by Wikidemon and Allstarecho, all of them frivolous and rejected, Wikidemon had a content dispute with me on the ACORN article talk page, where he was arguing that NOTNEWS and BLP meant we couldn't include a Nevada Attorney general investigation into the organization, and I disputed his take since there was no mention of any names and notnews doesn't mean we don't use reliable and notable reports in the media (obviously). He took it to ANI. He had nothing, so he went digging in my history but found four edits I had made to another Obama article over two days (48 hours), and accused me of edit warring. There was discussion inbetween on the article talk page, but an admin unilaterally blocked me with no warning and no prior discussion.

That block served as the core of the arbcom case against me, along with a copy edit to a talk page, and a supposed "templating" where I asked Wikidemon to please focus on article content and keep discussion on article discussion talk pages. So now I'm topic banned, which I don't think I've violated, but as I predicted, the grotesque miscarraige at ARbcom and the failure of Wizardman to really grasp the problem, has only emboldened the abusive editors involved.

Since Arbcom Phgustaff and Baseball Bugs have shown up posting numerous times on my talk page, in BB case even after I requested he stop. Allstarecho has launched one after another ANI reports, following Wikidemon's lead, against editor after editor. It's abusive. It's not how we're supposed to deal with content disputes. And it needs to stop.

Sorry for the long post. But that's where we are now with this hounding in full swing (and other editors have received the same treatment, but I don't really like to name names as it just makes them more of a target).

Anyway, cheers. I don't really have much more to say. Do what you want Jayron, but my concerns to you were genuine and the problem is all too real. Hopefully with this background you can get a better understanding of why topic banning editors based on complaints by Allstar and Neutralhomer is problematic? And picking off an editor's articles, many of them new, most of them notable and only needing appropriate editing and in some cases merger, is totally wrong and part of a campaign of censorship. Take care. It is what it is. There doesn't seem to be a willingness by any admins to do much about it, I guess they're just following arbcoms lead and can't be bothered to properly investigate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ANI Discussion

CoM, I've boldly closed the discussion you opened at ANI. I did so not out of an interest in censoring you, but in the interest of protecting you. What with the (in my opinion, ill-advised) block you had yesterday, and the current climate at ANI, you're running the risk of getting yourself blocked. Additionally, ANI isn't designed for that kind of thread, either. It's only for "incidents" which need immediate admin intervention. Best, Unitanode 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Unitanode. But I hope you and other admins will keep a look out and keep Baseball Bugs, Neutralhomer, Tarc, Phgustaff, and Allstar off my talk page. I don't need to be harassed and taunted by these indivudals who have no business here and aren't collaborating with me on building the encyclopedia. In fact I haven't seen what contributions they make to the encyclopedia, if any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not an admin, CoM, I've just been quietly watching the situation unfold, and didn't want to see you blocked again. I thought the best way to accomplish that -- and to minimize the drama -- was to close that thread. Have you ever considered finding a less contentious area to work in for a week or two? It would minimize your stress, and would also allow you to write more, which is what you apparently enjoy the most. Unitanode 12:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin

  • Please be advised that this edit is in violation of your topic ban resulting from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles and as such I have removed your comments. While I am sure that your edit was completely in good faith, topic bans extend to all discussions of the topic including in project space, which you were obviously not aware of. CIreland (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that was particularly harsh and unneccesarily punitive. While I respect the decision of arbcom here, some WP:IAR could be exercised in this case for a deletion discussion, especially where the content of his post did not even mention Obama. Please return his comments, as they break the continuity of the discussion, and which do not really harm the situation. Lets not get petty over enforcing this... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'd have to echo Jayron on this. ArbCom seems to be very specific on this, even mentioning "talk pages" in the restrictions. I'm not sure the sanctions are meant to carry any implications over into XfD discussions. I certainly appreciate the good faith efforts to patrol any ArbCom rulings, but I also believe CoMs comments to have been offered in equally good faith. — Ched :  ?  13:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I presume this comment referts to a hypothetical "reversal of admin enforcement..." as I don't think I reversed anything. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry ChildOfMidnight, I was unclear there. The "reversal of admin enforcement..." was by Jayron32, not by yourself. He has since reverted himself. CIreland (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay. No worries CIreland. I appreciate your good faith efforts and don't have any complaints with your actions. Sorry if you feel a bit under the gun getting caught up in this. I think the same happened to Jayron. :) It's nice that people would stick up for me, and if I'd known others would get involved over your removing my AfD comment I would have responded to your initial post here noting that I understood and was okay with that action under the circumstances. As I didn't see anything that needed to be said at the time, not knowing that there any issues would arise over it, I made no comment. When I made my AfD post I didn't know that I was prohibited from doing so. AfDs don't have much to do with the issues involved in the Arbcom proceeding, but if those are the rules there's not really much I can do about it. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No harm done at all by CoM or CIreland: CoM's AfD edit was in good faith but unknowingly strayed from the topic ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight - I read your comment in the deletion discussion before it was erased. That's pretty impressive that you were able to persuade the person who proposed the deletion to change their mind. Congratulations! I'm sure you were just trying to help in the discussion, even though they are now saying that you violated part of your block. I do hope that everything works out - you often have a lot of great ideas on how to improve articles. Right after I was blocked from political articles (but not from talk pages or deletion discussions), I asked for a clarification of exactly what constituted a political article, and the administrators were very helpful in answering my questions. Perhaps you might have some questions for them about your own situation. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sisu, Rumaki

I am not Finnish but I have in-laws who are Scandinavians. I love rumaki. :-) Bearian (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

Hello,

I am giving you this as a courtesy copy because you were among those who supported the deletion of this article. It is the text I sent to the Admin who deleted the article.

Cheers

Hello,

I was very interested in the fact that this article was deleted, well astounded might be the correct word. I read with interest the deletion log and I understand that the article has very little chance of passing. However I must assert that this does not mean that it is below the threshold of notability. I did a little research to see exactly how notable this bill is.

I went to http://stats.grok.se/ to look up how often this article was viewed:

  • Jan 2009 - 577 views
  • Feb 2009 - 4487 views
  • Mar 2009 - 3016 views
  • Apr 2009 - 2321 views
  • May 2009 - 6826 views
  • total - 17227 views

Even after it was deleted, in June, the deletion page was viewed 92 times.

