User talk:Ched/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

If anything

Plip!

In the light of this I feel the above is the strongest admonishment that could possibly be justified. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I edited your comments. On an arbcom case. I hope you're not furious. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey

No problem I probably wont do much since it seems to be an isolated incident (and its not the first threat i've gotten on the internet I once got someone trying to get me to kill myself on another site and I am grateful it wasnt someone telling me to kill myself since that would set me off ) but i'll email wikimedia anyways Saturn star (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yea, it's a crazy world out there - better safe than sorry. I did notify them, so someone named Jan may be able to help you. Good luck. — Ched :  ?  02:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. — Ched :  ? 

You should be good to go. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, great. Thank you Salvidrim, very much appreciated. — Ched :  ?  02:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

kindness and constancy
Thank you for being the reliable source in person, trusting your friends even if people say they deceive you, teaching me vocabulary ("impervious to advice") and abbreviations (you know what I mean). Thank you for your faithful presence, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (5 October 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 25th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, you always do bring Joy to my heart (^Ref). (I'm learning to speak "metaphorical gospel") And to Remembering Friends. Best always, — Ched :  ?  22:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Double joy: tomorrow DYK Geh aus, mein Herz, und suche Freud, my mother's favourite song, literally "Go out, my heart, and seek joy", and a nod. This was a good reminder of what we go for, and I added it to our project's goals ;) - Did you know that I am #3 in thank-you-clicks? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(almost forgot to reply) - congratulations on yet another of your wonderful DYK articles. Well done. And indeed, it is such a wonderful concept. I've been looking for an Americanized cover of the song, but haven't found one ... yet. :) — Ched :  ?  06:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for using your brain

Thanks for not doing a knee jerk reaction. I am no sock and calling an IP who refuses to register is what started this. Because you were professional and asked courteously I will comply with your request. I have been editing since at least 2005 so I know my way around foolishness. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I got blocked for starting a SPI

I started an SPI about an article I came across that was around since 2006 and deleted and salted after a few attempts by User:RGloucester and some new accounts like User:Jobrot which is a SPA that states they are "noob" but then first edits in December 2014 in a discussion to delete the article using very sophisticated alphabet soup. Clearly not a noob and the edit analyzer shows a remarkable number of edits with the above sock master even though the sock only has a few hundred edits of which most show up in the edit analyzer with RGlocester who avows to be a Marxist on their talk page. The subject cultural Marxism in an modern American use does not say nice things about Marxists or cultural Marxists. It was nominated for deletion and theatrically argued for deletion by RGlocester and then a new SPA shows up arguing for the same thing out of no where. I do acknowledge it may be a meat puppet recruited by the sock master but a meat puppet is to be treated the same as a sock per WP:SOCK. I was accused of pretending to be new by Chillum but he fabricated that and accused me of being a sock and then blocked block me based on his ridiculous claims. I previously argued against User Talk:John Foxe for COI and his previous use of a sock. That will demonstrate that I always use an IP to edit and not what Chillum falsely accused me of. And John Foxe edits on behalf of Bob Jones University a very politically conservative fundamentalist school. That demonstrates I go after both extremes of the political spectrum. Cultural Marxism in an American sense reflects a conservative use of the philosophy. It was a valid article with 9 years of existence that was salted for Marxist ideological reasons. It is the worst case of WP:PUSH I have ever seen and a complete failure by involved admins. One reasonably would question if they had COI or in my opinion acted foolishly. If you got the time look into the salted SPI about RGloucester and check out the case I made. It demonstrates meat puppetry at the best and a sock puppetry in the worst. The edit analyzer and Jobrots contributions are very clear. It needs to see the light of day and not be immediately salted without examination. Again a foolish or malicious move by an editor. 172.56.6.142 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I thought something there rang a bell. [1]. The history of that entire matter is a complete mess, but with 3 Admins. closing it, there's little chance it could be rescued at WP:DRV. Sometimes it's just better to accept the things we can not change, and move on. While I do share your concerns, I'm not sure there is anything I can do about it. I'm not well versed in "sock" issues, and some of the folks you mention aren't ones that I've spend a great deal of time in discussion with. I just don't see a way that I can offer any help here. (other than a sympathetic ear). Sorry. — Ched :  ?  11:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) What "SPI" would that be? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, but I'm guessing he means the AfD for "Cultural Marxism" a while back. Between the original article, then deleted, the redirect created ... + all the talk page issues; it's a real mess as far as history attribution to the original article. There is a draft however: Draft:Cultural Marxism. I searched WP:SPI, and only found things that were where one of the editors mentioned made comments. Nothing on either as the subject of the SPI. — Ched :  ?  14:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Here is the SPI [[2]] I started that was closed 3 hours later and was blocked for starting by Chillum who deleted and salted the AFD over Cultural Marxism which now redirects to something that is substantially different. Chillum accused me of being a sock which I am not because he thought it was easy to abuse an IP. I have been here around 10 years and always an IP and will likely never get an account due to people like Chillum. I guess he cannot understand some people have the strength to resist relentless requests to join (kind of like a cult). Hey there is an interesting article the Cult of Wikipedia, go ahead if you got the time. Here is a link to Jimbo's page [3] if you want to see the events and it does not portray Chillum's actions or Wikipedia in a good light. 208.54.32.236 (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC) P.S. Thanks again for exhibiting rational behavior!!!

