User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The 25 DYK Medal

		The 25 DYK Medal
		For thy excellent WP:DYK contributions on various interesting topics related to food, architecture, music, U.S politics etc, I, Caspian blue, hereby award ChildofMidnight The 25 DYK Medal. Thy innovative and creative approach to food subjects have given Wikifoodies a great deal of amusement! Thy devotion to building up "Bacon Nation" on Wikipedia as creating and editing Chocolate covered bacon, Bacon Explosion, Chicken fried bacon, Clams casino and many others is noteworthy and inspirational as well. Sometimes, thy continuous contribution to niche food makes me so hungry and curious enough to think of making mysterious dishes at midnight! So Keep up your contributions to DYK! Caspian blue 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this could be a good badge for your RfA show! --Caspian blue 19:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! I demand a recount!!! I don't think I've done that many, and if I have, I certainly need to get out more. Thanks Caspian. Much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Rachel Hirschfeld (attorney)
2. Bill Scott (author)
3. Burnt Hair Records
4. Bush ballad
5. Square milk jug
6. Poppy seed
7. West 8
8. Kees Christiaanse
9. Fashion Architecture Taste
10. African American candidates for president of the United States
11. Black president in popular culture (United States)
12. Bacon Explosion
13. Dessert bars
14. Alan Scott (blacksmith)
15. Chicken fried bacon
16. Sauerbruch Hutton
17. Holiday Bowl (building)
18. Armet & Davis
19. Chocolate covered bacon
20. Versailles Cuban restaurant
21. Florida State Fair
22. MBM (architecture firm)
23. Polkagris
24. Clams casino
25. Woodman's of Essex
26. Lawrence Woodman
27. Bacon mania

Here are your DYKs. Why don't you create User:ChildofMidnight/DYK for managing your glorious DYK badges on one place? :D --Caspian blue 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA continued

Give me the hard sell. What are you doing, why, and what benefit would you bring to the project as an admin?--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not big on the hard sell I'm afraid. Are you so excited about my nom that you can't wait for the official process? :) It seems you're not the only one. B-Ball Bugs might be willing to pick up some extra fruit for you if you're interested...

The hard sell would have entailed avoiding areas where editing and article improvements require entering into disagreements and disputes. I am no angel, but I have done so with good faith and the highest regard for the encyclopedia. I think it's important to have an Admin body that is representative of the community and that includes article contributors who are willing to take on difficult tasks. I also think diversity is important in a community. I think I may bring alternative perspectives to the Admin role and I think that can be useful. As far as the specifics, I intend to have a focused role as Admin and to limit my efforts to areas where I am most competent. I would certainly answer any Call of Duty (a great game by the way), but I think there are enough people in the community that it's okay to have some specialization. I don't want my plumber fixing my computer. So if you're hoping for a SuperAdmin that wields the mop like some kind of professional janitorial service, you may be disappointed. But if you welcome Admins who are sympathetic to the difficulties faced by new editors, who will make an extra effort to work with editors interested in content and viewpoints that aren't widely supported, and someone who's fair and will uphold Wikipedia's guidelines and values with the highest standards, I'm your guy. Is it necessary to be an Admin to do those things? Not necessarily, but there are areas such as on new page patrol, helping move deleted articles to user space when appropriate, dealing with AfDs etc. where my skill set would be helpful.

I'm not sure I've answered your question very well, but maybe it would be best wait for the actual nom to go forward so I can get into appropriate detail and cover all the bases. It takes some time to respond fully (with as much clarity and conciseness as I can muster) and I think there may be others who want the same questions answered. But if there's anything else you want to know or clarifications I need to make, I'm certainly willing to respond.

See that? A (potential) Admin who's willing to go out of their way to be there when called upon. What more could you ask for? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious, lets say that much, and I believe that you, like everyone else, deserves a fair-shake. You've gone about the RfA process in a peculiar way, and I hear your thoughts on the matter. Well, good luck. I rarely participate in RfA, but you might prove interesting enough to get me to vote.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look:

Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hot_Rod_Girls_Save_the_World_.jpg Did I do it correctly? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You did fine, and thank you. When I rechecked, I realized I had forgotten the licensing and copyright bit, and have since added it. Have a great weekend! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Weird, isn't it?

Yeah, I don't get it with that user. The contribution was pure, unreferenced band vanity. Weird, just weird. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• Might have been me, but it looks as if you've earned a barnstar from another user! I second the motion. Looks like the little Grawpie groupies are kind of bored on a Friday, so I'll head back to new user patrolling. Talk to you soon! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For outstanding and ever-present guidance provided to other less experienced Wikipedians, and serving as an example for improving the project! You have my sincere thanks! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Just a reminder, you have not formally accepted it on the RfA page. --DougsTech (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Midnight, what takes you so long to formally accept your RfA and transclude it to the main stage? Since you asked DougsTech to nominate you, please proceed. (I can't wait to see fun things on your RfA)--Caspian blue 03:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It will be one for the books Caspian...--kelapstick (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for these strenuous expressions of confidence. I know I can count on you guys and all your sock and meat puppets for support, so I figure I'm halfway home already. I hope you don't mind if I wait until the a.m., though, when I'm a bit more awake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Every one of my sock puppets is at your disposal.--kelapstick (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, socks can vote too? Great! Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As we say in Chicago, vote early and often! Waiting till morning is good, as it will allow time for writing some new material, and shopping for eggs, tomatoes, etc. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny. Now, I have a couple questions. If you didn't think the the indefinite block of Ax and CEN were appropriate, why not speak up? Wouldn't your pointing out that it's best to block difficult editors for substantial violations rather than trivial errors in judgement have been scored in your favor? As it is now, you look like someone who goads, baits and messes around, but is MIA when the other editors involved get caught. Taking a more principled approach would also lend credibility to your position that the gamesmanship is just you joking with these editors and that you're not going out of your way to cause trouble, disrupt, and perhaps get them in over their heads. I wonder if you'd be willing to provide an explanation of your true motives and reasoning? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Midnight, while you've been answering and questioning to various editors (including editors with no previous interaction before) today, you don't have any time to step up for your RfA that you ardently requested to Doug? Saying "yes, I accept the nomination" and transcluding it would just take less than one minute. Honestly, I think you're enjoying the situation turning into a game. April Fools' Day past 10 days ago.--Caspian blue 23:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it that way Casp. My thinking was just the opposite: that since the nom discussion some issues and questions and discussions have arisen, and I don't think I will have time to deal with them if and when the RfA kicks into high gear. So I was trying to wrap up the loose ends before the "big show". Sorry about that, I definitely see your point. I just felt that once the RfA started I wouldn't have time for any of these other things, so I wanted to finish what I started first before putting a giant new pile on stuff on my plate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I also need some time to read up on it all to make sure I'm prepared. And there are currently quite a few RfAs so I thought it might be good to wait a bit. But perhaps it doesn't matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment sounded too accusatory, but I felt absurd at the fact that some people, especially hypocritical ones who chronically have violated NPA, NPOV, OWN, etc but accused you of violating the policies are biting you and the candidacy off more than enough. So letting it done seems to be due, but in the current situation, holding it for a while would be a smart idea. I honestly, had no intention to support you at first, but well, things get funny. So let's see. Take time as long as time you need to run. Good luck.--Caspian blue 00:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Post at Doug's

Hi COM. To be perfectly honest - I like what you're doing. ;). In fact, I don't even have a problem with Doug (you can find a couple of my posts on this topic in the AN thread regarding the ban). I admire your full speed ahead attitude, your devotion to your beliefs, and your boldness in pursuit of your desired results, regardless of work and resistance involved. I wish you the best ;) — Ched :  ?  02:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I responded on your page. Or at least I meant to Ched. I'm happy to see you haning around and as best I can tell you're having fun. Keep up the good work. Make sure to come by the Barney Frank and Barrack Obama articles for more good times. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Oldie but a goody...

I agree this is totally ridiculous, I can't imagine a serious argument that Tina Turner isn't an icon. It also seems preposterous that anyone would argue that her article should start with the same first sentence as one for an American Idol contestant or some other aspiring starlet with a new record deal. It's absurd is what it is. I'm sorry I haven't had more time to devote to the discussion here of why irrelevancies should be kept out of lead sentences while the most significant and accurate descriptors should be included, but I've had to fix the leads of other articles (GA and FA if you can believe it!!!) and I've been working on other projects. I hope you'll all join me in trying to make the encyclopedia the best possible. Please read wp:lead so we're all on the same page as far as policy goes. If an RfC or other outside involvement is necessary to get this issue resolved, that is certainly welcome development. I can't do all the work myself after all. (Old comment reposted, with a slight tweak made after the fact, as the editing process is one of continuous improvement...) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should explain that this comment was part of an older editing effort that came up in a discussion today. So I went back and reviewed the old discussions. I made some big mistakes and didn't start out on the best footing. But I did think this comment was sort of funny. Perhaps I'm the only one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If Tina Turner is an icon than Micheal Jackson is a businessman...or something like that.--kelapstick (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Tina Turner is a religious work of art? Well, I suppose she might be. Good luck in the RfA. Jonathunder (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jona. You're a real superstar. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rainbow Cookies

Hey, thanks! I didn't know about the dubious tag. :) Luminifer (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Very welcome. Thanks for the note. I am an expert on all things dubious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Glorified Rice category

I have taken Glorified rice out of the non-existent Minnesota Cuisine category and placed it in the Minnesotan cuisine one. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

How dare you!!! Oops, I mean thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Timing

Hey ChildofMidnight. Don't worry about timing on your RfA - that should be reset automatically when you actually make your RfA live, and if it doesn't for some reason I'll make sure it's reset. And no, you're under no time constraint for when you start. FlyingToaster 22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Grawpie groupies...

...taste yucky. Just so ya know.  :)) Of course, with tomorrow being Easter and all, I may indulge in a chocolate bunny and think of those little dweebs as I bite off the ears. Oh da yum! Anyway, thanks for the laugh. You're one of the good ones. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck

Best of luck with whatever goes down while I am at Legoland. I won't be terribly active, but I will be checking in to see what is happening. The doctor has been good enough to punch up Moose A. Moose for me, he (the moose) sings this great song, Days are the Sunniest or something like that, every once and a while. Anyway if you are looking for something a little more on the lighthearted side, a DYK nom would be great for that by the time I get back to the real world Wednesday! (If you can find enough to expand it to 1500 characters...but I suppose you have enough on your plate).--kelapstick (talk) 05:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We used to make all kinds of space ships with our legos. I think Star Wars was big back then. I'm less into the castles and other fixed designs where they can't be interchanged and reformed into innovative structural creations. Also, I don't think the legs of the horses moved. I could never figure out tinker-toys, they always seemed cool but I couldn't make much out of them. Same with Lincoln logs. But I had quite a lot of fun with capsula oops, I'll leave them to Mies, Dr., I mean Are you a betting man? Capsela. Have a great time. Don't worry about me. But if things turn ugly I'd like my ashes scattered at sea, or perhaps in a mountain stream. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I will take a look at the Moose article when I get a chance. Sounds important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

We made it to Carlsbad, 9 hours later, neat drive though. We make a Lincoln Log at Christmas as a desert, chocolate wafer cookies with whip cream between and on the top and sides, easy and tasty. Always a hit. Will keep you posted, don't let the man get you down, unless your RfA passes, in which case, you would be the man...eerie...--kelapstick (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Have a great time. Thanks for the report and for thinking of us back here on the interweb. :) Did you have to go anywhere near Vegas? I guess I need to look at a map. Anyway, if you're a betting man, the odds are long but there could be a huge payout...ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Child, if you can drag yourself away from your steak tacos and the RfA, have another look at the Moose--you were right, it does sound important, and it is! I've done as much as I can do, I think, but it needs a couple more sentences (I think--I don't know how to do a word count on WP) for DYK regulations... Take care! Drmies (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No joke!

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Awarded to Child of Midnight for his continued dedication to Wikipedia, expressed in the generation of new content and their enthusiastic support of other Wikipedians' efforts to improve the encyclopedia--even in non-bacon related matters; and all is done in very good spirits. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: ANI

ChildofMidnight, I am really troubled and very surprised that you and Ben are arguing, I respect both of you so much. Maybe there is someway to negotiate this? Ikip (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There are one or two Wikipedians who have used a series of ANI reports to harass and attempt to intimidate someone with whom they are in a content dispute. Their accusations have been dismissed repeatedly now, and even their point of view on the content in dispute has been discredited, but they continue to try and smear me. I have no idea who Ben is. (oops. I was confused.) But I'm happy to work with anyone who is willing to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and acts in good faith. I have long suggested an RfC or other reasonable measures to resolve the dispute. Cheers. Your thread title seems to me a bit unusual and perhaps provocative. But if there's a particular instance or issue where you think I have acted improperly, I welcome your input. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know all the issues, nor do I want to be dragged into an argument between two editors I respect, I just am sad to see what is happening. I changed the title, sorry. Ikip (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ikip. Sorry if I came across as defensive. A lot of barbs seem to be coming my way, and I'm getting a little paranoid. Do I need to be concerned about the voices in my head? :) Thanks for your comments and concern. I think you are referring to Banjeboi Benjiboi? Or is Ben someone else? As far as Banjeboi Benjiboi is concerned, I think he has gotten caught up in the dispute, but I haven't seen any evidence of bad faith or malicious intent on his part. There are some emotions and frustrations on all sides and I think he's approaching the situation from a perspective that sympathizes with the other side of the content dispute. Because he disagree with me on the content issues involved, he's inclined to take a position alongside those who disagree with me. This is laudable to a certain extent, and I don't have any problem with editors who don't see things my way. Where there are clear instances of inappropriate and disruptive behavior, however, I think he may not be sensitive to the effect of the disruption and how it's poinsoned the well of civil discussion adn collegiality. If you read the comments posted carefully, I think you will see that those approaching the situation impartially have concluded that I haven't acted inappropriately, that it's a content dispute at its core (and my positions are more than reasonable) and that if there has been abuse that it has for the most part not been initiated and conducted on my part, but on the part of one or two of the editors attacking me. For my part, I see that I have been frustrated and emotional at times, and that while this is understandable given the circumstance (I'm only human), I need to redouble my efforts to communicate in a way that is careful and prudent. I am on a roll of long winded comments today. But hopefully I can get back to making short quips and doing more editing soon enough. :) Thanks again Ikip. I appreciate your interest and I really am sorry if I was a bit bitey. I just wasn't sure where you were coming from. There have been reports against me one after the other after the other, and it seem clear the intent is to throw enough mud that I can't avoid being smeared no matter how much restraint I show. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oops. I see that that editor's screen name is Benjiboi. For some reason I keep thinking it's Banjiboi. Sorry again Ikip. I hope you had a great weekend. Enjoy your spring. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