To be fair, however, I ran view statistics for 10 random articles to see if the Blair Holt article received more views. Of the 10 I looked up, only two got more hits. This is hardly enough for a true statistical comparison, but it would indicate that the article was getting more hits than the majority of Wikipedia articles. This seems to indicate notability.

Next I went to Google to see how many Web hits I would get if I looked it up. For Blair Holt bill, I get 1,120,000 hits. I went to Google News and discovered there have been thousands of news stories on the bill as well.

As a final note, I was at the Utah State Republican convention where it was brought up and discussed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, which indicates that despite the fact that there is only one sponsor, the bill is receiving considerable buzz in congress.

The bill is notable for another reason. It delegates powers reserved for the congress in the Constitution (the right to make laws) to one person, namely the Attorney General.

Given all this, I can only conclude that the article, and the bill are indeed notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration,

J appleseed2 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion was here [16]. My suggestion would be to have the deleted article moved to your userspace. Once there, you can get suggestions on how and if it's possible to improve it enough to have it recreated or merged somewhere. Has it received any coverage since the deletion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Again,

Thanks for the quick response and the suggestions.

I do not know whether the article has received much coverage in Wikipedia other that the fact that the deletion page has been viewed 92 times. The most recent coverage in the media was a story on June 22 in the Chicago Sun Times. Other coverage in the media this month (June 20, Gainsville Times) said that the bill might be responsible for a nation-wide bullet shortage. If true, this would mean that enough Americans are aware of the bill to create the shortage.

I do not think the article itself was deleted because it was poorly written, I think the notability issue was the sole reason. That is what the deletion log indicates to me from your comments and the others. However, being unable to currently access the article, I don't know with any certainty. I haven't looked at it for some time. When I worked on it, I did make several edits to make it neutral and complete, and reworked much of the content from previous editors to ensure conformity to the standards. However, I don't know what edits may have occurred since I last worked on it.

Cheers,

64.0.193.254 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when it the login times out while I'm writing :(

J appleseed2 (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI re: RFAR

Hi ChildofMidnight, in case you haven't seen it, Wikidemon has asked for a clarification regarding the recent Obama ArbCom which relates partially to the remedies passed about you. You might want to have a look or even comment, though I'd highly recommend refraining from any interaction with Scjessey and Wikidemon even over on that page. Happy editing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And the harassment continues... I have commented there. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I realise the recent few days have been tough, but let's draw a line in the sand and move on. Take a deep breath and just avoid adding any further negative comments into the mix. I am posting this advice all round. Further postings seen as inflammatory could have consequences. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

When the attacks stop, I won't need to respond and defend myself. These individuals keep coming after me relentlessly and hounding me all over the place. Do any of these "editors" actually write articles? I never see any evidence of their having done so. Truly, I hope you can end the harassment I'm receiving from Baseball Bugs, Allstarecho, Tarc, Wikidemon, Phgustaff and the others. And they should be prevented from treating any other editors they disagree with this way. It's not okay to use these intimidation and bullying tactics against those with minority viewpoints. It's very unfortunate that the arbcom ruling you signed onto reinforced and encouraged their abusive behavior, rewarding the use of aggressive attacks and repeated frivolous ANI reporting. We're now seeing the results of this mistake. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)<part of comment struck by Casliber>
OK, from now - let's try this again...let me know about any specific baiting etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Roger Wilco. Hopefully there will be none in future as it's finally been spelled out that it's not okay. Imagine if Arbcom had simply warned them and provided an outlet for the reporting of inappropriate behavior of this sort, instead of rewarding their abuse and encouraging it. I swear I suggested such an outcome repeatedly as an effective means that would avoid the use of punitive measures which are against our policies and don't fix anything. Ah well. I trust you'll vote for me in the next Arbcom election. Take care Cas. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Comment

Thanks! That's really nice of you. :) I was a bit discouraged at first but the whole RfA was a great experience for me and it's really helped me a lot. I look forward to running for adminship again sometime in the future. Cheers, TheLeftorium 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Submerged continents

Sorry. I wasn't trying to bury your input. I utilised your excellent contribution as the basis of a new article Mythical continents, and placed a reference to the new article in See also of Submerged continents. Thanks for your assistance and gentle inquiry. Gubernatoria (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just thought I'd let you know

Hey Child, I was just doing some archiving work today on my talk page when I noticed that an old friend of yours had their userpage blue-linked again. Apparently, they are a sockpuppeteer and I just thought you could use a heads-up that he may return. Take care.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

I appreciate the civil tone of your comment here, thank you for that. I just have a simple question though: what specific dispute over content have we ever been in? Please show me diffs, even though you say you don't like to do that. I have warned you about certain behavior, and you have argued with me about that. Note that per the article probation, "enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute." If you cannot or will not show me how we have been in a specific dispute about content—not one about me warning you or warning Grundle2600—then I cannot accept your point of view on this issue. (If you don't want to mention anything here because of your ArbCom restriction, you can e-mail me some diffs, my e-mail is enabled).

Additionally, as I've said repeatedly, the fact that I "have a personal political view that's very much to one side of the political spectrum" is utterly irrelevant. (Interestingly, it happens to be a view that causes me to disagree with Barack Obama extremely often, not that that matters). The point is, you have never provided even the smallest bit of evidence that I have ever worked on the Obama articles in a non-NPOV manner, or that my beliefs about politics have clouded my judgment. Everyone has politics—that's not special. I think it is unacceptable for you to use the simple fact that I stated a basic fact about my political beliefs—i.e. that I voted for Obama—as some sort of "evidence" against me time and time again (I've never done the same for you), without ever providing diffs of some sort of biased behavior on my part. Please provide them now, and if you cannot then please stop bringing up this point. I revealed that fact only in the interests of transparency and, as you should know because I pointed it out to you, it came out in the context of a talk page section I started headed "Concrete proposal for adding in a bit of criticism." It has always amazed me that you complain repeatedly about my "aggressive" (your wording from a recent comment) mention of my politics on one occasion as somehow meaning I am biased, when the context for mentioning that was me suggesting inclusion of some more critical views of Obama in the article, the lack of which had been your number one complaint. Read through that old talk section if you don't remember, and then explain to me where I'm pushing some crazy pro-Obama POV.