Well, .... There's somethin happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear. I think you have a legitimate grievance - and while I don't care for a go at this, I doubt your approach will achieve the results you're hoping for. If I knew how to help you, I would - but "getting the word out" is only part one. Part two requires getting others to hear what you're saying. Sadly, that's not a plentiful commodity on wiki. Best of luck to you though. — (and "for what it's worth", I do admire your testicular fortitude). — Ched :  ?  15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah my approach was not the best as I was still pissed off yesterday. I do not take abuse well. I brought up the culture issues to JIMBO so maybe they will look at or at least take a few mental notes. Hey I wonder if I could show up to a wiki conference and be confirmed as an IP. LOL

		A beer on me!
		Zigga zagga Zigga zagga Hoi Hoi Hoi 172.56.33.120 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks For that Deletion of PORN Page

		A beer on me!
		{{{1}}}

Glad I could help. — Ched :  ?  12:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Ched, if you check out the WP:ANI threads, you can see that this user is creating problems as they are on some sort of campaign. Did the user page really warrant deletion? If it did contain an image gallery, were the images offensive? If so, couldn't the gallery simply be removed without deleting the entire page? —Farix (t | c) 16:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The images were of anal beads, BDSM, spreading, etc. and those all qualify as sexually provocative to a reasonable person. The user page guideline is clear that sexually provocative images do not belong on user pages. All the user pages are connected by edits to each other pages and even mentioning the other's page on one. Please stop with the personal insults questioning editors motives FAX. If you are going to insist on attacking at least be specific. Try to at least identify the campaign as some sort of sounds weak and indecisive. There is nothing worse than a poorly done attack. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC) P.S. CHED Thanks another beer is on the way.

		A beer on me!
		Something to wash down the bitter taste of drama, soon you will be drunk enough to not notice it!

Some of the illustrations are fine, others might make me want to wretch. But that's my problem, not the pictures' problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In fact, it would be better to restore that user page and its history, make sure the user page looks like a normal user page, and then fully-protect it to keep someone from reverting back, which seems to be the IP's fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@TheFarix:. No, I haven't had a chance yet to look at ANI. The page I deleted I did feel was a valid "Web Host" deletion. The page was just a gallery of pictures of porn, and even half of those had been deleted from "Commons" (which is notorious for accepting such stuff). I suppose I could have just blanked the page, but - given the nature of the page, the abandonment by the user, I'm comfortable with the deletion. If another admin wants to revert, that's fine too. I'm not a prude, and I even enjoy an attractive woman in all her splendor. Still, this is an encyclopedia - and while I know we need diagrams and pictures to enhance various biological and medical articles - I think being the inside of a teenagers gym locker is a bit lame for our project. My guess is that the user made it through puberty, became a bit more mature, and moved on.

Yea, ... I remember the great "WebHamster / no bush" debate of '08. The Sanger purge at commons in 2012, and even that perverted penis painting promoter (say that 3 times fast) who was an admin on commons, and was finally banned by the WMF. As far as the IP? ... Yea, they've been around for a few days. We all march to the tune of our own drummer, and while some folks may be up in arms about some of it: Personally? I've got better things to do with my time than play wack-a-mole with someone who simply wants to be heard.

@Baseball Bugs: BUGS!!! How the hell ya doin buddy? Hope you're staying out of trouble. I did say hey in a thread a while back, ... but I never got back to see if ya responded. Anyway. Well ... me? I'm not going to "restore" it, and it's really not copacetic for someone else to "make their page look normal". And full protection? Naaa - that wouldn't work - what if they came back and wanted to change something? Not being an admin, they wouldn't even be able to edit their own user page. Maybe blanking rather than deleting would have been better (and if another admin makes those moves, I won't say a word) - but meh - I made my call, I'll live with it. And hey - I'll drop by the first chance I get. Take care. — Ched :  ?  00:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Copycat