For most of my time on Wikipedia I had my e-mail function turned off. An editor asked me to turn it on so they could contact me. I have done so. I use an alternate e-mail account and I don't check it regularly, but I do check it and read the notes I receive. I'm a bit of a purist and I think there's something noble about handling my "business" in a transparent manner on Wiki. Perhaps this is silly and naive, but I've been called worse. If anyone contacts me vie e-mail, I will receive their messages, but I will not reply. I apologize if this seems rude or inappropriate. Maybe I will change my mind some day, and I am open to being told how wrong I am about this approach to communications. Maybe it would be better to just turn it off alltogether? I don't know. I've seen the dark side of using off-wiki communications and I happen to like the idea of people knowing that I am not coordinating with anyone. I want all of my work here to be readily apparent. I seem to have become involved in disputes of a partisan character, but I am not interested in being on anyone's side, I'm on everyone's side. I want Wikipedia to be fun and I hope that every editor feels that their opinions matter and that they are a valued member of the community. I also don't want anyone to feel ganged up on and I think it's important that we treat those with minority viewpoints with special care and sensitivity. I admire those who attempt to be fair and impartial, and to treat every editor here with the utmost respect and assumptions of good faith as our guidelines indicate. I am generally very impressed with the professionalism and competence of my fellow editors. You are all doing a great job. This is an amazing resource and it seems to me to be getting better all the time. I have made many mistakes, and I recognize the need for some course corrections. I will take into account the areas where I need to do better and continue to give my best effort. Thank you to those who have taken the time to comment and communicate with me on and off Wikipedia. I hope that I have treated you all fairly and with appropriate respect. Please let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

Hey. Due to the earlier ANI thread as well as frequent mentions in Wikidemon's evidence, I added you as a party to this case. It's not too big a deal, as I'm being liberal with adding people as I go through the evidence. Wizardman 18:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your question, delving into some of the history might be good to help see if this is a user-based problem or an article-based problem, and what to d about it depending on which case it is. So adding in your evidence would probably be a good idea. As for Scjessey, since i believe he's the most frequent Obama talk page editor, adding him would probably make sense. Wizardman 19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey CoM, I reverted your addition of Scjessey because (I believe) one of the clerks or ArbCom members is suppose to do it when deemed appropriate. This was just my assumption based on the big bureaucratic hodge-podge that is the process. If I was wrong, it will eventually (and surely) get re-added with no harm done. Grsz¹¹ 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah no worries Grsz. My mistake. I saw your edit summary and read the article header and it says I'm not supposed to change it. I moved it to the talk page and then moved it to the workshop talk page (after seeing that it's supposed to be posted there?). Hopefully I'll figure it all out eventually. :) Thanks for the note. I hope you had a happy Easter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your apology

Apology accepted. I understand how difficult it can get down in the trenches. I was only acting in good faith by blocking an editor who I believed had violated our policy on edit warring. I hope we can work together amiably in the future. Best of luck in the future RfA, by the way. Regards, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

some idiot

some idiot nominated a subpage for deletion. see User:Daniel Christensen/Dynamat/ Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi ChildofMidnight. Nothing major really, just noticed your note on the RfA talk page about proceeding perhaps as early next week. I wanted to get in a "good luck" note to you before things got ... ahhh.... time consuming. Also wanted to wish you a happy Easter. As far as your comment "...there is no compulsion to participate or to watch. :)" ... a pack of wild dogs couldn't keep me away from this one. ;). Anyway, have a good weekend/holiday. — Ched :  ?  03:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC) (hmmmm ... thinking back .. I need to stop back over at Stick candy and that dutch oven article, see what ever became of those items.)

Thanks very much Ched. A pack of wild dogs is what I'm worried about. :) No personal attack intended and description used for metaphorical purposes only... ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am under the impression that you share my more conservative political views; but, to be honest, that won't be the reason that I will !vote Strong Support should you decide to go ahead with the RfA. Don't ever worry about my being offended, either by metaphors, humor, or even bluntness. While I may not be quite as vocal as you on many issues, I do indeed share your viewpoints more often than not. I may have voted in support for Bugs in his RfA, that doesn't mean I share his political opinions or beliefs, it simply means that I felt he wouldn't abuse the extra couple functions that "admin" would have given him. I love humor, I'm a patriotic American, a Christian, and I strongly favor the foxnews viewpoints over those of MSNBC. I'll never consider anything you say, to me, or about me, to be a personal attack (short of calling me a fool or an idiot), so don't ever worry about that. (way too many commas in that last sentence ;)). Best of luck in what ever way you proceed. ;) — Ched :  ?  12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Ched. Like most people I am conservative on some views, liberal on others, libertarian here and there, and communist and socialist in some of my values and opinions. I am an environmentalist, I support civil rights and equal rights. I believe in equal opportunity. I try to avoid discussing my politics and my particular viewpoints, because they aren't relevant to editing here. The beauty of our guidelines and our policies is that it shouldn't matter what perspectives people bring to editing, all viewpoints are supposed to be represented with appropriate weight and based on notability and proper sourcing. Where I have come across an editor or editors who are not abiding by our guidelines and who are obstructing, disrupting, harassing, and abusing our processes, I have tried to address those issues as best I can, despite the negative light it will cast on me as some kind of troublemaker. I have clearly made many mistakes and gotten frustrated at times, and for that I apologize. But I edit here in god faith and I think Wikipedia should be fun. I don't hold grudges and I welcome collaboration with any editor whatever their viewpoint. Thank you for your comments. Sorry to speechify, but I'm uncomfortable with political labels and the teaming up that sometimes seems to take place here, I know that's not what you are suggesting, but I just wanted to be clear. I would rather be judged on the merits of my edits rather than any perceived political position. Clearly I have tried to improve areas where I think our coverage is slanted or fails to be inclusive, but I am in no way interested in biasing our coverage or waging some kind of partisan campaign. We shouldn't ever have to choose sides here, and should be free to agree and disagree on the merits of individual edits and particulat content disputes accodring to our guidelines which maintain no political bias as far as I can tell. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. An obvious case of subconscious WP:SYN — Ched :  ?  13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Shark fin soup

Yummy shark fin soup

Hey, have you ever tried the Chinese delicacy, shark fin soup before? I think you may have it given your enthusiasm for rare foods. Until the introduction to the world by Chinese, who would guess that the hideous fish with big teeth and jaw have the tender, yummy and chewy part inside? I once ate a dish of shark fresh which tasted like craps and had a strong odor but the soup is really good. Though I seldom venture unfamiliar dishes, but when I was little, my mom had me eat all kinds of weird things for tranditonal medicine (BUT I have not eaten any dish made of dog meat, especially "wild dogs" :D). --Caspian blue 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have had something called shark's fin soup when I was younger, but I'm not really sure if there was any shark in it. I think the name may have been more a reference to astyle of soup than an indication of ingredients (like dragon and phoenix which is ummm I can't remember now, a lobster and chicken dish I believe?). The harvesting and eating of shark's fin is very controversial, and I think I'm in enough hot water already without delving into another contentious issue. Is it okay if I sidestep this issue (my dance moves are notoriously bad so I may trip), and note that fried grasshoppers are excellent. I had occasion to swim with some sharks once. I was in S.E. Asia and I was snorkeling and all of a sudden there was one of those one's with leopard spots (reef shark? I forget the name now). It wasn't very big, but needless to say my eyes got very big and I couldn't understand why it didn't swim away. Most animals seem shy at the presence of humans, and those that aren't seem to have gone largely MIA (the buffalo and Dodo bird come to mind). I swam around more cautiously for a while, always keeping an eye out, and it would circle below and to the side of me in and out of view. Then all the fish started becoming even more aggresive and even nipping at me. I started to get a bit freaked out, because there was a shark swimming around and all these fish swimming around me and I didn't want it to get confused or pass from my sight. I couldn't figure out what was going on until I looked above the surface of the water and saw there was a tourist boat tossing fish food all over the place and causing the feeding frenzy. I took leave of the situation, but I still have my memories of my shark encounter and an interesting perspective on the interactions between humans and animals. Coral reefs are awesoem and I hope everyone has an opportunity to see one at some point in their life. Just don't sidestep onto a sea urchin. And watch out for stinging jellyfish. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What an interesting story. You might've been freaked out by the shark's advance. Beautiful places or things sometimes accompany with something dangerous just like roses' thorns or sharks at beautiful sea. I'm curious as to whether it contains any metaphor in reply to mine with some though. In an episode of Lost, sea urchin is used in place for medical needles and in Korean cuisine, jellyfish is eaten as a salad . :) -Caspian blue 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I love language, writing and all of its artful components including metaphors, hidden meanings, poetry, and ambiguity. I'm less enthusiastic about spelling. I have had occasion to eat sea urchin and jellyfish. I'm not a fan of either. I've always had a taste for squid though. I love chewing on suckers. :) Uh oh. Another dubious possibly metaphorical statement that could be misinterpreted. See the trouble you're getting me into! Maybe I should stick to raw foods or go Vegan. Although it hasn't helped endear you to one of other comrades... Until I traveled abroad I thougth you could eat just about anything in New York. But I was very wrong. And things taste different in various contexts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

True, according to context, meanings can be changed and open interpretation is possible. My message can be very subtle, but well, I think you get it quite well in regard to this word. I love your boldness although politics is not my interest, but well do not worry about sharks too much. Ah, you're also very inspirational because I'm gonna create the Korean jellyfish salad which is one of my favorite dish seasoned with mustard and vinegar. That is quite good and eaten at wedding feast. --Caspian blue 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, everyone or every creature can not be "happy together" at the "same time". If sharks bite humans or smaller fish, only sharks will be happy. likewise, shark fin soup is actually the result of shark's death. Well, as for Veganism, I think eating vegetables is not much different from eating meat. Both are once "living creatures". --Caspian blue 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I once got stung by a jellyfish in Costa Rica, it is not much fun, so I welcome anyone who is willing to rid the ocean of one by eating it. I also had shark this weekend, it was alright, but I still prefer salmon or trout.--kelapstick (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I had shark fin soup once. It was at a fancy schmancy place, and ironically it cost me several fins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

More "evidence" for you

I've just been reading your absolutely hilarious "evidence" of my "inappropriate comments and behavior" at ArbCom. You really need to develop a better technique for negative spin, because you have utterly failed to make my harmless edits look bad. Attempts to misrepresent good Wikipedians in this way will do you no favors in getting adminship. The one that particularly made me roar with laughter was where you claim I "[maligned] good faith edits in [my] edit summaries", and then linked to a diff of me reverting one of your many drive-by article taggings. Well, I fervently hope that you link to this comment as another example of my "inappropriate comments." Pretty please! -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sal's

Any particular sandwich you'd suggest? :) Luminifer (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip -- I'd been meaning to get up to that area some time to check it out - I've barely ever been to the Bronx. This may encourage me. I'm glad that something (else) good will come out of this 'rainbow cookies' headache, at least ;) Thanks again for your mediating (or whatever you want to call it). I'm tempted to just ask some of the bakers next time I'm back in Brooklyn, but how on earth would I cite that... ;)Luminifer (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No idea - I'll ask around... There are still good places in Bensonhurst (Gino's Foccaceria serves an excellent vastedda - that's a spleen sandwich), but there isn't much the way of normal sandwiches that I know of. Italian food in New York is changing, though, possibly partly due to Mario Batali's old-world Italian influence (a lot of places are moving away from the more Americanized tomato-sauce type stuff, for instance). (I have no idea how long you've been gone. heh). Luminifer (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Barack Obama (disambiguation)

I have nominated Barack Obama (disambiguation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article was moved to List of articles related to Barack Obama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

re: List of articles related to Barack Obama

Heh, missed that because of the link name. Anyways, thanks for letting me know, I've changed my vote. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I actually changed my vote to putting this into the templates/a template since it would be nice to get this info from every page rather then having to go to one. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I suggest you place that on the AfD page, almost swayed me :). ( no problem ;) ) - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link

Thanks for the link. My concern is that portions of the entry as it now stands constitute political posturing, and there is much in the recent history to indicate that that might indeed be the case. I will ensure that my next edit will be up to standards. Zulurox (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

please revert due to inaccuracies This is why you're fat

Hi there,

The information in this post is inaccurate. As the co-creator of this site and co-author of the book, I have all of the up to date information regarding our respective ages (which is listed incorrectly), our professional affiliations and the latest information regarding our book deal and tv development -- also listed incorrectly.

We would appreciate it if this listing was reverted to the previously edited version. If you require additional proof of these inaccuracies I can supply them.

I look forward to hearing from you soon, Jessica—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessamason (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 April 2009

The ages probably shouldn't be in the article anyway, since they are not static (you do age right?), and would have to be updated every year (usually in biographies there is a template where you enter the birthdate and it updates it for you.) As for affiliations, and TV/book development etc. you need to reliable sources that are independent(I am not saying that you are unreliable, but you are not independent). Keep in mind that Wikipedia strives for verifiability, not truth.--kelapstick (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change the age notation to work in that the site was started by individuals in their 20s, if I can figure out how. I think it's notable to that extent. Kelapstick is Canadian, so his aversion to truth is understandable. As an American, yes I said AMERICAN, I embrace truth with both arms. The way to demonstrate truth is to provide documentation in reliable independent sources, as Kelapstick indicates. I'm going to take the liberty of reposting the suggestions made here on the article talk page in case anyone else is interested. Finally, if Jessica wants to apologize for creating a website that accuses me of being fat (I prefer to think of myself as stocky), that would be appreciated. :) For the record, I do not age. Thanks for asking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for This is why you're fat

On April 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article This is why you're fat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New Wrestling Association

What?--WillC 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From first glance it doesn't seem notable but there is no sources and no information in the article so I can't be sure if it is or not. Notability is established on reliable sources. If the entire article can be sourced with reliable sources then it is notable. But if it can't, then it isn't notable.--WillC 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Break-in records

This writeup [1] doesn't exactly define it, but you can infer what it means - that they have this dialogue going on and frequently "break in(to)" the dialogue with these little snippets of songs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice

• As a courtesy to you, I am notifying you of this ANI thread I have started. Thanks. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 06:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your second one of the day. Your first attempt didn't go so well as I recall. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Update 0-2 on inane reports. Your first one complaining about improvements to an article at AfD was roundly rejected, and your mistaken belief that there is a prohibition on copy-editing has also been dismissed in the second. You haven't quite caught up to Wikidemon on the abusive reporting front, but you're well on your way. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon other editors on this page

I shall ask the editor to refrain from posting here unless absolutely necessary, but only because it may lower the temperature somewhat. I did not see any harassment in the comments, just advice from a particular viewpoint - you may not like it, but that doesn't make it harassment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Less. Is there a number of posts after being asked to avoid another editor's talk page that amounts to harassment? Because in my world I would say the number is one, maybe two. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The T-word

I noticed your posts at ANI... you know, the only reason I suggest avoiding calling people "trolls" is because it is actually, in reality, counterproductive to what you want. It will keep you from your goals. You hurt yourself, not others, when you try to identify them as "troll" or "disruptive editor" or whatever kind of so-and-so you want to call them.