As a courtesy to you, I will generally look for other admins to enforce remedies against you in the ArbCom case if that's needed, even though I don't think that's necessary, and even though I think you have completely misrepresented my editing practices on the Obama article in numerous comments in the last couple of days (I hope your most recent comment to ArbCom is an example of a changed tone when talking about other editors—a lot of your problems will go away if you keep that up). If you really think we've been in a dispute, and if you really think I have some bias to which I am blind, then show me diffs here and now, or in a private e-mail if you prefer (I don't want you to get in trouble for talking about something Obama-related, but I do want to put this issue to rest since you keep bringing it up). If you cannot or will not produce them, then I consider this matter permanently closed as it has grown quite tiresome from my end. I'll continue to work on Obama related articles as a neutral admin if I choose to do so, though I'll avoid directly enforcing ArbCom remedies against you (hopefully that won't be necessary anyway, I have no interest whatsoever in seeing you blocked). You do fine work here, but quite frankly I have not especially enjoyed our interactions, as they have taken up an enormous amount of my time, and generally all I've been dealing with is accusations from you that I have behaved horribly—accusations that you have never substantiated, and which relate to little more than me leaving a few warnings on user talk pages. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

BTP, when you say you disagree with Obama quite often, let's be clear, you mean you disagree with him because he's not anti-war and liberal enough (which by the way is a perspective that's not included in any of the major articles despite our neutral point of view policy indicating it should be, something I tried to address). I would hope that you could at least agree that we have very much been in conflict. I'm a bit surprised that you would think that your political views don't influence your approach to handling conflicts on those articles. Do you think I'm able to completely seperate my views from my editing? Is Grundle? Is anyone?
Certainly, even with extra effort it is often impossible for people with strongly held views not to have them influence their perspectives and approach. As I pointed out, that's why the question about passionate subjects is often asked at RfA, and it's something I'm reminded of by people like Casp when they kindly point out that my editing is sometimes from an unduly U.S. focused perspective. I'm from the U.S. and I can't change that (and it also has to do with the sourcing available to me on the web) but having been made aware of the problem, I've tried to be more "worldly" and inclusive in my approach.
I urge you to think carefully about how editors who are perceived as being "conservative" are treated on Wikipedia, and to consider the experiences and perspective of these editors facing a wall of incivility and aggressive behavior by editors with differing viewpoints. When you consider that roughly half the United States (and Europe too to some extent) is on the right while the other half is on the left, it should be troubling that there are so few editors of these persuasions willing to work on our political content. I would like to suggest to you that the reason editors coming at the issues from this poitn of view are so much in the minority here has something to do with the hostility and nastiness with which they are treated. There is great irony that many who are themselves in a minority elsewhere, find themselves in a position of some dominance here but engage in a similar type of abuse and intimidation to that they face in other situations (I'm not trying to say the problem on Wiki is the same or to suggest it is as serious as real life issues, but I see a similarity in the behavior pattern).
And let me be clear, while I don't think anyone should have to defend their politics on Wiki, I am in no way shape or form some sort of staunch conservative. I'm quite moderate, and in fact I am in many ways a a progressive, and even a radical in some of my viewpoints on political issues and my advocacy for a more just world. On Wiki, I would just like to see appropriate balance and fairness, with a variety of notable perspectives represented. I agree with the sentiment that silence=death and that bias and censorship promote ignorance. This is getting to be a very long answer, but if there is an article or content in an article, that covers the very notable opposition to Obama, I don't know where it is located. I don't share Grundle's political views (as I understand it he's a libertarian) and I can't always relate to his approach on content creation and addition, but this is a collaborative encyclopedia and the unwillingness of our editors to work with him on fixing the many great articles he creates and the refusal to help iron out his content contributions when they're lumpy, instead of simply trying to delete them and banning him is a travesty and an abuse of the worst kind. I hope that in the near future he will be mentored and assisted in getting back to his good work on all subjects, instead of being sent to the corner because he doesn't see things the same way most others here do.
As far as diffs, I'm a bit worn down by the drama, the harassment, the stalking, and the constant need to defend myself, so I'm not really enthusiastic about delving into or rehashing old disputes, and I loathe digging out diffs, but if it is important to you I will try to do so when I get a chance. I think your point is really more that we haven't argued over a particular edit or wording, which is true, and that my point is that we've very much disagreed on what kind of content can be legitimately suggested and added to articles. Again, my point, is that I think you should put your tools aside when dealing with editors whose politics and content positions you disagree with so strongly. Otherwise, you seem to be a very fine editor and person. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your very thoughtful and detailed reply, I quite appreciate it. I think when politics are left to the side, it becomes obvious that we have more common ground than we both might think. I too think it's important to make sure that critical views of Obama are represented in our articles, and in the long-term (and to some degree the short term) I do see possible problems in terms of including that kind of content. As the section on the presidency expands, if more criticism is not included (particularly from the center and the right, but also to some degree from those on Obama's left, where I obviously sit) I will be extremely far away from being a happy camper. As I said I do see this as a possible problem, and the next few months of article development will probably be telling in this regard.