Could you please look at the user page of (new) User:Warior Within? It is an assembly of various user pages, including my own, which seems odd. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, I'm getting ready to leave for the day, and won't be home til late tonight. (east coast USA); so I don't really have time to follow through on this at the moment. I will look when I get back online (likely tomorrow). Perhaps one of the following good folks could lend a hand: @Drmies:, @Bishonen:, @Floquenbeam:, @Dreadstar:, @LadyofShalott:, @Diannaa:, @Salvidrim!: @Mark Arsten: (that should be more than enough pings, one of those folks should be around and willing to help)

It does indeed look like he's impersonating various other user pages - but I'm not sure what the procedure and policy is for this. (and regretfully I don't have time to look). I will check back in the first chance I get. Best of luck. — Ched :  ?  12:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful list of pings ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've blanked the userpage and written a friendly explanatory note to the user. Bishonen | talk 13:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC).

Thank you, noticed! My criminal status in my infobox is unique! Try that: be admonished by the arbitration committee without a single warning ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not so unique — happened to Bishzilla.[4] (On magnificent scale: admonished for blocking little arbitrator. Lèse majesté!) bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC).

'Zilla, is it the action of blocking an arb that you're calling lèse-majesté, or the action of admonishing you? Bishonen | talk 16:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC).

Chortle. Question left as exercise for little reader! bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC).

(*sniff .. opens one eye ... tail slowly moves side to side*) 'Zilla? That you? Time to come out of hibernation? Brrrr ... still so cold. Me bring food, and pretty trees? And what mean "lèse-majesté" — ChedZILLA 00:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

NO Zilla, it's not time to come out of hibernation yet. You would know that we still have a couple more weeks of winter if you hadn't made a snack of poor Phil. And "lèse-majesté" just means that honorable 'Zilla was smart enough, and brave enough to stomp on one of the so-called "big boys" when they deserved it. Ms. Shonen wasn't looking, and 'Zilla protect the 'pedia. Silly arbs then make funny fools of themselves. Now go back to sleep, and I'll wake you in a few weeks. — Ched :  ?  00:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And thank you very much Ms. Bish, very much appreciated. — Ched :  ?  01:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Majestätsbeleidigung! German has the more pompous words! - As far as I understand, in your case, 'zilla, the case was declined. In my case, it was a torture of weeks, with banning (not of me but a friend) as a goal of some who almost won, finally a "decision" of majestic proportions. I understand disruptive as a way to progress, was always happy when it was applied to me, which was not often ;) - the arbs don't like me asking where exactly I was disruptive - or my friend ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Es ist Majestätsbeleidigung, die majestätischen Bishzilla zu admonishieren! Durch Motion, noch nicht! [Great Bishzilla is excellent linguist. Ignorant Bishonen merely stares.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC).

Is Bishzilla a plural, majesties? Awfully sorry that I always thought singular. (If not, and female, "die majestätische Bishzilla".) - Do you know that when I was in my one and hopefully only arb case, I thought that "motion" meant to set something in motion, so suggested an infobox for Verdi, in a case called infoboxes, - took me a while that it wasn't about infoboxes. Did you know that Laurence Olivier had an infobox in 2006? I will have to understand why that is now a new featured article without one. Strange that info got lost, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

ps: German should adopt "admonischieren", - we have only "ermahnen", nothing seriuz. Has 'zilla been restricted NOT to add info to article someone else started? - I once believed anybody can edit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Duh

[5] Actually, it's obvious (at least to those that listen as much as they yak). NE Ent 13:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks buddy. How the hell ya doin? Hope life is treating you well. — Ched :  ?  14:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

And to be honest? .. I will eschew the WP:TLA stuff ... I just don't give a fuck anymore. Wikipedia should have its own TV show to rival Jackass. — Ched :  ?  14:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Life is good. Life is busy. What would we need Jackass when we have ANI etc .... NE Ent 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think one could make a solid argument that Wikipedia IS Jackass. Intothatdarkness 16:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A request