Dancing around the word is equally unhelpful. The most effective solution is to actually rise above it, and actually refrain from commenting on other people's motives. Playing a "I'm not going to say the word" game is silly. If you disagree with my advice, then don't pretend to sort-of follow it. Go your own way with pride!

The way I see things, you can either be an effective editor, or else you can call names and score points. You can't have both. I understand that you're frustrated, but is shooting your own foot actually a good, helpful reaction to being frustrated? I don't think so, but if you disagree, then disagree boldly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

GT, I appreciate your comment. I wasn't intending to mock you in any with the T is for Troll statement, but there comes a time after the fifth or sixth bogus ANI report that calling a duck a duck isn't just reasonable, it's preposterous to do otherwise. These are trolls. Look at my page history. There's an editor posting 6, 7, 8 times on my page. They say they really REALLY REALLY want to converse with me. Yet they remove my comments from their own page. If you want, you can go look at the history on their talk page and you'll see I've been nothing but civil and courteous to them. These same editors are campaigning right now as I type this on the talk page of any admin they can get to listen to them to try and block me. So what should I do? Should I post an AN report about this inappropriate behavior? They've been advised how to proceed, they just choose not to listen. They received the same advice 5 (or maybe it's 6 I lose track) bogus ANI reports ago. Every single time there has been no wrongdoing on my part, yet this abusive behavior continues. At some point an admin is probably going to start believing the smears. Yet here I am minding my own business trying to edit articles, and I'm harassed endlessly by these mudslinging POV warriors. So while I understand your point, I hope you'll understand that the time for delicacy is long past. These disruptive, hostile, and harassing editors need to leave me alone. There's nothing they've posted here that is in any way relevant to improving the encyclopedia or that's interesting or humorous to me. I'm tired of their attacks, and at some point I'm hopeful (though not optimistic) that a courageous Admin will finally block one or more of them until they shape up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether they're trolls. I deal with trolls regularly, but I never call them that. It would make me less effective. That's all.

The best way to deal with trolls involves not calling them out. Strange, but true. The best thing you could do is just collect diffs, in a very neutral way, and build up a case. Then, when there's an RfC or something, you're ready, and you're seen occupying the moral high ground. That's not a bad position to be in.

Meanwhile, feel free to let me know about any particular situation. Of course... as you know from watching another encounter, I'll only deal with them in terms of content and article edits. However, this method does get to the bottom of trolling. It takes a little bit of faith, I guess. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems

Coming up on AfD. I am going to need a lot of support on this one. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 17#List of unusual personal names and Place names considered unusual. I see my friends shaking their heads and turning away. So sad... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you. I thought you had retreated to your man cave/ dragon's lair. I'll have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a groundswell of support for a policy change in regard to the "unusual" articles. So isn't recreation sort of a formality? I read the debate a bit. It's all a bit over my head. I couldn't find anything to do with bacon, youtube, or partisan politics. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AHAHHAHAHA!!! That (List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems) is the single greatest article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I love it. TERRIFIC!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• I spent days working on that one, researching, rewording, copy editing (which is tough with a one-word article) and then Orange Mike | Talk just swatted it out like a gnat. I am devastated. But I may recover. Thanks for the support - I need it. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page behavior

You damn well know that this is inappropriate. Please don't do anything like this again. Grsz¹¹ 03:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? How do you figure fixing obvious mistakes like that is inappropriate? You meant to say "objects" instead of "objections"? And what exactly is a "soapy box"?

I'm also curious how your aggressive edit summary and threatening post here complies with our guidelines on assuming good faith. Do tell!

Rest assured I will not mess with your reversion of my spelling corrections. Maintaining mistakes and errors is a serious business on Wikipedia. I heard someone was banned for similar editing violations!

In fact, if you're lucky, I will soon be topic banned so you won't have to worry about my pesky insistence on pointing out inaccuracies and inappropriate imbalances that violate our guidelines in the article either. So please don't report me to ANI. I'm sure my well intentioned edits correcting a fellow editor's text will cast further aspersions on my good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia in a collegial manner. No good deed goes unpunished as they say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Bobblehead doll.jpg

A bobblehead doll of Chicken Little.

Hey, I don't care how un-good my grammer may be, don't change others comments on a talk page, it's as simple as that. You've been around long enough to know that pushes buttons. If it bothers you, ignore it. It's not what you changed, it's the issue in principle. Grsz¹¹ 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, you should not have to be told at this point not to edit others' talkpage comments. Simple copyedits they may have been, but you need not do them. LadyofShalott ^Weave 03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rest assured I will never again dare to copy-edit any of Grsz's comments. I will continue to extend this courtesy to other editors, however, and I hope they will do the same for me. Not everyone on Wikipedia is a prick. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there, son. Changing other peoples' comments is forbidden, unless those comments themselves are a violation of the rules - which misspellings ain't. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Charming. Grsz¹¹ 04:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is no way to treat a lady, but it is your own talk page so I guess you can do what you like here. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This was just slap-in-the-face disruption. It's a shame you're taking this route. Grsz¹¹ 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there an echo in here? -- Scjessey (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You can say that again. :) Here's a guy who thinks he wants to be an admin, and doesn't even know basic rules here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Bugs & others, but there is no prohibition on editing other editors' talk page contributions. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. There is a prohibition on editing other editors' talk pages to change the meaning, or striking out other editors' comments. While editors should "exercise caution", and fixing typos is not a specifically referenced example of an appropriate sort of edit to other editors' talk page comments (and it is pointed out that some editors find such behavior irritating), it is certainly not prohibited. Many users (such as CoM and myself) are generally grateful if someone fixes nits or more significant (obvious) errors in talk page comments, provided the meaning isn't altered. And by the way, the referenced guideline is just that a guideline, not a policy. So really, I think you all should simmer down. Bongomatic 04:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but it is still considered by many to be extremely annoying and rude. Also, this edit did change the meaning of the comment. The original meaning was a subtle rebuke, but after CoM's edit it was considerably sanitized. This is clearly demonstrated by the the lady putting her foot down. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending every action of any editor. My point is that

• The following (initial) comment is unnecessarily inflammatory and not supportable by guideline or policy: "You damn well know that this is inappropriate."
• The following comment is inflammatory and wrong (and condescending, too, "son"): "Whoa there, son. Changing other peoples' comments is forbidden, unless those comments themselves are a violation of the rules - which misspellings ain't."
• The following comment is inflammatory and not supported by events: "Here's a guy who ... doesn't even know basic rules here."

The original change that Grsz11 objected to was obviously in good faith. There are more appropriate ways to indicate irritation with such edits, and the piling on by others is overblown. If people spent as much time editing the encyclopedia as getting hot under the collar, the project would be improved. Bongomatic 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Scjessey, I hope you're not irritated that I removed a colon from your previous comment on this talk page—if you feel so moved to revert, please be so kind as to add one to each of the paragraphs of this post.

As I understand it, and as has always been explained in disputes such as this.. a user is free to blank, remove and/or archive his/her own talk page. A user is not, however, allowed to refactor another user's comments, even on a user's own talk page. I see no spelling corrections in this particular edit, as not a single word removed by CoM was mis-spelled. Good faith edit maybe, but against Wikiquette and aside from that, it wreaks of rudeness, common decency and respect. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "misspelled". Just because "objects" is a word doesn't mean it's not a misspelling of "objections", and just because "soapy" is a word doesn't mean it is not a mis-spelling of "soap" (if you disagree, please go change the wording of WP:SOAP to read "soapy box" everywhere "soap box" is currently referenced). In this context, it is beyond clear that the other words were intended, making the original words misspellings (or if you don't like that use of misspell, then "typos"). Also, I think you mean "reeks", but I am loath to correct your talk page comment. I do agree that correcting minor errors that can only make the original editor look sloppy reeks "of common decency and respect", something that should be commended, not abhorred. Bongomatic 05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What was yesterday, punch CoM day? I'm sorry I missed it; it wasn't marked on my calendar. Scjessey, Bugs, next time, please notify me so I can join in the fun. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy

As one of my fellow editors has noted, showing courtesy and assuming good faith is important and is a basic tenet of editing on Wikipedia. I could have made a snide comment about another editor's mistakes, instead I quietly made a minor edit correcting some obvious typos. I know I make lots of grammar and spelling mistakes, and I'm always thankful when another editor takes the time to fix them. This seems like the most basic of courtesies to me, but I understand that angry rabble rousers who are up to no good may take even well intentioned actions as slights.

I would also like to point out that posting lots of inane rantings on an editor's talk page with whom you are in a dispute is downright rude. At least have the decency to make your point and move on.

Finally, grammar has two As.

I would kindly request that editors who don't want their spelling and obvious grammar errors fixed please refrain from posting on my talk page. Persons with this attitude strike me as being uncurious riff-raff, and anyone who chooses to wallow in ignorance is unworthy of my time. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To see it from another point of view, correcting someone's typos is putting a bit of an emphasis on their mistakes, and whether it be intentional or not, someone suspected of having done it intentionally can hardly be trusted to deny it honestly.

Regardless, don't you think it would be a better show of good faith if your post up there wasn't filled with insinuations? It would do your cause more good than harm if you make it clear with every action that you put the encyclopedia's needs above petty and hopefully temporary disputes. --Raijinili (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more that "correcting someone's typos is putting a bit of an emphasis on their mistakes". This has it absolutely backwards. Correcting mistakes eliminates them, it doesn't highlight them. As to the second part of that statement, your premise seems to be based on an assumption of bad faith, instead of an assumption of good faith, which is what our guidelines require. I'm not sure which editors you've been working with, but this misunderstanding of our policies is deeply troubling.

As to your second point, I haven't attempted to insinuate anything. I always try to be as clear as possible while abiding by our guidelines, which are rendered by community consensus! My focus is always on improving the encyclopedia which is why I have been so clear in objecting to the actions of obstructionist and disruptive editors. They need to abide by our guidelines, and I'm sure they can be reigned in if an admin is willing to do what it takes. Thanks for your comments, I hope I have answered your questions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For the first statement, I'll relate it to making jokes. Jokes in a heated argument, with no love lost on both sides, can be taken as covering direct malice. I'll restate one of my earlier sentences in a way that's hopefully more clear: If two people are involved in such a way that one would suspect another of copyediting their comments out of malice, then it would have done little good for the other to claim that their copyedit was good faith.

The guideline is to assume good faith for as long as possible, and while some of the editors might have lower levels of tolerance, and others ignore the guideline altogether or are ignorant of it, it seems to me that it's best not to aggravate them unnecessarily by testing their assumption of good faith. On the other hand, it is possible for a good-faith editor to mistake another editor's actions for bad faith, and again it's probably better to let this slide, such as by leaving alone minor errors, than to push it without a great need.

As for insinuations, am I mistaken in thinking that many would consider your last paragraph of your first post a reference to certain editors of this page as "uncurious riff-raff", "who [choose] to wallow in ignorance"? --Raijinili (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The full statement seems quite clear: "I would kindly request that editors who don't want their spelling and obvious grammar errors fixed: please refrain from posting on my talk page. Persons with this attitude strike me as being uncurious riff-raff, and anyone who chooses to wallow in ignorance is unworthy of my time. Thanks." (colon added, as something about the grammar has been bugging me and maybe this will fix it) If someone wants to make it into a banner, I will consider using it at the top of my page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Though without context your full statement can stand alone, I would have preferred a "yes" or "no" somewhere in that reply which would be a summarized response to my question.

While it might seem clear to both you and me, I think it would be best if we could agree on the color of the transparent. --Raijinili (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a reference to any editor or editors. It is my assessment of those who object to their mistakes being recognized and corrected. If an editor posts on my talk page, I assume they are doing so in good faith and that they agree my quite reasonable terms (if they have seen them) (and I would hope they would be appreciative of someone who took the time to copyedit mistakes). I might be mistaken in doing so, but I try to assume good faith wherever possible and always attempt to do the right thing. Respect is fundamental, even when there are disagreements. The lack of respect and consideration shown me by this gaggle of <insert descriptive term here> speaks for itself and is damaging to the encyclopedia building effort. Harassing, juvenile, and disruptive behavior of this sort should not be condoned or tolerated as it is clear that it is not being done in good faith. Ie. someone making an ANI report against you for copy-edits can be assumed not to have your best interests (or those of the encyclopedia) at heart. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My question was about "certain editors", but I'm willing to leave the matter at this. --Raijinili (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarified. I noticed your involvement in an AfD discussion where I'm being personally attacked by persons claiming an article I created (the need for which I've been quite open about) is somehow an act of bad faith. Imagine if I was the one making those claims and what the response would be. And by the way, it's one thing to deal with these editors as a third party (an annoyance), now imagine you are facing the brunt of their full fledged assault. Not fun. :) But I will continue to do my best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my intention is to be a neutral voice, unattached to the content at the center of dispute. --Raijinili (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of YouTube fame

An article that you have been involved in editing, YouTube fame, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YouTube fame. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To quote Kyle Broflovski, YOU BASTARD!!! :) Oh wait is that a personal attack? See you at AfD sucker... :) Oops, There I go again. Hey thanks for the note. It will be interesting to see what the community decides. See you at tribal council. ChildofMidniʨh (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and may the best Wikipedian win...muahaha! (disclaimer for readers: AfD is not a competition. We are just having a laugh.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you went there with the square milk jug...it's on like Donkey Kong! :D--kelapstick (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are getting beat on, worse than smelly feet on, your sauteed head with prawn, served up by Megatron.