The issue I've had with Grundle2600 (and to a lesser extent you, since Grundle has been much more active in proposing content) is the manner in which specific content was proposed, and to a much lesser degree the type of content. There were some things, such as "Obama's plane burned gas on Earth Day" which were NPOV and OR disasters, but almost everything Grundle proposed led me to reply something akin to, "I can see a place for this, how about we contextualize this (criticism about the Chrysler merger, for example) in the context of the larger issue of the auto bailout?" Usually Grundle did not follow up on those very general responses from myself and others, and this was a big part of the problem (you may or may not have been following the detailed discussions). I completely agree that some mentoring and assistance for Grundle in terms of political content editing has been what's needed, and I've sincerely tried to do that though the results have often been fairly frustrating, and undoubtedly the failure there is in part my own. As you may have seen on article talk pages, a number of other editors (including Wikidemon, quite prominently) have tried at length to work with Grundle. It simply has not worked out, obviously. I hope Grundle comes back from his topic ban and makes good contributions to Obama articles and others related to politics, and my good faith assumption is that that is very much something that can happen. I honestly spent a lot of time in back and forth with that editor (to the exclusion of working on other things I would have rather worked on), and it gives me no pleasure that things ended up the way they did.
We all edit with biases, of course, but part of holding to WP:NPOV is being attentive to those, and I think I'm rather aware of mine. My academic field is history, and it's one which is, I think, particularly concerned with "objectivity" in describing events. My goal for Barack Obama (and related articles) is an informative, up-to-date, NPOV presentation of the kind of information one would like to find in an encyclopedia. That's fairly difficult to do on a controversial topic, and I'm sure you can appreciate that admins who try to step into the fray are doing (or trying to do) a difficult job. I don't think I've gone too far astray in my efforts, and I don't think the fact that I'm "passionate" about politics (as I am with dozens of other subjects, as we all are) has clouded my "objectivity," such as it is (I'm more than a little bit pomo when it comes to the issue of being "objective," but that's a separate topic.  :-) ). Admins, like any other editor, will come across edits and editors with whom they disagree all the time, but that is not a reason to simply lay down the tools. If an editor is not following core content policies (in my judgment, obviously) I definitely will disagree with that, but it doesn't mean I will not warn the editor in question, simply because I disagree with their approach—quite the contrary. Imagine yourself wearing the admin hat in a circumstance like that and I think you might understand a bit more where I'm coming from.
Anyhow, more than enough said, and as this is your talk page I'll leave you the "right of last reply," such as it is. As I said at the outset I thank you for the civility and thoughtfulness of your last comment, even though we'll still probably end up disagreeing on certain key issues. If you are so inclined, don't hesitate to contact me if you need a quick bit of admin help or a second or third opinion in some far-off corner of the 'pedia. Best. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You asked me for a specific example where we've disagreed on content, so I hope you don't mind if I use one from your above comment. I don't think there's anything disruptive or inappropriate with an editor wanting to include "Obama's plane burned gas on Earth Day" and I don't agree at all that covering that type of topic has to be an NPOV and OR disaster. I don't think it's article worthy, and I'm not sure whether or where it's appropriate to include, but it's certainly been covered by reliable independent media so there's no policy based objection to proposing or attempting to add it. What weight it should be given, if any, is another issue.
Although you indicate an effort to collaborate on reasonably handling this type of content, I've seen a disturbingly large amount of threats and intimidation from you. Seeking to help contextualize content is nice, but an editor shouldn't have to agree with you or follow your advice on how to handle something in order to avoid being threatened or blocked. As long as they follow policy and don't violate 3RR or other policies, there is no rule that says they can't propose content that many here don't like. No content gets into an article if it goes against the consensus of others working on the same subject. So if people are unhappy with what's being proposed, too fucking bad. :) No one's stopping them from proposing a superior alternative or removing the content in question if it's added.
And given the grotesque violations of NPOV in our content on these subjects, it is not an editor trying to bring more balance and criticism that needs reining in, but the self appointed "page patrollers" and "protectors" who are violating our core NPOV policy and who seem to do very little article creation or content building and an awful (and I do mean awful) lot of soap boxing, insulting, reverting without trying to fix, and abusive ANI reporting. The hostility and harassment doled out by these editors is totally unacceptable, and the level of attacks on long term good faith editors that they've been allowed in their conduct is obscene. If someone doesn't like content they can remove it, if they don't like a new article they can put it up at AfD and have it deleted, but censoring and banning editors with whom they disagree (by any means they deem necessary) is simply wrong. There are lots of articles and subjects I don't think should be included here, but I would never attempt to attack and intimidate anyone from trying to add or expand them. That would be wrong. I only expect that they abide by our policies, and where they aren't in compliance I try to bring them up to speed and to assist them.
It's not just the inappropriate censorship and bias that's a problem, it's also the damage that's being done to the encyclopedia. The article focusing on Michelle Obama's arms was a bit much for me, but once it was recreated under a more appropriate title (as was suggested at the prior AfD) it could easily have been stubbified, trimmed or even expanded and contextualized into a very encyclopedic, interesting, and useful article on the extermely notable subject of her fashion and style influence. Those unwilling to collaborate and unwilling to help fix and improve content instead of deleting it have done real damage to our encyclopedia.
You are welcome to respond. I don't reserve any last word right on my talk page, only that I am free to remove anything I find objectionable. I also think it's reasonable that, upon a request to do so, an editor will avoid my talk page if I conclude the interactions aren't helpful or constructive to building this encyclopedia. This certainly doesn't preclude notifications regarding discussions on article talk pages or other boards, or any other polite notification that might be needed.
I appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues. I hope things will improve in the months to come, but given the outcome of the Arbcom and the results demonstrated so far (which confirmed my predictions and were largely to be expected based on the "remedies" imposed), I think it's clear that things have gotten worse and not better, and that improvement will only come when people here make an effort to change the way we do things instead of just trying to make the problems "go away" by punishing those who point them out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In memoriam of Actress Farrah Fawcett, Billy Mays, and Pop king Michael Jackson

