User talk:ChildofMidnight/talk

This page is for meta-discussion of my talk page.

Meta talk

I would like to applaud CoM for opening up discussion of the discussion. Perhaps an announcement could be made so folks will come here to discuss the merits or punishability of, for instance, correcting grammar on comments on his talk page about comments on other talk pages. And then we can all pile on! Drmies (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if I may be meta-bold, I'd like to applaud my own applause here. There. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saving electrons / rhetorical questions / snarky editors

Drmies suggested that a rhetorical question-asking editor save electrons by not asking such questions. However:

since the question was rhetorical, it could be expected that no answer was to be provided (hence no further electrons wasted); and
Drmies's comment used additional electrons,

wouldn't it be reasonable to ask Drmies not to waste electrons by responding to rhetorical questions? Bongo matic 04:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the right forum for such a question: there is an energy-efficient meta-talk page on Earth Day, I believe. But in the interest of saving energy,

A new argument for short sigs. B M 05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but I already associate the initials BM with something... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we all do. But there's no way you could confuse a signature with that "BM". Bongo matic 05:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does typing less save electrons? Isn't there some law about the conservation of matter? Are electrons matter? And are we really talking about electrons or electricity? If it's electricity, does typing things use electricity? Maybe the discussion should be about saving bandwith or server space? But then it has nothing to with Earth Day. Or does it? Am I posting these questions in the right place or should this be discussed on the regular talk page? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should probably be discussed on this page's talk page. Bongo matic 23:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second that. We really need a talk page to discuss this talk page. Trusilver 22:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you guys were just trying to bait me into doing something silly like create a talk page for my talk page's talk page. But I have way too much restraint to do something outrageous and absurd like that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of the talk page

This is complete inappropriate use of ChildofMidnight's talk page; questions regarding CoM's talk page should be addressed on the talk page's talk page, not on the talk page. In answer to the question, I think one day in Dr. Mies' lasts approximately a fortnight.--kelapstick (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple ideas for next month's quote: either "I know there's going to be an enormous rush to support but please take turns and try not to push ahead in line" or "I object to this comment as it seems to suggest I have faults." Comments? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More meta talk

Consider this diff. Is the first edit kosher? And once "day" is changed to "month," could one (someone else than the original author) remove the comment since it no longer applies, perhaps with one of those cool Done marks in the edit summary? (After all, it's an assignment of sorts that I was specifically asked to ponder.) Do templates work in an edit summary? And the edit to CoM's comment, should I have brought it up here for consensus, or should one ask a friendly administrator to intervene? That would take some of the fun out of it, especially if in some alternate reality CoM were the administrator one asks for approval of this particular edit. I think we need a talk page for edit summaries (I mean a separate talk page for every single edit summary), just to stay on the safe side.

Which reminds me, I believe we should be able to edit edit summaries--I've found, more than once, that I made a typo in an edit summary. Let's start by enabling each registered user in good standing to be allowed to edit their own edit summaries, with an edit summary czar who can oversee the process and has the power to intervene and edit anyone's edit summary, perhaps on special request after due notification on an administrator's message board--or in a secret courtroom somewhere in the basement. Thoughts? Steamed clams to go with those thoughts, anyone? Drmies (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comment boldly refactored by CoM to...)
Is it okay that I changed "day" to "month"? Also, I think we need a talk page for edit summaries and to be able to go back and edit edit summaries. Thoughts? Drmies (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~You've got a drinking problem.~~ I haven't had enough to drink. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the wp:refactoring page, and as I understand it I'm empowered to trim lengthy comments to the most pertinent bits. I have done so. :)

(comment unfairly refactored by Dr. to...)

I'm empowered [and have a] lengthy [and] pertinent bit.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two can play that game. Drmies (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the original and refactored versions of our comments. This has been a very interesting use of the meta-talk page, just the kind of discussion it was designed for and that's so desperately needed on Wikipedia, where there are so few places to discuss irrelevancies and to banter back and forth. Now, what have we learned? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...we have too much time on our hands? You're ashamed of your "bit"? Drmies (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct location for this page?

Perhaps it is actually at User talk talk:ChildofMidnight. Thoughts? Bongo matic 03:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then where would the associated user page go, where it now would sit at User:ChildofMidnight/talk--kelapstick (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking a position on this terrible and totally inane suggestion made by an obvious POV pusher trying to twist my talk page's talk page for their own insidious purposes in order to establish a coatrack (or at least a few wire hangers), I just want to point out that the user:talk's talk page shouldn't be moved until a full seven days have passed, and then not before the occurence of a full moon on a Friday. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Listen, I've noticed a tendency on CoM's talk page to discuss "serious stuff." What's up with that? What happened to discussion of things that invited pictures and such? What is this world coming to? Why do people even make Corn tortillas? I am not a happy camper today. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corn tortillas are great if you are on a gluten free diet and can't eat wheat (tortillas or bread), the do substitute great for bread in many instances, but you have to heat them or else they taste like crap. Also corn tortillas are extremely inexpensive (at least here they are, at the Mexican farmers market down the street from my house you can get about 300 for $2.00), which is great for feeding a large family. I put them in the toaster oven and dip them in baba ghanoush or hummus.--kelapstick (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I hate it when I'm wrong. Still, I don't like em. Whoa, 300 for 2 bucks?? Drmies (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try toasting them until they are crispy, much much better.--kelapstick (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that corn tortillas, at least the preshaped crispy ones, from taco nights of the past are almost all gone these days. Now it's all about soft flour tortillas. Si se puede. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten way out of hand--this kind of discussion really should take place on a non-meta talk page. I notice no one has addressed the issue of "seriousness" on the talk page. Speaking of which, where IS Warrington? Locked in a kennel for canine misbehavior? I worry. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM's new sig

Well, here it is, in the appropriate place: I think that new signature will do wonders and enhance the spirit of the talk page we love so much. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this on the meta-talk page? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable—discussion of material posted (rightly) on the talk page. Right? Bongo matic 04:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Mies, Dr. is discussing the signature, not the discussion of the signature. So clearly it should be on the talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I must disagree! The proposed signature is correctly placed on the talk page. This is a discussion of that, hence it belongs on the talk page's talk page. Now I have no idea where this comment should actually have been placed (other than being fairly sure it's not here). Bongo matic 05:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, of course with Bongomatic here--but this is best discussed elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a fine line to me. Should there be some procedure to determine whether a comment is best suited for the talk page or the talk page's talk page? Maybe a Talk Page Comment Location (TPCL) page where a centralized discussion on disputed comment location cases can take place when there is a need for a consensus determination? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't dispute that it's a fine line--but then again, I feel we're doing something really important here, let the chips fall where they may. I mean, Einstein wasn't held back by concerns about whether he was engaging in physics or in magic. Let's thrust ahead and talk talk, I say. The idea of a TPCL is not bad, but the problem, in my opinion, is that with an added layer of talk about where to talk about talk may take away from the impetus of talking about the talk, don't you agree? Talk is cheap, but talk about talk is gold! Drmies (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote of the day/month?

I was sad to see that section be deleted from CoM's talk page, just after I found a gem on a certain Canadian's talk page: "you surely do not intend to shadow darkness on the Wikipedia." Well, I guess the old days are gone. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is fully my intention to shadow darkness on Wikipedia, that is my goal. I have been accused of that or something similar to that before...hmmmm...but I digress, we are straying from the topic, CoMs talk page.--kelapstick (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSBOIDC Challenge

Hi all,

I just wondered abouut your opinions on the post I made here. Did I put a suitably humorous spin on things? Do you think it will get a positive response? Bigger digger (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]