Milk bags? Seriously? Speedy delete or redirect to breast. (Is this comment offensive in some way? If so please take it to ANI for further discussion. Thanks in advance.) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Userfied fruit

It didn't get linked on GTBacchus's talk page, but the userfied deleted page you requested is at User:ChildofMidnight/List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems. Obviously feel free to move it if you find the title a bit, uh, unwieldy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So COM, how do you explain that article, hmm? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a very notable topic with a lot of good information for travelers, all in an article with a simple and logical title that is no doubt a common search term that will make it easy to find. And it's well illustrated with a useful see also for those seeking more information on a related topic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank

Could I plz get your input as a past contributer on the talk page on the section Lead (again) Soxwon (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus has been to move it down to politics, not delete. Plz don't, at least not until the Media Cabal has finished (see talk). Soxwon (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any major objection to moving it down into the article and have done so myself in the past. Feel free to add it back in an appropriate section. It's misleading and taken out of context, so my personal preference is for it to be left out all together. It most certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate article

May I ask why you created the stub Pistachio salad when there was already a stub called Waldorf salad about the identical recipe, which you knew about as you linked the article? Given the limited scope of either article and the identical ingredients, this is simply a synonym, an alternate name. Many dishes have interchangeable or omittable ingredients and a variety of names. Note that Hero sandwich redirects to Submarine sandwich, despite the many variants of possible ingredients. Similarly, there is no separate article for grinder, hoagie, Italian sandwich, wedge, zep, or torpedo. Abrazame (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while now, but I didn't discover Waldorf salad until I was well into the article. I'm also not sure I understood merges and redirects at the time. I'll have to look now, but if they are identical it probably makes sense to merge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Watergate salad. Which name should it be merged to? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, yes, of course, I meant Watergate salad. (Both hotels!) My Google search brings up nearly twice as many hits for "Watergate salad", though that's not exactly a scientific method of making such a determination. (Many of those might actually be mirrors of the older Wiki article.) Preferably we would go with the more common usage.

Are there a lot of these sorts of recipes? The only thing I'd ever heard of along these lines was Ambrosia (fruit salad)—which is also a stub. Rather than having all these dessert salad stubs, I propose a single article about such fruit salad variations tossed with instant pudding or artificial toppings. The individual names would redirect to the single article, which becomes more informative. Abrazame (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I support a merger of pistachio salad and Watergate salad. Either name will do. Pistachio salad seems more NPOV (leaving out the political figures :) but Watergate salad may be more notable. Although that may just be in a certain area that produces books and articles, because I've noticed Midwestern cuisine is often discriminated against with less media coverage (an outrage to be sure!). (Imagine the difficulty I've had in finding mainstream media sources for important foods like Snickers salad and Glorified rice). Mixing all these into fruit salad seems too messy to me. As long as the articles inter-link I think that's the way to go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you think of a phrase you've seen in your research for these desserts that would capture the sort of dish that is tossed with puddings or whipped toppings? In those cookbooks that include these dishes, under what heading do they appear? I find notable usage of the phrase "Dessert salad". I agree that these recipes are one rather large step away from what is encompassed by the term "fruit salads", and am not proposing to add them to that article. I propose a new article encompassing this subset of stubs, many of which, as you mention, may not actually be notable enough to rate their own Wikipedia article. I do think that "Dessert salad" (unless we can find a better phrase) would make an excellent compromise, where unique examples of this theme could be given their own sections, with alternate names and variations mentioned therein. If you would like to be the one to create and compile this article, as you've been involved in creating the aforementioned stubs, I would defer to you to do so. As I've pointed out, similar things are done not only with other food and drink articles but with articles in other categories, all about subjects far more notable which, nevertheless, don't really rate their own article insomuch as they are not really their own thing. Abrazame (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think an article on dessert salads would be great, but I don't support combining the various articles there. The ones that have articles are independently notable and I don't see an advantage in a combined article. I do think a general article on the subject would be great. But combining them seems to me like combining hummus and tahini in the meze article. Or combining cobb salad and caesar salad into the more general salad article. They are different subjects, general and specific, both notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Irfan Yusuf

Please seriously consider what you are doing with the Irfan Yusuf article. I have offered a discussion. You have not really participated in it. Then unilaterally declared what a consensus position was without responding to the issues I raised. It is not good practice to remove a variety of well-sourced material including a reference to a soon to be published book. You even deleted the cover because you just reverted it without really paying attention to it. I think that is a matter of concern and I encourage you to stop. And to discuss any changes you want to make on the Talk page as you had said you would. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only have I engaged in discussion, but I went through an extensive point by point discussion of why the version you're pushing is inappropriate. Another editor agreed. If you're not happy with consensus I suggest conducting an wp:RfC or posting on wp:FEED. As you are the only editor pushing a version that is inappropriate, unencyclopedic and that violates Wikipedia's guidelines for wp:BLP (biographies of living person's), I'm not sure how I can be of any more help to you. Good luck. Please don't restore your version until there is a new consensus or you've addressed the concerns expressed. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have offered to go through each sentence of the article, as your observations, to which I responded in detail, were really rather general. If you want to write a revised version of the article that includes the material - differently weighted if you like - you can do that. But you won't build a consensus by just unilaterally deleting the work of other people. That's quite inappropriate. Please don't restore your version until there is a consensus to do so, your insinuation that there was a full discussion of the issues just isn't right as anyone looking at the Talk page of the article will see. There was a very limited discussion, with no one actually discussing anything in detail, something I am happy to do. I'd be happy for your input but other than deleting a lot of well-sourced and entirely appropriate material you haven't really suggested anything constructive and I think that's a shame. I urge you to act in good faith on this issue. Join a meaningful discussion and re-write of the article or leave it alone. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messanger

There has been a tread discussing the deletion of your recent RfA started here. Just thought you should know. — Ched :  ?  19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Ched. I will abide by whatever the community decides. I have no interest in participating in a discussion that seems like an unnecessary drama fest. An admin made a unilateral decision to delete the unaccepted nom. I presume it was made in good faith. I have tried to abide by proper procedures and was advised that I was not under time constraints as far as accepting the RfA nom. I have tried to make my intentions clear. People chose to comment on my (potential) RfA on its talk page and several editors have asked some good questions on the nom page itself. There have also been less constructive actions including canvassing, numerous disruptive ANI threads, inappropriate comments on user talk pages etc. etc., but I've tried to steer clear of the nonsense. As far as I'm concerned the proper course of action would be to direct the disruptive editors in a more constructive direction. But I don't see anything wrong with people making comments on a potential RfA nom and I certainly have no ability to control who says what where. If it's determined that the unaccepted nom is an unhelpful distraction, then so be it. I guess some people are unable to control themselves? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

I've deleted it, as it was wasting far too many people's time. If at any (quite far away) point in the future you want it reinstated, just ask. Black Kite 23:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall twisting anyone's arm and forcing them to ask a question or post comments on the talk page of my (potential) RfA. If you want to cut down on the wasted time, maybe you could steer those making inappropriate comments in a more productive direction and step up your vigilance against frivolous ANI reports. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (refactored with a bit of expansion)

The whole thing was a joke turned bad. You were trying to be a smart ass by asking Dougs to nominate you, then it backfired. This type of disruptive editing is exactly why so many have expressed concerns regarding your editing. Landon1980 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Middle Colonies

I see that you are involved in a bit of drama at the moment, so I apologize, but I was wondering if I could ask a favor. I nominated Middle Colonies for GA, but some information was added by others recently which seems a little confusing. I attempted to clean it up, and I think it worked, but I was wondering if you could look the article over and tell me if it's clear or not. Chances are I will be waiting weeks for someone to perform the review, since that is just unfortunately how it works. Oh well... Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Scaps. Would you prefer I make suggestions or do the edits I think appropriate and then you can revert or adjust as you see fit? My general feeling is that the opening paragraphs (what I would call the introduction, but what Wikipedians under the nefarious influcence of British colonialists have termed the "lead" and sometimes spell lede, as if the world has gone completely bonkers! :), is too detailed and lengthy. So I would move a lot of it into the article body and give a general outline in the opening paragraphs. Also, I prefer opening paragraphs with few or no citations, but I know there has been some vigorous editing on that article so if they're needed maybe they're needed. I'm ready to move some stuff around and let you see what you think. The bread bit in the opening line is also bugging me, but I have a solution which is to move up that discussion from the third paragraph and deal with the geography straight away. I can't really tell you what the GA folks will suggest. The awarding bodies here seem very interested in style, where as I am more concerned with clarity and content. PEACE! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that you go ahead and make the changes, though I disagree with you about the lead. The paragraphs contain no information not in the article's main body of text, and is well within accepted lengths. WP:LEAD is also not completely clear on citations in the lead, saying to use balance. As far as any other suggestions, I would urge you to make them. Also, what do you mean by the fact that the Bread Colonies bit is bothering you, it is another name for the same colonies. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries Scap. I think it's a solid article with a lot of good information. Maybe Mies, Dr., will have a look if he sees this. He's a far better copy-editor than I am. But other than some organizational preferences that I would implement the article looks okay to me. And my changes don't have much to do with GA concerns anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Drudge Report (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've followed that RfC from a distance. It strikes me as an utter time wasting absurdity pursued mostly by abusive editors who themselves should be blocked. I symphathize with Collect, and I would encourage him to ignore it and focus on doing article work. Sadly there's no willingness on the part of Admins to reign in abusive smear campaigns so editors can focus on article improvements. By the way, unless I'm mistaken, you didn't have a very great impression of my work here, yet now that you're confronted by some of the same problems I've been dealing with you seem to be asking for my help. It seems a bit ironic to me. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't agree with you on the DR, that was a difference of opinion and doesn't affect my opinion of your other work. I'm not asking just you, but ALL involved parties. Soxwon (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked in your history and didn't see the comment I remember. So maybe I'm mixing you up with Snowded. You seem to be fighting the good fight, so I wish you luck. And by fighting the good fight I mean trying to have fair treatment of editors and accurate article content that isn't full of POV pushing nonsense. Take care.ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Hi COM, I haven't decided how I'm going to !vote in your RFA if you ever transclude it, but I wouldn't have asked a question unless I was planning to probably participate. I would suggest that if you are the pure vandalfighter that your nominator presents you as you would be advised to broaden your experience here before running. If you are not (and I haven't yet looked at your contributions and won't until you transclude) then I suggest you make that clear in the RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My RfA nom doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. I've taken on some thorny issues and have been willing to take controversial positions when they're in the best interests of the encyclopedia and its readers. I'm interested in solving problems and I haven't hesitated to tackle areas where Wikipedia needs improvement. Most of the drama surrounding me isn't, in my opinion, of my creation. But as I'm at the center of it, the disputes themselves will be enough to turn off many voters. I can't say I blame them. Who wants to spend the time it takes to read through all the nonsense to sort out that I've been a target of a smear campaign by POV pushers who have done a lot to undermine Wikipedia's collegial editing environment and weaken our article content. There's also no question that I don't have the softest of touches, and I've certainly made some mistakes. And from what I've seen, being human is a big disadvantage at RfA. :) There are lower-case v vandals and upper-case V Vandals, and I try to fight both kinds. Trying to get editors to abide by our guidelines has made me a big target. And then there are lots of political partisans who will vote against me because of political perception, so that's more than enough to sink my candidacy. :) But it still might be fun and interesting. I think people deserve an opportunity to vote and to have their questions answered. So we'll see. Thanks for your good works and your interest. Party on and have fun. I may fix obvious spelling and grammar mistakes if you ever make any again, so watch your back! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I that the best thing for Wikipedia at this point is for you to request deletion of that page. As you yourself have said, WP:SNOW applies. The continued existence of the page isn't serving any useful purpose. It is only serving as a drama magnet now. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone drawn in by a drama-magnet shouldn't be walking around with drama-iron-filings in their shorts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC) That's just an observation, not an argument for or against anything... except drama. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point Shef and I have a lot of respect for you. Thanks for expressing your concerns here in a collegial manner. There is a group of editors who refuse to abide by our guidelines and who've worked aggressively to intimidate me and attack me because they disagree with me on content issues. They have caused drama here on my talk page, repeatedly on the AN and ANI page, on various other usertalk pages and on my (potential) RfA nom. My opinion is that the appropriate course of action is to simply ask these troublemakers to cease the drama mongering. I think it sets a very bad precedent to close the (potential) nom because they've chosen to disrupt it. I think it's reasonable and I have no objection to asking editors generally to wait until the RfA nom goes forward. However, if certain editors are determined to make trouble and to post unconstructively there, I think that says more about them than it does about me, and there's nothing I can do to stop them. Other posts have actually been quite reasonable and I have no objection to editors being able to comment or ask questions there. I understand your concerns, and as I've said here and in the other discussions, if the community feels that closing or deleting the nom for now is the way to go, I'm okay with that. But I don't think smear campaigns and aggressive activity of this sort should be accepted or rewarded in any way shape or form. Other than describe the worst offenders as bobbleheads and a gaggle of windbags, which seems a fairly restrained and accurate description given the circumstances and is at worst a fairly mild incivility, there's been no suggestion that I've acted inappropriately in any way shape or form from anyone impartial. I'm concerned about giving in to disruption of this sort, and I encourage you and other Admins to do the right thing and ask those causing the disruption, making personal attakcs, and behaving childishly to cease these activities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Administration

CoM, hi. I hope I'm not butting in here.

I'm not sure you appreciate just what an admin has to deal with in a situation such as this. From your perspective, it's easy to see that you've got a group of trouble-makers who harass, stalk and bully you. However... in 100% of these situations that I've dug into, those people are acting in good faith. It is almost certain that they truly believe that you're making a mess they have to clean up. Just as much as you see your edits as good, and their actions as bad, they see your edits as bad, and their actions as good. As far as they're concerned; they're helping, and you're not.

Now... if I'm an impartial observer (and I think I'm fairly impartial), I can look at a lot of evidence, and it simply does not boil down to a good-guy/bad-guy situation. In every such case I've ever looked at, everyone believes that they are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and all parties are partly correct. People don't get caught up in it so deeply unless they believe in something. Maybe your case is the exception, but.... the odds are against it.