Just found out two days ago...by the way, this is MidKnightHunter.Omnechist (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Billy mays found dead today...=( no more oxyclean... Omnechist (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Palin

I wish you would take a look at what was going on with the Sarah Palin article late last summer, right after her nomination, when the article was under siege from left-wing and tabloid POV pushing and I helped to defend the article. I actually got compliments from conservative editors at the time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth CoM, I'll agree. I might not always be in agreement with Bugs on everything, but I honestly see him as a fair and honest man. Some folks might not always get the humor, but I honestly find it difficult to question his fairness or integrity. I watched a long discussion between Bugs and GTB - I was amazed at how they worked to find a middle-ground of mutual respect. I truly believe if you would give Bugs a chance, you may find him to be one of your most valuable allies in the future. Will you at least think about it? — Ched :  ?  02:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not interested in what personal points of view Baseball Bugs has, and if he wants to revert vandalism that's great. Inserting sarcastic comments into discussions, baiting editors, and making snide remarks towards people he doesn't agree with or like fosters an adversarial environment of tension and conflict that I find unpleasant. He seems to like poking his nose where it doesn't belong, and into discussions that aren't related to him for no other purpose than to stir the pot and cause trouble. I don't find that helpful or funny. That type of joking should be kept among friends and not used against people in disagreements or pointed at editors who are already expressing unhappiness with a situation. You guys are welcome to work together, but I haven't found the level of maturity and restraint I've seen from him to be conducive to the work I enjoy doing here. And I've asked him repeatedly to have his fun elsewhere. If others find his sense of humor entertaining and appropriate, God bless them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind my style being criticized. It is what it is. What I don't like is to be called politically biased. I can't speak for the others, that's a judgment call. But I do what I can to try to keep bias out of the articles I work on. The purpose of wikipedia is to try to provide fair and useful information to the public. The anyone-can-edit aspect of it has led to a general skepticism about wikipedia's reliability, so I do what I can to try to counter that. I come from the midwest and from a generation that's blunt and straightforward. The modern "touchy-feely" approach does not work for me. Sometimes I see editors who, regardless of their political viewpoints, get locked into a particular channel. I raise questions. I challenge that channel. Sometimes they don't like it, and they complain that I'm sarcastic and that I create "drama". But during my RFA, someone said that the most infuriating thing about me is that I'm usually right. For the region and generation I come from, I can't think of a higher compliment than that. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered the fact that they're wrong? =) –xenotalk 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC) also, you seem to be inaccurately paraphrasing what they wrote [17]
He said I'm "usually right" on AN/I. Who am I to argue with that? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Bugs, do you have any Scandinavian in you? I'm remembering conversations between myself, my dad, my grandfather, and my brother. We were all always right all of the time, but never agreed on anything. (An Irishman offered the opinion that we were "all full of shit", but I ignored that.) PhGustaf (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
English. What does that tell you? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Bugs, weren't you warned by the arbitrator, Casliber for disengagement from CoM? Moreover, didn't CoM warn you "not to visit his page?" You said when somebody expressed unwelcome for visiting his/her page, follow it. However, you broke your own word and pledge. Those are contradictory behavior of your own words. It is a very simple thing for you to "let him alone". However, if you wish you to officially be banned from contacting with CoM by the ArbCom for making more dramas. Your continued feuds with CoM (directly and indirectly) invite your "cabal" like PhGustaf. And you're indeed persistently obsessed with the CoM's essay(?) written at ANI on March 8/9 that I do not understand. That is just a petty thing to be ignored, but you bring up it repeatedly. As an outsider's view, I'm amazed by American editors' firm belief that everyone in the world certainly know what's going on with US politics and their small political affairs. Look, Wikipedia is certainly founded by American businessmen, and operated by them and written in English. However, that does not mean that Wikipedia is good to be called "Americanpedia". I'm fed up with this US-centric feuds that you guys are making with the Obama or Palin articles. And why are you still talking about your failed RFA? Please "get over it" as I advised you before. Your obsessive behavior does not make you mature and your words credible.--Caspian blue 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

John Long

You do realize that searching with quotes, you only find one hit for John Long, the cartoonist? "Long" and "John" are very common names, so searching without quotes will turn up a zillion false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pics on Scapler's page

Well, if you enjoyed those, you just might like these. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the animal figures the best. Great shots. Very well done. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at ANI...

only tangentially to the main topic, but your name has come up a couple of times in WP:ANI#Block review - uninvolved admin request. Just FYI -- LadyofShalott 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I found a disturbing fact on WMC and Mathsci's relationship so raised the matter to ANI.[18] However, I want you to step back from the drama for your own sake since you have "a lot of ardent fans" willing to attack you in the front. And let others handle it unless you file an ArbCom case or RFCU against Mathsci or William M. Connolley. Have a good day.--Caspian blue 15:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, Tarc appeared to bring up a new conspiracy theory that he wants to cook up for his lunch. You have my deepest sympathies to deal with this kind of editors for months.--Caspian blue 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that Mathsci is behaving like an obnoxious bully and WMC has encouraged this by blocking the editors that Mathsci attacks inappropriately. It's interesting that they're friends offline as well. Their teaming up on Wikipedia has certainly caused a lot of disruption. If they want to protect the clumsy writing in articles they're working on from being fixed up, then so be it. I'm over it. Wikipedia has lots other areas where there is collaboration and good faith. Who wants to put up with pretentious behavior from insecure people with inferiority complexes who feel the need to cover up their own inadequacies by going on the attack and mimicking spoiled children by throwing tantrums. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Hello again, ChildofMidnight. Tarc (talk · contribs) came to my talk page to ask that I look at your edits to Talk:Gerald Walpin. I agree with him that the Walpin article and its talk page clearly fall within the area restricted by your topic ban. However, since I was not around to act on this at the time, I think the best course of action now is for me to give you a second warning and to advise you that if Tarc had chosen to go to Arbitration enforcement you would probably have received a short block.

In future, if you are unsure whether or not a page falls within the topic ban, please seek advice from an administrator or ask at WP:AN. CIreland (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Secret Plot

Hi, ChildofMidnight. I noticed at the AfD discussion that you checked off "Japanese editor notified" after notifying me. Just to make sure it's clear-- I'm white, U.S. American, but was raised close to Japanese people and culture, and lived in Korea, and married there. So I have some knowledge of Japanese and Korea subjects, and a lot of interest in both. Anyway, feel free to contact me about Korean/Japanese subjects, but just be aware that I can't claim to have any kind of "native" authority in either area. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the clarification and for your generous help. Ohiogazymas. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:2.0

Sorry? No idea what that was about! (By the way, managed an article on vegetarian bacon yet?) J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The big day

Hey Child. It's been a while. How are things? Are you doing anything exciting for Independence Day?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No big plans here Sky. But Sky Attacker is a good name for a firework!. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, it actually is a good name for a firework. Maybe when Wikipedia celebrates its 10th anniversary I'll have a firework named after me. Who knows?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How to handle relations on Wikipedia

Squid, freshly drawn and colored
Squid: battered and fried (calamari)