Maybe it's very easy for you to say, "the appropriate course of action is to simply ask these troublemakers to cease the drama mongering". However, no impartial observer is going to see an innocent editor on one side, and drama-mongers on the other. I don't know if you have much practice putting yourselves in other people's shoes, and seeing the world through their eyes... it's something I try to practice. If 20 neutral, intelligent, good-faith admins were to wade through 10,000 words of backlog, then 4 of them would agree with you, 4 would agree with the others, and 12 would say the truth is somewhere in-between. Furthermore, if you characterize the situation as a group of ne'er-do-wells versus you, very few people will buy that characterization. They won't believe it because that tends not to happen.

This is why I refuse to address these issues as personal disputes. When you really, really focus on the article edits, to the point that you never even mention other people, directly or obliquely, then you start winning. I doubt you believe me, but it's really the best advice I can give you. It's difficult advice to follow, but if I didn't do my best to tell you, I'd be doing you and the project a disservice. There are effective ways of dealing with these problems, and there are ineffective ways. Expecting that some admin sees things your way and enforces what you want is pretty far towards the ineffective end of the spectrum. I'm sorry, but it's true.

I hope you take these words in the spirit that they are intended, which is that I'd really like to help you overcome this problem, if you'll let me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

GT, as I think you've suggested many times to those involved in disputes: let's focus on the content. That's all I'm asking. The disruption and behavioral issues should be dealt with, so we can get down to business on the content and good faith editors aren't stuck dealing with disruptive distractions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you don't get what I'm saying. Yes, let's deal with the disruption and behavior issues. There is precisely one way to do that (you're gonna hate this): Forget about it. If you take the leap of faith, and forget about trying to get any satisfaction over the disruption and behavior issues, that is precisely when you will start to win. Please let me help you. Forget the behavior, let me edit content alongside you, and then watch what happens. You will grow wings and soar above all the behavior problems, but it'll never happen as long as you're trying to make it happen.

Faith. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of counter-intuitive, which is the cart and which is the horse. People believe that we need to deal w/ behavior issues so they can edit content. This is backwards. People need to forget behavior issues and focus on content.... and then you end up beating the behavior issue. I'm speaking from experience here, and I wouldn't tell you this if I weren't trying to help. Please believe me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what could help your case, (Which I was attempting to do with that question in RFA talk page) is to open up and finally make a decision even if it is "I'll make a decision by this date." That way you don't look like you are toying with everyone. You would look like you are being open and honest with everyone and not closed and mysterious. Also, on a side note: If I were you, I'd stop weighing whether you would get the vote, or whatever, and throw your dice out onto the table to see if you get the nomination. If you didn't get it, then at least you could say you gave it a shot which no one would or could fault you for. Brothejr (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I laid out a timeline and, as I noted it might, it changed. I made the decision to participate in the Obama arbcom early last week, something I was reluctant to do, but ultimately felt was important. That took an awful lot of time and was very stressful and unpleasant for me. It's a fairly involved process and I've tried to follow it as much as I can stomach and participate in a way that's useful for Wikipedia. I'm also involved in some AfD discussions that are important to me and that I want to stay on top of. And then there were some unusual (but increasingly frequent) disruptions by those coming after me. So those were also time consuming and involved. Ultimately, as I indicated in my answer to you, I'm going to go ahead when I'm good and ready. I'm sorry if that came off as snarky, but I don't see why I should have the timeline of my RfA dictated to me by anyone. I can't stop people from commenting and if their posting are causing a fuss then someone should tell them to stop posting. I'm not the one posting there except to reply to issues raised by others. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I don't know what else to tell you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually, when someone commences an RFA, they usually drop most everything else and concentrate on the RFA, especially when it opens and the Q and A really begins. That's what got some of the others was that you didn't seem like you were as concentrated on it as other prospective admins have been in the past. Maybe cutting back on some of the other things and concentrating on that might help your case. Brothejr (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama talk page

I have started a conversation at User talk:ThuranX to discuss some process matters having to do with the question of citizenship conspiracy theories (it's there instead of elsewhere by happenstance because that editor was the first to make a comment outside the scope of the discussion), and asked the editors involved in that latest thread to keep process matters there. An IP poster asked a question, and the question was constructively answered. As you know, you are free to make constructive suggestions for improving the article, including if you want to re-propose that citizenship conspiracy theories get coverage in the article. As I have asked the others involved, let's please use the talk page for discussing article improvements, and bring complaints and talk of other editors elsewhere. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a ThuranX fan, but as the discussion is relevant to issues regarding our coverage of Barack Obama, I think that the Obama article talk page is the appropriate place for it. That it was an "anon" who raised the issue is irrelevant. I'm interested in discussing our article coverage and the recurring problem we've had that people can't find the content they're're looking for. As you know I've made a constructive proposal to try and resolve the situation. To your credit you seem to have considered it with an open mind. If there's another way to solve it or we need to work it through more, let's do it. But I don't think it's resolved so it shouldn't be archived. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(potential) RFA nom

How is the nom that you requested a "potential" RFA nom? I don't get it, you ask for the nom, and then dance around it for two weeks like you are just way too busy to accept it? You go to one editors talk page and say you "stumbled into an RFA nom" and that ideally you would like for them to be your nom and not Dougs. So, my question to you is why did you ask Doug's for the nom if that is the case? If you were not ready to proceed forward why did you request the nom, and why from Doug's? We both know the answers though, don't we. Landon1980 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you know, why ask? Since this is Earth week, perhaps we should all save some electrons. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, so in the spirit of Earth week why have you added a comment that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, and serves no purpose whatsoever? Landon1980 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we both know the answer to that, I think. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Pageant of Steam

Haha I go there every year; have you been there or aren't you from/in England? It seems like the majority of the big time editors/admins are in England. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DC, I've never been to that or any steam festival. And I don't think I've ever been to Schenectady. But I see it was named for a Mohawk word, and I attended a Camp Mohawk. So that's as close as I can get. But it sounds interesting and I enjoyed reading the article you created. I'm a big fan of traditions and festivals. I agree there are an awful lot of Redcoats running around Wikipedia inserting Us after Os and replacing Zs with Ss. It's troubling, especially as you point out that so many of these members of the monarchy are in Admin positions. What's a good Yank to do? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lemon poppyseed cake

This made a superdelicious batter--perhaps also because I accidentally poured the three tablespoons of lemon juice for the glaze in with the batter. Oh, the Lakers are shooting the ball purty good right now... Drmies (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stone Creek--yes, that's good, better than my somewhat stilted sentence. However, sir, there seems to be a bit of puffery/peacockery introduced...astonishing...amazing... Drmies (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How dare you sir! I'm shocked by this outrageous and most incredible allegation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way this [2] has a whiff of truthiness. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here are some sources for poppy seed as bird food [3]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, those sources aren't very good, but these are better[4]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Chechil

I have worked some more on this article, copy-editing and adding references. Please take a look. --Zlerman (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the stuff [5]? I can't find a free photo. But I can get one if that's what we're looking for. I haven't heard it called chechil, but love the real string cheese. Those sticks are a joke. What are the little black seeds again? Delicioso!!! I wonder if Mies, Dr. has ever had any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Minneapolis porridge

So, as I learned in Hell's Kitchen, one can make a nice porridge with wild rice. It takes a while to cook, so I start the night before with wild rice, or a packet of Kashi pilaf, cooked simply in salted water. The next morning, scoop into a bowl and nuke (or put into a saucier and cook) with added whipping cream. Add nuts (Hell's Kitchen uses hazelnuts) and dried fruit, brown sugar, and Bob's your uncle! Drmies (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Meta?

Regarding this diff, I left you a note regarding this very issue on the talk talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Steamed clams

What does this have to do with bacon?--kelapstick (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Clams are the summertime pigs of the seashore? How are the hooks coming for my latest articles there boss? Rubbernecking is on deck... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Which ones are they, I have been off the grid lately?--kelapstick (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than steamers I wrote up Stone Creek Jamboree, don't cha know. They haven't been hooked up to the Matrix yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're hooked up, you are still going to have too expand steamed clams to get it to DYK length(100 characters more or so). And what is this now, I leave for a while and there is a talk page for the talk page? Who checks the checker? Who audits the auditor? --kelapstick (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geo. And a very happy earth day to you. I did a dramatic expansion of the steamed clams article per your suggestion. If you are able and so inclined, please hook it. In honor of Earth day I am going to go outside. I hope you enjoy yours and I appreciate your help. The meta-talk page has been very very valuable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is this Geo? I hope that you aren't calling me a geologist...I just pretend to be one, as part of my many duties. I will take a look at the clams, the length is good now, I will see what I can dig out of it. --kelapstick (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think steamed clams is really DYK material, all the sources are cookbooks.--kelapstick (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You're crushing my dreams Geo. I suspect the Jamboree one is going to have a more challenging ride actually... But I'm going to go ahead and add some tidbits about hepatitus, pearls, British steamed clams, and the making of a good broth. Hopefully the New York Times coverage will satisfy you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The jamboree checked out, that last ref might have something interesting to put in, but I didn't want to add a cook book hook,.--kelapstick (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I find it rather sad that in his admirable work on steamed clams our Child saw fit not to wikiling bacon... Drmies (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be formatting references somewhere? Seriously though, have you finished the Kronos chronology? Because there is actual work to be done. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think the author of the last-cited news article is User:Dicklyons? Bongomatic 06:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Could be. But there are a lot of Dicks in the world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Steamed clams DYK

Did you know...that steamed clams is nominated for did you know?--kelapstick (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Singular not Plural

No, I was not referring to you in the metaphor at all. The discussion was supposed to be interchanged just between GT. and me (in the open space though) and the adjective was used a couple of time before when I said to GT about the user's "dreadful curses" (recalling witches). I truly thank him/her (I think the user is "she") that s/he ignored my presence. I wish I don't encounter him/her ever. Once you commented there, your ardent fan in a fluffy garment followed. Anyway, you're forgetting the fact that they've been working in the same areas in which Badaganani are active befor the conflicts. You can not blame their overlapped activities, but rather ask Badagnani to stop being disruptive; adding original research, synthesis, false information, link spams, blogs or promotional sources, YouTube links, sneaky hidden remarks or questions, false accusations, incivility, POV pushing, vegetarianism, Peta Pan-Asianism agendas, wikistalking, harassing, racist comments etc. As long as he continues such practices, he has to face contests. That is all his responsibility. As I said before, you're too generous about his behaviors.--Caspian blue 21:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All of the additions I've seen Badagnani make seem to have been reasonable and in the interest of the encyclopedia. They can, with some justification, be accepted in good faith under the Ignore All the Rules policy. (I saw yesterday this was one of Wikipedia's first policies!) I'm not saying I agree with all of his edits, but I haven't personally seen any that appear to me to have been made in bad faith. I don't think there is any question that he is strident in his approach and this hard-headedness can be frustrating to deal with. I haven't seen any evidence he's trying to spam Wikipedia with commercial links. I believe he takes a broad view of content and when he finds a link he considers useful to our readers, he includes it. Given how often links go dead and new stories become unavailable, I don't think independent websites that look trustworthy are especially outrageous to use where appropriate. Once things settle out, I haven't seen him try to make an end-run around consensus and he seems willing to live with outcomes that he doesn't agree with. Your experience seems to have been different, and I respect your opinion. Your accounting of policy violations is almost as long as those I'm typically accused of, but I admire you for avoiding the dreaded acronyms. :) As you probably know, the only one that has my full support is the BLT policy. I'm confident that the two of you will become good friends in the near future! What better time to turn over a new leaf than Earth Day? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. no unless he changes his attitude and editing habits. You already forgot that I was once a his defender for a while? Your article, Bacon mania was accused of original research, but it is at least based on reliable sources, not "flickr images or hearsay".--Caspian blue 14:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rubbernecking

I looked at Flickr to see if I could find a photo showing a group of cars with people craning their necks out their driver's side windows at an accident, to no avail. Badagnani (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[6] No? Also, the "weather necking" photo is very strange. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The rubbernecking photo is hilarious. Too bad it's past April 1. Jonathunder (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Woodman

Category:British businesspeople was removed, with no edit summary, and now it is uncategorized. Did you have a source for where he was born?--kelapstick (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I added Category:Massachusetts businesspeople, but where he was born would probably be a good idea too.--kelapstick (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You could make a restauranteur category. It also seems to fit in the "Category:Food and drink biography stubs", but it's not a stub. Why are only food and drink biography stubs given a category? Seems weird. I don't know where he was born. Ask Mies, Dr. I think they grew up together. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Mies, Dr. didn't even help with that article? What a lazy sod. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Woodman? Who that? I grew up among the dinosaurs. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Just wanted to let you know that I replied to the discussion you were having with Wikidemon on my talk page (I didn't get a chance to edit yesterday). See here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

the vandals took the handle

Eh...[7]...you are too friendly, sir. I'm getting kind of tired of that high schooler. But thanks for restoring my boobies and my bacon star. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Pyramidenkogel

Check out my latest DYK candidate--and if you're interested in this planned 100m wooden structure with its 66m slide, you can see a pretty cool animation here. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you see the animation? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not yet I'm working on a Ukranian Easter bread that has the same name as the "bread people" from pascagoula. No apparent connection. But the bread was brought to the USA by Mennonites. And if I remember correctly, a band of Mennonites are trying to steal Minnesota's potluck record achieved at the Stone Creek Jamboree. So you see it's a very small world after all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, of course, that Menno Simons was from the motherland! Drmies (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we had any Mennonites is New York City. What do they look like? :) Now I'm coming across hrudka and syrek, a Slovakian Easter concoction described as "like cheese". It's just one thing after another!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr., that link doesn't work. Must be some sort of video technology that isn't supported by my IBM 286. Maybe you can describe what the video shows... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa, my Sinclair ZX Spectrum has no problems with it whatsoever. Well, it's a huge tower made up of ellipses; the simulation shows the tower acquiring flesh over its skeleton, so to speak, and all is shown as an aerial view circling the tower and showing this beautiful low-alpine landscape. At the end it zooms in on the observation platform, incredibly high and narrow. It's a beautiful tower; I wish Commons had a picture of it. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of Barney Frank Talk Page

Yes, if you go to the bottom of the Frank talk page, you can comment. Joshua Ingram (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll stick around. And I brought up that report because I thought it might get people to stop quoting the Times or Rush, which is stupid. No one is going to stop quoting either, and I should just accept it. Joshua Ingram 05:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Traditional fishing village

Hi. I am wondering why you want the lead to this article to begin with: "Traditional fishing villages are located near fishing grounds and have an economy based on fishing. A high percentage of the residents in these villages work as fishermen." and are reverting my preferred version: "A fishing village is a village located near fishing grounds with an economy based on fishing.".

• MOS clearly states ...if the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface'.

• Secondly, you are reinstating the redundant sentence, "A high percentage of the residents in these villages work as fishermen." when the preceding sentence has just stated that fishing villages have "an economy based on fishing".

• Thirdly, my version clearly defines what a fishing village is, whereas yours does not. Village is wikilinked because that article spells out well what a village is, and covers other aspect of fishing villages that don't need to be spelt out in the rest of the article.

• Finally, you keep removing the wikilink to village itself, for reasons I do not understand.

You have rightly asked for a citation to "Most fishing villages are traditional, and many fishing villages are in decline". Fishing village in developed countries present a very different picture from fishing villages in undeveloped countries. It is the fishing village in developed countries that are in decline. Maybe for now, it would be better to just remove that sentence. This is just a start up article which needs a lot more work. There doesn't seem to be anything in the literature that examines the concept of a fishing village and how they evolved over time. I'm teetering on removing "traditional" from the title and just calling the article "Fishing village". --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo. Thanks for your questions. I agree the article should be moved to fishing village.

• When something is it's explained I think it's best to avoid the word being explained. So saying a fishing village is a village where people fish, seems awkward and not terribly helpful. I didn't remove the word village, I moved it to the beginning of the second sentence where it was wikilinked in case anyone wants to review the broader subject.

• I would leave the sentence I tagged in actually. It's the type of basic question we need to anwer in the article. What is a fishing village? What are the types? What is the history and the progression? Are they in decline? Are they being mor industrial (large scale)? What other considerations are important?

• Something along the lines of: "A fishing village is a community that has a large percentage of its workers and its economy based on catching fish and harvesting seafood" seems reasonable to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Accurate information versus POV

Ugh, you're right... I think. Not sure. Anyway, I meant {{undue}}. --Raijinili (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well clearly that under construction article isn't a candidate to replace the main Obama article. :) But at one time we did have criticism articles. And even if we never have one for the "chosen one" :) I think people need to give space to an editor who wants to collect sourced statements in their userspace for whatever purpose. Cheers. I see you're still commenting on the list of article. That was really a pity to lose. Would have solved a lot of problems I think and made the Obama subject matter and articles much much easier to navigate. It seemd to get poisoned with the worst kind of assumptions of bad faith that didn't have much to do with the article itself. And I think the main concerns were addressed by the end in various ways. My experience with DRV is that it's very difficult to get things overturned, so I'm not really sure how to proceed, but I think losing that article was a very poor showing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I was really surprised at the deletion decision, it didn't look like consensus in either direction, and I thought the tie goes to the runner. kelapstick (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if the article isn't a replacement, I think it would be good if it at least was respectable. Some of the sourced statements fail as references objectively, like those which pick off facts from articles to promote a conclusion which was in no way supported by the article itself, like that for-fun article about pizza. --Raijinili (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But it's userspace. So allowing it to develop there seems appropriate. Even in userspace there is no ownership, but I think broad latitude is reasonable, particularly in this case. If you want to work up a "criticism" or "opposition" to article with me I'm ready to roll. :) It's something I've wanted to do for a while, but because of all the accusations and WikiPolitics involved I was hoping someone else would do it (and there's another article along these lines in another user's space). My basic view is that it's important and consistent with our guidelines to include notable perspectives. I don't think we've done that yet for that subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight/Turbaconducken

I believe this is what you were intending to do :-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thanks. I thought that was set up in my userspace. Hadn't meant for it to go right to mainspace. Still a lot of fleshing out to do. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mel Gibson

I have to ask two questions. How does your change here address the fundamental point from the previous edit summary - namely that it doesn't reflect the content of the article in any way since the article doesn't cover box office gross for his films? The Box Office Mojo figure is misleading in that it only reports box office sales and not later sales of DVDs, videos, and other types of releases and is not adjusted for inflation, so as a flat figure, it doesn't convey what it is represented to convey. The other question is wouldn't one suppose that an adminstrator candidate would be concerned with correctly formatting a reference he or she supports for inclusion when the rest of the article has consistently formatted citations? LaVidaLoca (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I looked at the source and it had a box office total right at the bottom that said 2 billion something. So I'm not sure what I missed? Isn't the box office total the sales at the theater? I think that's what it says. Maybe I'm tired or confused, but I'm not seeing your point. It popped up in my watchlist and I took the point raised in the edit summary and tried to address them. Sorry if I made a mistake. I'll try to have another look in the morning to see if I'm missing something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Barakhamba

Hi! ChildofMidnight,

Thanks for making some corrections. Noting your tag, I have made copy editing to the extent I could identify. I hope it meets your concerns to decide on removal the tag. If not, I would request you to make the needed changes. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for editing my Indish (Indian English). I have added a reference to the first para to link with the DYK hook and also made minor edits of additional Internal links. Can you kindly remove the tag now? Thanks once again.--Nvvchar (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Send Naan. And tandoor. And garlands of jasmine flowers. And beauituful saris. And bright smiling people. Ah, India I miss you so. ChildofMidnight (talk)

Sure, When you are in Delhi next time. Thanks for the edits and removing the tag.Can I seek your help to nominate some more a rtciles on Delhi heritage monuments for which I am taking pictures?--Nvvchar (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

SOunds good. Yes of course I'm happy to help any time, especially on such interesting subjects. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help. Barakhamba is through with DYK. But Chausath Khamba would need your valuable editing since my editing has still not been accepted. I would apprecite your help. The DYK hook is at the bottom of the DYK Talk page. I have just now posted a new article titled Sultan Ghari. I would be very happy and thankful if you could tweak it as required and nominate it on DYK with a suitable Hook and image. I will be posting another article on "Moth Ki Masjid" in my sandbox User:Nvvchar/sandbox today itself for your help in editing and subsequent nomination. Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hey COM, have you seen your RFA. No offense but it's not doing too good. I suggest your withdraw before you get hammered. Right now your success rate is 6%.--(NGG) 12:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree you should withdraw. There's no need to put yourself through this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. It would be in your best interests to withdraw, as your chance of success is virtually zero. Timmeh! 13:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The main thing is that it's not productive for you or the process. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the RfA per WP:SNOW. Obviously, it wasn't going to pass, but in obvious situations like that, I tend to lean towards leaving it open so the candidate can get feedback on what they need to improve upon. You had that in abundance, so there was no point in leaving it open. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Obviously given the votes so far a snow close is reasonable. I would have liked to have had it stay open for a couple of days at least, as many editors didn't have a chance to commment, but c'est la vie. Accepting the nom to get it over with seemed a good idea which is why I went ahead with it. Now we can all get back to making the encyclopedia better. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I can think of at least one probable positive outcome of your nomination. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Your question about Commons

I just saw on some talk page somewhere you asked about moving files to Commons, just thought you might want to see the (in-progress) Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons might be better. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Deletion Squadron

This might be something the cabal would be interested in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I confess I don't find it terribly funny, but this comment from DGG—"it is well known that deletionists have no sense of humor" strikes me as way off base. In my experience, relative to Article Rescue Squadron members, deletionists are a laugh a minute. Bongomatic 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"All too often, an article about a perfectly trivial topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? Yes!" And then the flame throwing tank with the the {{crap}} template? Even just the idea of an article deletion squadron is funny. Come on! ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for the fix on John Fetterman (politician)'s DYK, just caught it. Grsz¹¹ 02:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I like the ska article. Are you a Streetlight Manifesto fan? Grsz¹¹ 03:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been out of the music scene since late 1995. :) But when I stumbled on the Orange county Ska article (now in my user space including a list of bands, and (hopefully) merged into Ska...) I thought it was interesting that so many of the bigtime bands in that genre came out of such a small area (3rd wave ska anyway). I guess "Orange County Ska scene" is an obscure search topic, but it seemed worth an article. After all we have articles on every album by every notable bands and every olympic athlete (thank goodness the 17th place finisher in 200 meter skeet shooting is included!!! And the 34th place hurler... yeah I said hurler Kelapstick. That shit is almost as silly as bowling. Anyway, it seemed nice to have that aspect of Ska history included with the list of the bands from that area. But that was not the consensus...

I'll have to check out some Streetlight Manifesto on youtube. I've heard of meatbeat manifesto... speaking of which, there's an AfD on midification, I think, which seemsed interesting. Of course, I'm also big fan of the iconic Tina Turner. And Mel Gibson movies have made over 2 billion at the box office. But I digress... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

Hey, anyone who has has a dog on their user page can't be all bad .. lol. My pic isn't my real dog though, just one that someone left me. I'm guessing that Moopsy is your real life buddy. My real life pooch (Mocha) actually is closer to your pup than my pic - she's part springer spaniel, maybe some pointer and beagle thrown in. Ya just gotta love those long ears ... lol. Well, glad to see that you keep such a positive perspective on everything, and we'll get ya those tools the next time around. Keep editing, stay happy, and keep to the high-road. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone put Moopsy up on my page. He/she seems to be a lot more popular than I am ;) A fine looking hound. Probably an excellent hunter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

LMAO - we must have an "adopt-a-pet" editor in our community - or maybe "adopt-a-VIRTUAL-pet" would be more accurate. Mine doesn't look like he'd do much more than slobber all over ya! lol. — Ched :  ?  14:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Help?

Hi CoM and page-watchers, please see this article on a fascinating individual. I would be grateful if you could find additional facts and sources and/or expand the article based on the sources already identified. Thanks! Bongomatic 13:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Sorry the RfA closed before I got a chance to weigh in, I had a busy weekend, and it was open for less than 12 hours. I think that you will benefit from some of the Constructive criticism, I think you would make a great admin and I look forward to your next run. --kelapstick (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Cutting my RfA short was the only way they could stop me. The momentum was clearly starting to shift, and fearing a tidal wave of supports, they chose to stop the process all together. They barely gave me a chance. How typical! Thanks for you note, except the part about constructive criticism. That has no place here. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You are right, you would probably be better off heeding the unconstructive criticism instead. --kelapstick (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you're talking! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi CoM

My views on the RfA (should you care):

• Quite unfortunate that it closed in such a short time, especially over a weekend. As per the reasoning behind expanding AfD discussions to seven days, there are different audiences during different days.
• A couple of editors really covered themselves in inglory with their comments.
• Many of the opinions were predictable.
• Administratorship is neither a privilege nor an honor—it's a volunteer position granted by the community based on consensus. One reasonable basis for individual editors in formulating their opinions is the desire to avoid "drama" (for lack of a better term), and that it is legitimate to factor in the predictable actions of other editors—even if predictably immature, outside of policy, inconsistent with guideline, and lacking Wikiquette—when assessing the amount of drama likely to be created.
• It is worth commenting on the number editors who "opposed" your RfA who praised your contributions to the project.
• The most frequent concerns (and those ventured by the least polarized of the opposers) were edit-warring, POV pushing and not adequately addressing talk page comments / following consensus. There is very little in these areas that is black and white, and my recommendation is to make sure that for every edit you make (whether in article or talk space) where you think dissent is possible as to whether you are edit-warring, pushing POV, or flouting consensus, you look at the record of diffs from the perspective of a cautious consensus-freak evaluating your edits for your next RfA (from personal experience, I know this is hard when other editors do exasperating things). For what its worth, I think that approach is recommended even if you never intend to try again for Admin.
• Notwithstanding problems you may have had in this area before, fighting for neutrality and/or balance in ledes and elsewhere in articles—even difficult ones—is a worthy cause. As long as you keep the above bullet point in mind, I hope you continue editing in this vein.

Keep up the good work, and take the advice from the chorus of U2's "Acrobat". Bongomatic 16:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't play Jesus to this kind of leopard--they don't listen.

• "And you can swallow, or you can spit, you can throw it up or choke on it."? :)

  Or: "I know you'd hit out if, you only knew who to it?"

  Or maybe: "And I'd join the movement if there was one I could believe in."

  And then there's: "Yeah I'd break bread and wine, if there was a church I could receive in. Cause I need it now. To drink the cup. Fill it up. To drink it slow. Can't let you go. I must be an acrobat to talk like this and act like that"

  And: "You can dream so dream out loud."

  Or maybe "You know that your time is coming round. So don't let the bastards grind you down"? Oh that's the one. :) Isn't that a personal attack? Can you refer to bobbleheads and windbags as bastards using song lyrics? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You know that Bono is a commie, right? and that in another song from that album he throws in weird stuff like "Did you come to race the dead" and "Have you come here to play Jesus to the leopards in your head?" I mean, that makes no sense at all. A head full of carnivores? Drmies (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, many otherwise intelligent people seem unable to fathom that handouts do no good and are often counterproductive to expanding opportunities and improving standards of living. But something not working, is rarely enough to stop someone from keeping at it. Marx wrote some good fiction and had a real command of drama and gravitas. He just didn't have any grip on reality. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're barking up the wrong tree: I love handouts, as much as the big three do. Now where's my money? Drmies (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There are "editors" on here who will read your comments and fail to appreciate the irony and sarcasm. These humorless animals will sink your RfA. They won't even get that you're actually quite an ardent socialist. They have such a deep seated fear of anyone who sees the world differently than they do, that they won't dare allow you to be given any authority. You're just not safe enough my friend acquaintance who happens to inhabit the same neighborhood on Wikipedia. There will also be many who will find some little smudge in your record where you didn't kowtow properly or dot your I with enough enthusiasm, and didn't use the proper justification for crossing a T. But I still think it's interesting to go through the process, unless you have a thin skin and need to be loved and appreciated. You can always comfort yourself with bacon and booze. And I've been known to be wrong on very rare and exceptional occasions. But that's my prediction. There's one path to adminship, as far as I can tell, and I don't think you've taken the proper route.ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

haha, i feel good now...