How about moving the disputed relations to mythical countries on mythical continents? If all else is ruled out, moving may be the best solution. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Moving bilateral relations articles where they don't belong. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
You misunderstood me - and I can see why you keep getting into trouble over politics. I would only move them to appropriate mythical places - ones where they do belong. Nobody could object to that. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving bilateral relations articles to appropriate places, especially mythical ones. Mythical places are sacred on Wikipedia and shouldn't be fooled with by trolls. Elves, maybe. Admittedly, the articles aren't up to the standards of fictional characters, but they're getting there. I think I could be convinced to merge the bilateral relations articles into trilateral relations, or perhaps quadrilateral relations. But I draw the line at pentagonal relations. That can get confusing and also has overtones of Wicca type paganism. And the edit wars on the anarchy articles are a real free for all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A compromise could be to move them to unilateral relations with mythical places. The real country would have a relation with Erewhon or Ruritania, whatever, but the mythical place would have no corresponding relation to the real country, so would remain undisturbed. Many of the articles listed in United States foreign relations show how this could be done. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Have we slipped through the back of a wardrobe to Uncyclopedia? LadyofShalott 18:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oops! I'm in the wrong wiki - and think I have been for the last 1,746 edits on bilateral relations. Never mind. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
First of all, what is Erwhon and why isn't there an article about it? And second of all, this isn't an Uncyclopedia? Is it a MMPORG? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Erewhon is a famous book by Samuel Butler. BTW, CoM, if you haven't already, notice what you get if you reverse the spelling of Erewhon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Nohwere? It seems Butler is no better at spelling (backwards at least) than some Wikipedia editors (including myself) forwards. Interesting stuff. The introduction where it says "is a book by Samuel Butler, who wrote is anonymously" is a bit trippy. Maybe it could be reordered to improve coherence? Have a fun weekend. I know Canada hasn't gained full independence from the Crown yet, but I'm holding out hope that one day soon... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
As long as I'm the one in charge I always support unilateral action. And I must say that what you've suggested seems like a pretty fabulous idea, from what I can understand of it (which isn't much). I do hope we can work in the Micronations. And I also want to point out the special delight I took in seeing you embroiled (and fried also) in disagreements involving those opposed to preserving the bilateral content and those who want it preserved but don't want the bits that aren't independently notable merged and redirected. What fun! Crete's got nothing on Wikipedialand (Cyprus, maybe). Although the presence of ample squid and octopus suggests that all of these places (is this a place?) have a lot of suckers. And I do enjoy chewing on them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Calamari, when cooked just enough not to turn them into rubber bands, is great stuff. Could eat it all day. :) :) :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I once spent an afternoon with a whole lot of squid experimenting. Dropped into hot chicken broth, it was completely eatable in a couple of minutes, maybe less. Dipped in a very light batter it could be cooked in hot oil in a wok in less than a minute, in a slightly cooler oil in less than two minutes - but no longer, because it would get tough. In a frying pan with garlic and green peppers, maybe a little bit longer. In a soup with wine and other stuff, a whole lot longer. The cooking time makes it tender, then tough, then much later tender again. However it is cooked, the tentacles have to be the best bits - love those suckers. What has this possibly got to do with bilateral relations on Wikipedia? My aunt likes calamari and she has an email address... Have to close down - just got an idea for rescuing an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It has everything to do with. Meanwhile, you're makin' me hungry. Better head down to the marina, where a seafood platter has my name on it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The most dangerous dessert in the world

Cake in a mug. But of course you've beat me to it. The source actually called it the most dangerous cake recipe in the world, but how dramatic is that? Flowanda | Talk 19:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My vote is for the bacon explosion. I think there must be some kind of date cake desert. but maybe it's just a mirage brought on my too much dessert. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Images in Zanthoxylum americanum

Hey, thanks for adding those! One thing is weird though - I can see the seedling image, but not the picture in the infobox. If I go to the file name directly, I see it, but not in the box. Is it working on your end? LadyofShalott 23:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Works okay here. Try refreshing? Hopefully I did the photos okay. If not J Milburn will leave me a stern warning. :) I can't figure out how to cite picture in the infobox. I used their preferred citation format as a courtesy, but I suppose it can be altered.
I also did some tweaking to get rid of redundancies and then had to reword slightly based on that. Probably good anyway since it will make it a bit less like the sources? Some people get mighty unhappy if it's too close, and others get mighty unhappy if it isn't close enough. So it's a careful dance. Hopefully I didn't mess anything up too badly.
I may have overdone it on the ways it's named, but I don't know how you pick which to include and which to leave out? I left an edit summary on the need for redirects. What does the "Mill." part of the name mean? It's cool that like the miniature pig it turned out to be scientifically significant for potential medical applications. We may be helping save the world... from fungus... or maybe some of the other things it is supposed to aid in folk medicine.
Happy to help out of course. It's a nice looking article I think. But I am no more a biologist than I am a mathematician. But I'm an expert at creative writing... which really helps out here on the Uncyclopedia encyclopedia. A photo would be nice. Where did you stumble on this plant anyway? I didn't think you left the home-office/computer room... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I still don't see that one picture, but maybe when I close out completely and restart, it'll work. I don't mind the long list of names; I guess we'll see if anyone else objects.
It's common in botanical nomenclature to use an abbreviation for the person who first described it scientifically. As it turns out, I was able (thanks to the prompt for me to look) to wikilink the abbreviation, Mill., to the article about him - Philip Miller.
I clicked on a requested articles link. In my recent recent pages patrolling, I've been intrigued with some of the stubs on plant species I've found. So when I saw this was requested, I checked my copy of Duncan and Duncan, and there it was... ergo, I could at least create a little stub... D&D just has the one line about the medical use... hmm let's look in Grieve - yep there it is... I need to check the length, but I'm guessing it's long enough for a DYK. Any hook suggestions? LadyofShalott 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
RE:"I can't figure out how to cite picture in the infobox." - Fixed. APK coffee talk 04:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Careful with those CSD:G4s, guv...

Jared Turner doesn't qualify for a CSD:G4 on two counts: 1. the previous articles for Jared Turner were about an entirely different subject, and 2. there was never a deletion discuss (i.e. an AfD) on the previous articles. I wouldn't argue if you put him up for ProD, however ... I think this Jared Turner, properly references, might just be notable. —  X  S  G  23:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooops. Okay. Thanks. I just knew it had existed before and been deleted because it showed up on my watchlist as a new article and I remembered it. But I see your point about not knowing if it had gone through an AfD or not. If only I had admin status I could have a look... :) Thanks for the pointers. Next time I'll bring it to an admin's attention so the history can be properly ascertained by the heavy hitters with the big guns. Have a good one. Are you sure it is a different subject? It sure looks like the article I remember... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple things you can do without bringing it to an admin's attention. First, check the deletion log for that article by going to its history page and then clicking on "view logs for this page" at the top. For this article in question, you can see that it was deleted four times previously, and each of the deletions mention a CSD rather than an AfD (plus, one CSD was a G7 for author blanking, two of the CSDs show that the article was about a person with the same name but a different profession and thus probably wasn't the same person, and one CSD just says nn BIO, meaning non-notable biography, without further info). Second, you can see if the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Turner exists. If it does, it should contain the previous deletion discussion. —  X  S  G  00:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Dude. 24,000 edits in six months?! How do you pull that off?! I've only got a little over 4,000 in three years... —  X  S  G  00:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
See Loser (Beck song). Also, I have limited "show preview" affinity and am a sloppy typist. So most edits take me four or five tries.
I'll try to remember the deletion log in the history page. Searching for AfDs seems a bit much. I haven't had the experience of noticing a page being recreated like that too often, but I do wonder what stops someone from just recreating until we miss it once. I guess the creator might have to jump IPs too if they get blocked...
Anyway, given my recent experiences on new page patrol where a copy-edit was met with nasty and abusive comments as well as false accusations on my talk page, and then (because that wasn't enough) a block from one of our admin elites, I may have to lay low for a while. :) But it is interesting how many articles never seem to get checked at all. And helping out there doesn't seem to get a lot of appreciation, and is pretty involved when it's done right. And it isn't nearly as satisfying or rewarding in accolades and collegial cooperation as creating articles, fussing with DYKs, or jibber jabbering about fractional coloring. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Color by number!