...that I've cleaned up a section of the biscuit article: see Biscuit#Beaten_biscuits. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Buom buom

I have never heard of that. Is it real or just something new the Vietnamese have concocted to keep Westerners on their toes? Badagnani (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you were able to get the diacritics. Badagnani (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arda Vandella Collins

Did a proper WP:BEFORE without the less used middle name. Got to disagree with you big time at this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You work on these marginal characters and yet my main man Warren Miller (director), whose work has inspired even Mies, Dr. to pursue dreams of film narrating, remains so pitifully neglected. Also, isn't 12 children an awful lot? I didn't realize you had an article until just recently. That's very cool. Anything exciting going on up there in LA? I hit Joan's recently and it was great, but it's quite a fuss to get served and find a seat on a Saturday. Where do you hang out? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Wrong Collins. Sorry Arda V. Collins is not Arda Collins (another sadly neglected article about a notable and award winning author). And with your gentle hint, I will look in at Warren Miller (director). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Present for you

Here it is: a new signature:

CoM— _{YOUR BROTHER} ^{in BACON}

Bongomatic 02:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

very nice Bongo, very nice.kelapstick (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Now that's getting back some of the ole talk page magic...I'll leave a note in the appropriate place. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ChildofMidnight 23:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point—I did miss out a lot of places people who interact with you need to go. Bongomatic 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:ChildofMidnight/talk/talk

And this for your perusal. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for Death Organ. That's really moderately exciting, and I worked on the article some. Just because it's not notable doesn't mean it shouldn't look clean! Drmies (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

porn?

Here's a fun diff: [8]. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Stick to wholesome fare [9]. Two out of the three include bacon, and one's down there in your neck of the woods. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Slight concern

Dear ChildofMidnight

Reading some of your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 New York City airplane scare I am concerned you have got the wrong impression of me. You have said "you're misapplying a policy", and "Flying airforce one around to take picture five days after Earth Day was wasteful and thoughtless, it caused panic and fear among tens or hundreds of thousands of people, but you're not interested". I do not feel I am being given the good-faith assumption I deserve. I am not out on a crusade to delete the article and will stop at nothing. I just feel the flyover isn't notable enough to warrant an article, that's all, and I believe so strongly in that that yes I will argue strongly, but not to the extent that I lose my impartiality. I hope this clears things up, and thank you for reading. Please feel free to direct me any inquiries. Cordovao (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Cordovao. Don't be concerned. If you read the policy it's quite clear. "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." This isn't a tabloid story or an announcement and it has loads of reliable sources with substantial covareage. So there's no ambiguity. If in the future it's determined that it wasn't in fact notable, which seems unlikely, we can always delete it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I assure you I have read the guideline multiple times, and have cited "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events." I agree it isn't a tabloid story, but I still do not think it passes muster in terms of historical notability. Anyway, thank you for your response, and I hope we can co-operate effectively in future. Cordovao (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Biker poetry

I hope I didn't mess up posting like this, but I wanted to ask you a question... I've been working on “Biker poetry” and noticed that you have been keeping an eye on it and making some minor, but good changes. I've been in the process of posting references and would like to know what it will take to get that notice at the top of the page removed that say's the page has no references and could be challenged and removed? I continue to work on credible references almost daily. I've read the requirements and I think I now have the article at the point where it meets the standards and stands on its own merit. Could you offer some insight? Thanks, Akbikerpoet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbikerpoet (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but how do you really feel?

Interesting suggestion, I am guessing that tact isn't their strong suit.--kelapstick (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That list is fairly awesome. Drmies is actually considered the godmother of Dutch rock! ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, and as it happens I am in a TERRIFIC mood today since I've been listening to the Godfather of Soul in the car--baby baby baby! I just noticed that the Occult Bookkeeper had changed that redirect to point to the honorific article, and I changed it back to JB. That was the right move, wasn't it? And BTW CoM, thanks, but that's too much honor. That title goes to Herman Brood, and I'll find (or fabricate) the reference to prove it. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stone Creek Jamboree

On April 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stone Creek Jamboree, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wow CoM, you did it again--made a DYK out of nothing! Congrats! (And by "nothing" I mean here the hunch that something is interesting. WP can use such curiosity.) Your partner in crime and part-time tag-along, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Cool Beans! Thanks for pointing out where I needed some citations, I really do appreciate it. I put the ones in that you pointed out and will continue to look for more. I think my biggest problem is my familiarity with the subject, so much I just know and consider common knowledge, thanks. You are a very big help in all this. Unfortunately this will be the last night I will have to spend a lot of time on this for quit a while. I was hoping to get the article substantially standing on it’s own by now. I have deliberately left the tag at the top of the page stating that more citations are needed in the hope that others would join in the editing of the page. A few have, but not with the type of citations and quotes needed to make this a viable document. I thank you for the attention you have given this project. Later, Akbikerpoet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbikerpoet (talk • contribs) 07:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

New DYK?

I have the hook ready, but I need to expand Long Wong's (now there's a double entendre for you) and Dead Hot Workshop...--kelapstick (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Looks like I am getting Long Wong's on to the main page on my own, what do you think of this hook?

Dead Hot Workshop

• ... that Dead Hot Workshop got their start at a Tempe club named Long Wong's, where bands such as the Gin Blossoms and The Refreshments also performed in the 1990s?

Created by Kelapstick (talk). Self nom at 15:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

•   Dead Hot Workshop – Kelapstick (give) (tag)

--kelapstick (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Looks great--esp. if you know any of these bands, haha. (I'm old school--I'm listening to Roy Buchanan and have been working on his article.) Good luck! Drmies (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I know The Refreshments (not personally), they are pretty awesome, and I know some songs by the Gin Blossoms as they are the most popular. In one of the Refreshments songs on Fizzy Fuzzy Big & Buzzy they say "We could all wear ripped up cloths and pretend we were Dead Hot Workshop", that is where I heard of them, I don't know anything they sing...--kelapstick (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • I think Long Swong is funnier than Long Wong's, but that's just me...

While we're on the topic, did you know...

Five Tango Sensations

• ... that Five Tango Sensations by the Kronos Quartet was the last studio recording by tango legend Ástor Piazzolla?

Created by Drmies (talk). Self nom at 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

•   Five Tango Sensations – Drmies (give) (tag)

And did you know...

• ... that Terry Riley: Cadenza on the Night Plain is the first record to result from the long and fruitful collaboration between American composer Terry Riley and the Kronos Quartet?

Created by Drmies (talk). Self nom at 19:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

•   Terry Riley: Cadenza on the Night Plain – Drmies (give) (tag)

Yeah, Child, the Kronos Quartet, baby! It won't flip-flop on you! Drmies (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Child, do you really think they'd fall over that? Anyone who knows tango knows that...yeah, verifiability, not truth, I know. But did you click to his article? That lead says it all. I dunno, I'm going to let it stand for now, out of deference to him. You know I saw him, twice, in the Netherlands--it was amazing. But thanks for the suggestion, and we'll see what the folks at DYK think. Oh, did you see Blofeld's proposed DYK? ... that in 2001, Dutch musician and artist Herman Brood committed suicide by jumping from the roof of the Amsterdam Hilton Hotel? Ha! Drmies (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I always like something random in DYK hooks so people can learn something. I've never heard of that instrument. Would he be a legend or legendary? No difference? I saw the other hook and I wanted to put the date at the end: that Dutch musician and artist Herman Brood committed suicide by jumping from the roof of the Amsterdam Hilton Hotel in 2001? Good articles and hooks though. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you aren't learning something, why would it be in as a DYK? It would be a "You know".--kelapstick (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

...You know that Kelapstick is planning to bum around the house again this weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Or chasing a two year old (who just learned to colour on the coffee table) around the house, it is also hard to update using my iPod, which is what I use for the internet at home these days. Oh and I will be looking at houses on Saturday, looks like we might be moving a little closer to Reno. --kelapstick (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

...You know that someone has stirred controversy with a massive multi-nom hook at DYK for April 25? Reno seems to be pretty happening. Some good mountain biking up there too. Go Wolfpack? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's awesome. I think they should dedicate the whole DYK update to that. Reno is pretty nice, I am staying at Harrah's next Friday, my dad came down for a visit and will fly out the next day, so we are catching an Aces game the night before. I hope to make it to a few Wolfpack games this fall, I was on the field the other day at a charity walk.--kelapstick (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, that was amazing. That should make the main page just for sheer effort. And I only had to read it twice to get the grammar! (But I've had a few cocktails.) You know what's funny--this afternoon I was thinking about nominating a dab page for DYK, and got to thinking about what would be involved with that. Hey, so you noticed the Herman Brood Hook? Big-time Blofeld found the Dutch connection also, and after the Amsterdam Hilton Hotel now turned his attention to creating stubs for every single Dutch movie ever made. Woohoo! Drmies (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried the beverage in question?

Otherwise I can't see how you're qualified to say whether it does or does not taste like urine. 98.238.188.211 (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Except that content is based on citations to reliable sources, and a popular soda that tastes like urine seems highly unlikely. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide me with a source stating that it tastes like bubblegum? 98.238.188.211 (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bottle_and_glass_of_inca_kola.jpg to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weewee.JPG Notice something? 98.238.188.211 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com's product description [10]. Also, ingredients are sweeteners, so it stand to reason it tastes sweet rather than acidic like urine. There's also [11], [12] puts it in cream soda category, ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Would-You-Drink-Cow-Urine-Soda/2528.html Cow urine soda... 98.238.188.211 (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If and when those plans go forward I think a Cow urine soda article would be a great addition. As far as the urine like color of cream sodas, I think there are descriptions that are less negatively associated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

CoM, if you have a minute, come by my place and have some Inca Kola...there's plenty of room! Drmies (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to reading (not drinking) cow urine soda.kelapstick (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I should smite this IP for blasphemy against the sacred Inca Kola. LOL. bibliomaniac15 03:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Steamed clams

On May 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steamed clams, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

thx Victuallers (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

St. Dunstan Elementary School

Hi there. Please remember that A7 explicitely excludes schools as a subject it can be applied to. Regards SoWhy 08:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dang, boy...

...I was fixin' to "borrow" your welcome template, but heck, that's too many pixels. Hey, I saw your user page got roughed up too--at least I got a nice anti-bush picture, which is better than an oversized piece of bacon. You doin' alright? Been staying out of trouble? Or is it like how Falstaff makes fun of Worcester in 1 Henry IV (5.1.28), "Rebellion lay in his way, and he found it"? Drmies (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Truth (painting)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Truth (painting), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth (painting). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Newross (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

St. Dunstan Elementary School

Is there a reason that you wanted to prod St. Dunstan Elementary School? If so please add that reason or I will delete the prod template. T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to remove my proposal to delete because I didn't provide a reason then shouldn't you provide a reason besides my not providing a reason? I mean why should it NOT be deleted? Or do you just willy nilly delete deletions? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this article is a stub. Just because it does not have sources, does not mean it's not notable. T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the consensus that high schools are generally notable but that lower schools aren't unless they satify the general notability guidelines? Why not just remove the prod if you think it is or may be notable? Some text outside the infobox would be nice. But it doesn't worry me any if people want to keep it. It doesn't make the encyclopedia worse, but if that school is notable I think every elementary middle and lower school is too. Right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than deletion it should probably be redirected to Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, similar to the way that Brookmede Public School redirects to Peel District School Board. --kelapstick (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure sure Kelapstick, just stroll in with all kinds of sensible suggestions. Why not just redirect? I'll tell you why. I already came up with a perfectly good reason for my prod. So if you wanted to redirect you should have done so sooner. Isn't that right? And so what if it does get redirected. What then? Should we just start "merging" content where appropriate? It's all well and good to take the easy way out all the time, but then what will I have to argue about on my talk page? And all this while notable content that's well sourced is hanging on by a thread at AfD? And after I've gone to the trouble of giving that info box a speedy nom AND now a prod? Hey have you seen the ripped jeans article? What do you think? Merge? Redirect? Can we at least argue about it some first? Thanks. When is your move date? I nominate Mies, Dr. to help you pack everything up and load it onto the U-Haul. Hire people to do the work for you especially if you can get someone else to pay for it. That's my suggestion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to consider my conflict of interest since I went through the Peel District School Board up until grade 9....The content shouldn't be merged, as there is not content in the article that falls outside of the scope of a school directory, which is something that Wikipedia is not. Anyone who is looking for the information provided about St. Dunstan on Wikipedia is better off looking at the school website. Needless to say the prod tag has been removed, so you either have to take it to AfD, slap on a proposed merge or be bold (which is difficult for you I know), and just redirect it. If you put it up for AfD I suggest you post it at WP:CWNB. --kelapstick (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Some muthafrucker removed my prod tag? AFTER I added a reason??? When will the madness stop!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may like this

I created another "food list" today, List of salads inspired by your association (?) with "interesting" + weird _ unusual (and never heard of) salads like snickers salad, or Watergate salad. Were you born and raised in the Midwest like Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin? I think so. (what is my point for this visit? Please expand contents on the list. :))--Caspian blue 21:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I do like that list article. Very nice! I will see what I can do. Thanks for the note. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected your userpage for three days. Let me know if you would prefer it unprotected. LadyofShalott 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. Looking at the page for the picture that was posted it says something about "copyright by ....", so I'm not sure how it's allowed. Where's Nvcomalist when I need him? Although it was a nice doorway. I wonder what it means...??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I doubt there's a significance to that particular door, but threats like that are in no way, shape, or form tolerable. LadyofShalott 04:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Not very nice. Especially when I'm such a sweet and wonderful person. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

...And now this page is semi-protected for three days as well. LadyofShalott 04:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Puppemaster?

I encourage you to submit a WP:SSP case, especially if you have any clue who the puppetmaster might be. LadyofShalott 04:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Daedalus already filed one. How's that for fast action! Daedalus is good, wow. It got declined for not enough vandalism. :) Maybe there's enough now? I'm no expert on these things. But if someone has an issue with a content dispute or whatever they should just come out and discuss it. I have had some stalking by another user of late, so it could possibly be related... I haven't really dealt with this kind of thing before. Aren't I just supposed to ignore? Oh well. At least no one's hounding me over my copy-editing? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see now. Oh well. LadyofShalott 04:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I submitted one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lock All Your Doors for 3 accounts. If you see more, please add them. Its an obvious sock. --DougsTech (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nissan Saurus

Just a quick question on your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nissan Saurus. Did you have a merge target in mind? I didn't see a logical one. (My first instinct was merge, and I only nom'd it for deletion after I couldn't find a target). Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Fab. I don't really see a good target. It would have to be merged/ mentioned a few places. Really what it needs are cites for where the content came from, but I see it was created by an SPA. But based on the article it seems notable, so the problem is really verifiability? I'll have a look and see if I can find anything... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

On the gsearch I saw lots of blogs and fora, but nothing solid. *sigh* I was sure a gnews search would have turned up something -- the auto industry is really good at press for concept cars. I sincerely wish you luck on a search -- I'd always rather reference and expand than delete if the subject truly is notable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I added what I could. See what you think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We've got WP:V licked with those (I had seen a couple of them in my search), but I can't we've got WP:N in hand. Of course, being a car made in '87, there might be a ton of dead tree sources out there that haven't been scanned. Where to find them is always the bugbear.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's enough to justify it's existence as an article. You could merge in Nissan Saurus Jr.. Oooh and look I just found this [13]. Can you add that for me? :) There's also this [14]. Not sure what it is exactly, but it seems relevant (or maybe just redundant of the Jr. article?). And this [15] and this [16].ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you realize the second source you listed above is a wiki and the third source is a Wikipedia mirror?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

At least one of those sites had cool pictures. :) And there's one in a foreign language so it might say something interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Continued unwillingness to discuss

I just read your reply that you deleted and I'm afraid it didn't answer either of my questions. Let me rephrase them:

1. How can you claim "consensus" in your edit summary if there has been no discussion of any kind?
2. Since you have been unable to justify your reversion, will you consider self-reverting?

These are fair questions, and I should expect you to answer them since you were the reverting editor. On a side note, your claims of "personal attacks" and "unacceptable behavior" are largely baseless. Since you are unwilling to have a proper discussion about this material, choosing instead to simply edit war in clear violation of the article probation, I would posit that it is you behaving unacceptably in this case. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There was discussion. You objected to the sourced bit being quoted. You were asked to alter it to your liking. Instead you removed it in its entirety, again, without any further discussion. Yes, I will consider self reverting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not unanimity, I agree with Midnight.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

Hey, ChildofMidnight. If you have a moment, would you step in a world of Nirvana? I nominated a Chinese food article to DYK (under the name of Buddha Jumps Over the Wall), but the current title is at "Fo tiao qiang" as a result of some editors' edit warring. I want to secure my nom by moving to the intriguing but mysterious name (to readers). Would you comment at Talk:Fo_tiao_qiang#Move to where?? Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it an ethnic dispute? That would be just the thing to spice up what's otherwise been a very quiet day for me. What do the preponderance of sources call it? I kind of hesitate to put my two cents in really. If you can believe it I'm almost out of change. But I like the name Buddha Jumps Over the Wall. Does it have anything to do with the soup? Is there a Chinese saying that people jump over walls when they're excited? What does Fo tiao qiang mean? That should be enough questions to teach you a lesson about asking for my input. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not an ethnic dispute. I just expanded the article to commemorate the Buddha's Birthday, May 2. The dish is a kind of shark's fin soup, and the Chinese name literally means "Buddha (or a Buddhist monk)" jumps over the wall" to eat the dish because of the delicious smells regardless of Buddhist restriction on food. I hope it clear things out. :D--Caspian blue 01:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. :) By the way, the pink bar to show "your page having been semi-protected" is somewhat a barometer of your popularity. :P --Caspian blue 06:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hey, perhaps these sources help? Anyway, I mention your proposals at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#List_of_artists_who_have_covered_The_Beatles_2. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sugar balls

I have no idea what it is. Seems like some ritual in the northern part of India. Maybe I can ask friends and confirm. I know about mouthfreshners which have sugar crystals in it. But this seems to be something else. Paalappoo (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it for me. I hope all is well with you. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure to confirm stuff from this part of the world. Shall get back tomorrow. BTW, its past midnight here.. Paalappoo (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's always midnight somewhere... What a crazy world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A little past high noon here and sunny. I'm going to venture outside... Wish me luck! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, missed your last message yesterday... Couldn't find anyone who knows about Sugar balls, though I had the pleasure of making people laugh...

Its a pleasant sunny evening here... :) Paalappoo (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

But I don't think people give laddu when they fall in love. Laddus are given on happy occassions, including the birth of a child. The writing in Hindi in the article is "Cheeni Genden", which literally means "sugar balls". (cheeni - sugar, gend - ball, genden the plural of gend) Paalappoo (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sugar Balls

Nothing sweet about me, particularly after a week trying to save rather dull articles about country X/Y relations. Maybe one of the many editors who worked on Gulab jamun could help. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Stop this, now.[17] I have collapsed this utterly gratuitous personal attack. If you continue we're going back to AN/I. Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't collapse my comments. If you want to play more games at ANI go for it. But I'm allowed to piont out violations of our guidelines and the misapplication of policy pages. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't say we shouldn't use reliable sources, obviously. Please stop playing games and collaborate to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks. As I've requested of you time and again, please continue this discussion by focusing on the content on the article talk page where the discussion belongs and as is standard. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Subsection

You know your fans are very good at filing and inflating things. Why don't you make a subsection under the file, so you can defend your position before things get out of hand. I'm reminding of sharks fin soup.--Caspian blue 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The blocking admin even did not give you a warning. Scjessey is also being blocked for the same reason. If you want to request for unblock, use {{unblock}} or contact irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-en-unblock . If you have evidence on Wikidemon, write down here. So he may be judged as well. --Caspian blue 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about being a shark. But I think there's some soup cooking and I'm in it. Hey take care Casp. ;) I'm not wasting any more time on the diffs. They're there for anyone who wants to see the bullshit and game playing with WP:NOTNEWS and wikilawyering and all that other shit that's been going on for far too long. The rules are arbitrary. These jokers are off on some IRC channel deciding what to do. I'm not going to hold my breath for an apology. My edit history speaks for itself, and I stand by it. I'm not perfect, but I edit in good faith. I'm happy to compromise and to work collegially and collaboratively with anyone who edits here in good faith and makes an effort to abide by guidelines. I'm always willing to stand up to censorship and dishonesty and hypocrisy and it's worth it to me to stand up for Wikipedia's guidelines and against vandalism and abuse in all its forms. Wikidemon's actions are a disgrace. Period. His actions speak for themselves. What makes it more disgusting is that not one of these Admins tells him to stop. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you to "collect" as many diffs as you can get for the ArbCom case. --Caspian blue 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Another award winning Admin

When editors ask him about policies for notifying editors with warnings and block notifciations:

• Seems pointless to me. The block message adequately explained the block. Any template left on the talk page would add nothing. Remember that "policy" is descriptive of current community practice, not prescriptive and binding. Talk-page notification seems sensible if further specifics need to be given, for reasons such as "harassment", "personal attacks". That sounds like the intent of that section, which then details that if you do not give full specifics of the reasoning behind your block, it is more difficult to explain it later on. In this case, all the necessary specifics are in the block message, and so notification seems like unnecessary red tape.

Beautiful. This joker doesn't understand policy, refuses to follow it, and is running around blocking people when it isn't appropriate and goes against the guidelines and policy pages that he only knows the acronyms to. Somebody give him a barnstar. Where's Baseball Bugs when I need him??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point to where you found this quote, and/or the source? You know how we feel about references on Wikipedia. I'd be more than interested to be informed on the source of this. And yes, you have to tell me, or else it's not valid. Keegan^talk 04:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Apologies, found it :) Keegan^talk 04:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Admin's talk page. How's that for cojones. This joker blocks me for an arbitrary interpretation not supported anywhere in any policy or guideline, and meanwhile, confronted by his multiple violations of policy, he says he doesn't have to obey any of our policies because they're all just guidelines and not binding on him or her. I think it's especially cool that one of our illustrious Arbcoms is involved. One might think they would try to get the situation corrected and to show some respect for a long term good faith editor dealing with an abusive administrator who is brazen and open about his or her disregard for policy. But that hope would be misplaced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Werdna has now stated that it's too much trouble for him to explain himself and that when it comes to abiding our rules about warnings and notifications: "'policy' is descriptive of current community practice, not prescriptive and binding." He should be banned or at least stripped of his bit. If you want to block Scjessey it should for all his personal attacks and other policy violations, but this block is a joke. Arbitrary bullshit like this is why so many editors have so little respect for the hypocritical and incompetent Admins who get away this kind of nonsense and for their compatriots who stand by them. Disgraceful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody unblock Scjessey already

The only violations here were done by user:Werdna, an Admin, who has stated clearly that he thinks it's appropriate to ignore guidelines he doesn't care for or can't be bothered respecting (and Wikidemon, whose long term abuse of Wikipedia is well documented but ignored by Admins).

Werdna has now stated that it's too much trouble for him to explain himself and that when it comes to abiding our rules about warnings and notifications: "'policy' is descriptive of current community practice, not prescriptive and binding." He should be banned or at least stripped of his bit. If you want to block Scjessey it should for all his personal attacks and other policy violations, but this block is a joke. Arbitrary bullshit like this is why so many editors have so little respect for the hypocritical and incompetent Admins who get away this kind of nonsense and for their compatriots who stand by them. Disgraceful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, nobody unblock S. The night is very old, why don't you take a rest of the day? And read this.....--Caspian blue 04:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I've read that bullshit too. I'll bet the blocking Admin hasn't and wouldn't understand it if they did. Basically says the deck is stacked against you but if you humble yourself and admit that you did wrong even if you didn't that it's possible some Admin will unblock you even though the odds are stacked against you. Fuck that. This block should be oversighted and the Admin stripped of his bit. Alternatively he could unblock and apologize. But fat chance of that happening. Anything less is inappropriate and I'm not going to be a party to any kind of charade over this bullshit. If Admins can't be bothered to follow the rules, can't be bothered to act respectfully, can't be bothered to communicate and show restraint in solving disputes, and can't be bothered to enforce the guidelines when they're clearly being violated, then that's on them. I do my best. And when I make mistakes I try to fix them. I can't control how others excercise their values and judgement or lack there of. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Hey. Because of your edit warring at the Presidency of Barack Obama article, you've been blocked (not by me). Edit-warring on an article group on probation that's in an arbcom case you're a party to.. well, that wasn't the best move, and it is something I'm going to look at while writing up the proposed decision. Wizardman 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article history it looks like I have two edits on it in the last 24 hours. And I also tried to discuss it on the talk page and there wasn't a single content focused comment. There were just the usual attacks on me as an editor. It's funny how personal attacks are okay, but I'm being blocked for this supposed edit warring. It's a joke. The guy files an ANI report and makes personal attacks in it. Nobody says shit. Take that into account in your findings. Waste of time. I knew I shouldn't have bothered with those diffs. It's like the report I filed yesterday with clear personal attacks on another editor. If a guy has buddies in high places they slide through. Doesn't matter what the policies are. Shame on y'all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The new quote of the day: "Edit-warring is edit-warring, regardless of how many times you revert". I'd like to see where that is on the policy page. It looks to me like it says "to prevent further disruption" but the Admins involved don't care to follow policy apparently. Maybe it's on the same page that says Admins don't have to give warnings? There was a dispute, editors refused to engage in discussion and made a series of accusations and attacks on another editor. That editor is now blocked. Brought to you by your friendly Admins. LMAO. It's arbitrary. Personal attacks too, it is a personal attack if someone they don't like says something they don't like, and it isn't if it's Wikidemon making the latest round of false accusations and trying to block good faith editors who are trying to include notable content he doesn't agree with. Notice the Admin didn't even bother to leave a note on my page? But some people can violate policy and courtesy and some can't. According to WP:NOTNEWS we can no longer cite newspaper and magazine articles that these editors disagree with. Fantastic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There's actually an entire section dedicated to that. — Werdna • talk 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with people like you is you throw around policy acronyms but (apparently) don't read the actual policies. Here's what it says:

• • Not an entitlement
  • The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.

• • The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

You're in the wrong. Period. And by the way the second paragraph states "Administrators may block contributors in response to persistent edit warring, to prevent further disruption." When was the last revert on that article? Where is the ongoing disruption? The unrelated and bogus ANI report by an abusive editor? Don't make up bullshit and come here pretending you abided by policy. You didn't. I'll let you find the policy page about providing warnings okay? Think of it as an easter egg hunt. Maybe try reading it after you find it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now you can go look for another policy and see if you can get that one to apply in some way. Have fun! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not intending on wasting my time playing a game of nomic with you, policy describes rather than dictates community practice. I blocked you for edit-warring and I stand by the block. It is apparent that any discussion between the two of us will be fruitless, due to our differing approaches to the role of hard and fast "rules" and "policy", perhaps because of our different experiences with Wikipedia. If you feel my block was unjustified, I invite you to contact other administrators or use the block appeal process to seek other opinions. — Werdna • talk 03:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed we have very different philosophies. I make every effort to abide by the rules in good faith and you make up the rules as you go along. You don't want to "waste your time" discussing your block? Then give up the bit. You are totally unfit to be an Admin as your actions violate the spirit and the letter of our guidelines. If Wizardman and the other Arbcoms and Admins don't have the decency to ask you to correct your mistakes and to apologize, then they're just as bad as you are. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should use this time to reflect on your actions learn how to use {{cite}} templates! Bongomatic 05:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Capital idea Bongo! Support(learning the citation templates) --kelapstick (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

a nice picture, to remind us of the happy place

Oh say can't you see..?

That reminds me of the Spinal Tap clip on the same page as a sign language video of how to say bacon I saw today and thought of notifying you about. It seemed sort of trivial in the end so I refrained. But what an exciting day! Bacon mania came to an end. One of the most abusive and sleazy Wikipedia editors managed to get me blocked with an abusive report full of personal attacks and false accusations after he refactored to add an unrelated matter that some admin with an itchy trigger finger, who I've never come across before, decided to issue a couple blocks for based on an imaginary policy violation even though there was scant edit warring and no disruption. But the unique take on policy, it applies arbitrarily to others and not at all to them, is a classic.

I did manage to create a couple articles. Although you my friend got me in trouble with Shallots, another Admin who seems to have a half full/ half empty glass of integrity (I'll leave it up to you which way you choose to view it) after I tried to copy one of your massive citation templates for an article titled bacon mania that was used in the bacon mania article into the Heather Lauer article, only to find out, after wrestling with a not in the citation template and trying to figure out why it showed up in the source on google news... that the cite wasn't in fact to the bacon mania article called bacon mania but was simply the ref name you gave to some OTHER article. I actually remember thinking it was confusing when we were working on that article but I guess I was too lazy or confused at the time to fix it. So of course you tripped me up as usual. But it's okay. I mostly forgive you. And of course I'm more encouraged than ever to use my highly advanced referencing technique... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I made a mistake? I'm taking that to AN/I right now, m-er-f-er! Hey I'm sorry about that--but yeah, these names are picked somewhat haphazardly and things may get confusing (esp. for others) if more references are added that also need names. Pardon me. Mea culpa. Maybe listening to some Roy Buchanan will put you in a forgiving mood. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Crickey. Kronos Quartet discography is FA status? When it rains it pours. Whoever is behind that obscenity should ban hammered. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)