So, here's how you color with fractions. The idea is that a pair of dots joined w/ a line can't share any colors. One half-color colors one half of a dot!

In other news, we finally had a sunny day on Dagobah, and the splint on the force finger seems to be working. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I've been informed by a Fields Medal winning mathematician that your work is "clueless". So I don't know whether we mere mortals should trust your comments and diagramming.
I need A.K.Nole's help. Now there's an editor that I feel I can trust, despite your criticisms you meanie! The flower looks lovely. I didn't think it got sunny like that on your world. Are you traveling for the weekend? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
It was that remark that inspired me to dust off that graphics program and vandalize that article. I didn't know anyone else noticed it!

I'm only traveling this weekend as far as the supermarket, and that's only if I run out of grilling supplies at home. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this how they're teaching kids arithmetic today??? No wonder India and China are whipping us. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See also new math. :) This might be the first comment that I've ever agreed with BB about. Of course I'm still trying to figure out how this fractional coloring works. At least it's cool looking and interesting. Mathematical sudoku. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, that Sudoku can be analyzed as a graph coloring problem. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't agree that calamari is delicious??? :( Anyway, yes, it's attractive, but it doesn't make sense. But I'm old school, where we dealt with numbers. 5/2 is less than 6/2 because 5 is less than 6. That should be perfectly clear. Yes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
By George, I think he's got it! Imagine the 6 colors are 6 agents who have to staff 5 meetings, 2 at a time, and the lines between dots represent conflicts. You can cover all 5 meetings w/ only 5 agents if you mix up teams, like in the bottom picture. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You lost me at the bakery. But as long as it makes sense to whoever needs it... :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note to self: avoid locally engineered bridges in Denton... ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Or avoid bridges altogether, no matter who designed them. Check out the one on the Bohemian Flats, for example. Oddly enough, the underpinnings of the I-35W Bridge vaguely resembled the colorful diagrams in this section. Let the split colored discs represent gusset plates, and... Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
      • What th'- Oh. That's not the same I-35W we've got in Denton. I was concerned if the Mississippi River ran through here I didn't know it. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Same I-35, just a different I-35W. Around both Minneapolis/St.Paul and Dallas/Fort Worth, the highway splits to form I-35E and I-35W. The Mississipi bridge collapse was a major news item in Minny a couple of years ago. It looked like it was constructed of tinker toys - kind of like what these diagrams look like. The new one, which was built in record time by today's standards, looks much more solid, and most importantly, it has not collapsed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeepers

GTB I think I get it (at least somewhat). That seems like an insanely complicated way of approaching number systems, or numbering, or whatever it's called. Numeric coloring? Although I remember the first time numbers were put on a number line, and that seemed weird too and baffling. So maybe we're all just narrowminded by what we're used to: approaches to computational mathematics that work well. :) But it is interesting. Can you divide the individual discs into 3 sections? 4 sections? What happens if a disc connects to more than two other discs?

Goodness gracious, now I'm going to have to start reading these crazy articles you're writing. Where's WMC when we need him... Someone stop this disruption. If my head starts hurting any worse I'm worried I'll start bleeding out my ears. Do you use an abacus at the supermarket? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish I worked on more math articles. Maybe I'll start. As for coloring, it's not really a way of approaching counting or numbering. It's more of a special topic that comes way after the basic tools are developed.

The other image in the article is an example where each dot is connected to 3 others. There are also situations where divisions other than halves are more efficient. Ultimately it's a problem about trying to cover something in the most efficient way. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Was there a particular problem that this area of mathematics was developed to address? Is it related to allocating resources as your example to Bugs seems to indicate? I'm having difficulty imagining the advantages over more traditional approaches to fractions. But I suppose practicality is no reason to limit oneself. Anyway, I'll have to look into it more when I have some time. It definitely seems like something that might be worth putting to AfD to avoid confusion. :) Thanks for posting on my page about it. Fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I see the article answers some of my questions. Is the coloring graph just a visualization and modeling excercise? While the mathematics is function limits based? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not sure what inspired the study of fractional colorings. It may have been to talk about resource allocation. I should find out. I know that ordinary colorings, where you only use whole colors, can be used to talk about map coloring problems, which I guess are also about resource allocation, for a cartographer with a limited color-palette. There's a picture in that article just above the history section that shows how to turn a map into a graph.

People might have just made it up because they were messing around with whole-number colorings, and realized that the mathematical tools that apply to those problems work just as well if you allow for fractions. An idea about what that actually means could come after, or not at all. That's often where new ideas come from, just riffing off of old ideas. Some people just study graph theory because they like the pretty pictures.

I guess the picture is dispensable, in the sense that you can ask and answer questions without ever drawing it. That actual math used isn't yet made too clear in the article, I think. Even though the "fractional chromatic number" is defined in terms of limits, that's not how it's calculated. One practical approach is to turn the problem into an algebra problem involving some rather big matrices, and then solving that and translating the solution back into the language of colors. Another practical approach is to... try and dream up something else that will work. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 01:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The Fourth Of July

HAPPY INDEPENfont color="red">DENCE DAY!
--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi ChildofMidnight

Happy 4th of July! I'm a little drunk right now, coming back from my brother's townhouse party, but what the hell, better late than never to make a response. I meant to reply on your talk page as soon as you left that message, but I TOTALLY forgot. Glad you liked the photos I left at Scapler's page. If you like those, you'll friggin love these: User:PericlesofAthens/Gallery. They certainly aren't good enough to become featured pictures, but they are incredibly valuable from the encyclopedic and historical perspective. Cheers, buddy! And happy Independence Day.--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you have some free time...

In a recent rescue of The Legend of Gator Face, I purposely left numerous redlinks and explained why on the article's talk page. I completed the article for Marilyn Vance and have pretty much fininished one for Alan Mruvka, only to find that User:BioDetective2508 already had done so as I was about to go live with User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Alan Mruvka. I am exceedingly pleased that someone is following up on the talk page suggestions, and I will write him to speak about bringing my version over to his. But in the meanwhile, I'd like to have you give my version a once-over. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh... never mind and have a great 4th. You can see by the now red link that I've already combined my information into the article. So if you happen to stop in at Alan Mruvka, you might check to see if I missed any typos. Best wishes, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your keen eye. Happy Fourth! MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion etiquette

There is a bad habit that you and many other contributors have when making an argument; stating well if we are going to include this, we will need to include _____ because _____. is not a valid point and is just being overly dramatic. Twice you have used this argument in discussions in which I have participated, the cup cake/cake in a cup and Cheesesteak/steak sandwich merge discussions, and I am sure there are other examples of this in your postings. Making a claim that the other contributor's reasons for merging a subjects would lead to requiring all articles in a category to also be merged into the article is a spurious argument that could be taken as an insult to the other contributor.

Could you please try to make a more valid, policy based argument instead of falling back on this type of tactic? --Jeremy (blah blah) 18:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think objecting to the other stuff exists type arguments on one side is appropriate if you're going to ignore those on the other side. I agree it isn't a great argument, but it comes in response to similar arguments from the merge advocates and dramatizes the flaw in the because we were able to do something here we should do it here argument. That various sub type articles were merged doesn't indicate it's appropriate to merge philly cheesesteak and french dip, which are distinctly different. Certainly the subjects should be included in the steak sandwich article, but I don't see why a merge would be beneficial. I agree that the discussion should focus on the merits of the particular case in question. While examples are fine to give, straw man arguments aren't helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing survey

Hi. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

J.Hemy

Australia is a young country and it's settling was fraught with difficulty due to the harshness of the environment and it's historical connections to Britain. I have a concern that J. Hemy was one of our earliest artists but unless there is some site where people can list information about this artist it will be lost. The NSW Government State Library is one of the 3 most important libraries in Australia, where one of Hemy's work is to be found. So, yes I think the information and listing has merit. Browse Taylor (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: George Li

Hello ChildofMidnight, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of George Li - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Closedmouth (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you think is notable about this 14 year old? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't personally think that the article would survive an AFD, but it does make several claims that he's won awards and been on television and such. Whether or not these claims allow him to pass WP:N is another matter. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I fear it might survive an AfD. That's why we needed to destroy it before it could take root. :) Be bold young man! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
For A7 to be a valid criterion for speedy deletion, the must not be any claim of notability. If there's a claim of notability, even if it's not sufficient notability to survive AfD, then we can not delete on ground of A7. You could try prodding it. LadyofShalott 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a legitimate claim of notability, but as it was saved by a do-gooder admin I'm disengaging. I trust that you and Closedmouth will fix up the article or dispose of it appropriately. I can think of more productive ways to spend time on here, but if you want Wikipedia to be hosting site for the promotion of child musicians, don't let me stand in your way. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Mugger

FYI, Evan Hunter and Ed McBain are the same person. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The book's article gives one author name and the movie article gives a different name for the author. This is very confusing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Confusion on Wikipedia? ... I don't see how that could be. </sarcasm> ;P — Ched :  ?  17:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight/Exploding chicken

I restored the most recent version (sans the AfD notice) of the page. Let me know if we need to restore all versions to preserve history. If so, I will do that tonight. If you need more info you might try WP:REFUND to see if anyone still hangs out there. This is a page that seems to have more history than other "deleted pages" I've had a chance to look at so far, so it's very possible that I should have restored "all" the versions - I'll check into that part of it, now that I'm thinking about it a bit more.

I just looked briefly at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms for gay in different languages and on initial glance it does appear to be a candidate for WP:DRV. I'm not familiar with User:Angr, but perhaps if you dropped him/her a note at User talk:Angr they might be able to give an explanation of their reasoning. Note: I only skimmed the AfD, and consensus is not decided solely on the number of votes, but also on the reasoning behind the votes as well - so there could very easily be something I'm missing on "gay terms in different languages" article. I assume that it was not an "attack" page?

Anyway, it's looking like another long day of "Ched you need to come fix my computer NOW!" day, but I'll follow up on this when I have the time (this evening I hope).

Side note: I found a great link on the "Sexuality and food" thing - I thought it was great, but not really anything in the link that would help build the article - just an enjoyable viewing: this link (well, depending on your point of view on the whole subject I guess). Thought you might get a kick out of it - too bad the pics aren't free-use huh? ... lol.

  • One note that's entirely WP:OR: A warm bowl of water and a wash cloth can come in handy after the fact when indulging in the whipped cream/chocolate sauce areas. When accompanied with a warm towel straight from the dryer, it can be much appreciated in removing the sticky aftermath. (some may consider me to be an old man now - but I wasn't always!) :-) — Ched :  ?  14:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


Hang on a second - I'm gonna delete, restore the article - then move to your user space. That way all the history and attributions that should accompany the article won't be lost ... be back in a couple minutes. — Ched :  ?  17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie ... should be good to go now. I didn't leave behind a redirect, so once you've fixed 'er up, you should be able to move back to article space. If for some reason you'd have a problem getting it back to where it was, drop me a note, and I'll try to help. Best of luck with the article. <* Ched thinks that if CoM is as good at making the actual food as he is at making the articles, CoMs house would be the place to have a great meal! ;) *> ... although I prefer my chicken NOT explode while I'm eating it ... LOL. ;) — Ched :  ?  17:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I was surfing by and saw this project. Not sure if it's notable enough for you, but here in Canada a long-running comedy/satire show called the Royal Canadian Air Farce had a recurring bit where they would fire the "chicken cannon" at various public figures (a list of past targets). It's more of a chicken projectile than an exploding chicken, but maybe it has a place. Take Care! Quietmarc (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'm adding it. I'm not quite sure yet what to do with the content of that article. But I'm sure it will all become clear soon! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive_8&oldid=1142455591"