Hi Ched, I saw your note to Lightbreather. I'd like to ask that you leave admin action to someone who hasn't expressed a view on her position and is completely uninvolved. I'm sorry to ask this, but it's better that way. All the best, Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Please tell the same to GorillaWarfare, Slim. She keeps getting involved in ArbCom decisions where she has a previously expressed political view. You tried this tactic with me and failed: it's odd to see you again doing this iron fist/velvet glove routine in circumstances where it affects your own politics. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been on the edges of all the Lightbreather drama with the Eric Corbett GGTF stuff, and I have to comment that Ched gave Lightbreather some wise advice; she's creating a hostile environment where none exists, and I say this as both a woman and a feminist. Ched is a voice of calm, quiet reasoned wisdom on WP and if he's issuing a caution, it is well worth listening to. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sarah Sorry I haven't been up to getting online, but the whole thing seems moot now anyway. [6] [7]. Perhaps when I'm feeling a bit more up to it we can discuss a few of the things you've brought up in a rhetorical sense; or not - up to you. Thank you all for the comments. Best. — Ched :  ?  23:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ched, yes, that's sound good. Give me a ping if and when. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 02:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hello again Sarah. OK - directly to your original post: Had there not been the changes and a degree of closure, then almost certainly I would have bowed to your request as I consider you one of our most respected wikipedians here. I would however feel the need to comment on a few things:
• I think my admin. log would verify that I don't enjoy blocking people, and much prefer to "warn" when I see that as an option. (actually I prefer the unblock end of it.)
• It was actually my hope that adding a warning would help avoid a block or perhaps even a ban. It's easy to see that there are a number of people calling for "indef" and/or "bans" in this area. It would be nice if we could avoid that.
• I think we need to be careful with these types of requests. There's plenty of ambiguity and gray areas of WP:INVOLVED as it is; and suggesting that an administrator who comments in a thread on an administrator notice board is then prohibited from taking administrative action seems rather a lot to ask. Although I must also say that I am grateful for the kind and professional tone with which you approached me.
• One thing that does concern me greatly is this. When I see someone rattle off "list" like that, it all to easily resembles a list of intended targets. Especially given the fact that she has already actively sought sanctions and/or restrictions of multiple editors who have disagreed with her in a short period of time.

TL;DR

(the following isn't required reading - just some thoughts)

First let me share some personal background. I became a single father to a wonderful baby girl when my ex left after my daughter's first birthday. Excepting a few friends, family, and the occasional romantic relationships - I raised that little girl ON .. MY .. OWN. I suspect this gives me a somewhat rare, albeit not entirely unique, view of feminism and gender related issues. My daughter has gone on to become extremely successful both in her professional and personal life, and I'm also very proud of both my grandchildren (who have grown entirely too quickly). Now all this isn't to say that my "view" should be given an ounce of preference over any other view - but I do wish to offer my thoughts for at the very least, consideration.

Admittedly, I am old-school, and I will hold a door, or help a lady on with her coat. It's not meant to be dismissive, it's a gentleman's way of showing respect.

re: "gender": In just the last few months we've had 2 directly related and protracted Arb cases, repeated threads at WP:AE and WP:ARCA, and an untold number of threads at the various drama boards. It needs to come to a stop.

Personally I fully support equality and equal opportunity 100%. Whereas "feminism" is used to promote those goals, I will embrace that. When it's used as a tool to divide, then I must oppose that. When a "goal" becomes an "agenda", we need to think long and hard about what actually benefits the project.

There are editors on both sides which continue to bait, and those who rise to said bait. There's more than enough blame to go around on both/all sides. When you add the increasingly likely possibility of trolling by accounts who are not at all what they appear to be, I think it becomes cause for concern. There are more than enough people out there looking for ways to discredit this project, and I'd prefer to not give them the ammunition.

At this point we've likely reached the chicken/egg syndrome, so I think it behooves the project to simply stop further disruption by restricting further efforts to prolong a distasteful situation.

Sarah, you're perfectly welcome to comment on anything and everything here. You're also more than welcome to ignore any of it. I know I can get a bit verbose, so I won't be offended in any way no matter your choice.

Now, having run my mouth (fingers) for more than enough - I'll try to get back to my other stuff for a bit. I think Bonny Hicks was the last thing I was working on. Anyone is welcome to join me. (note: that doesn't mean I'll be ignoring the rest of the 'pedia) — Ched :  ?  16:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

addendum

The entire "gender gap" efforts of the WMF was a well intentioned, yet fundamentally flawed concept. The inherent anonymity of this project means that Wikipedia simply is NOT a viable platform for such drives or discussions. Imagine if you will, a drive to recruit more "men", "blacks", "orientals", "Christians", "gays", or any other specific group of editors based on a belief, color, race, ethnicity, religion, or "gender". My personal choice would be "seniors", acknowledging that many of us do not suffer foolish childishness very well; but that's another topic I suppose. — Ched :  ?  16:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ched - I apologize for butting in, but I have a somewhat different perspective. Women are grossly underrepresented on Wikipedia, in comparison to the general population. There are certainly other under-represented groups, but the gender gap is one of the most glaring examples of the disparity between Wikipedia's "community" and the real world, which is why I think it's been an area of focus. I think there is inherent value to having a more representative community, because there are some viewpoints that won't even be raised, much less considered, if the community is narrowly homogenous. I don't believe that pseudonymity requires us to abandon the idea of a diverse or representative community, although I recognize that it complicates that goal substantially.

Of course this doesn't imply that women all think a certain way or all share a single viewpoint on any given issue. But it does mean that a community that's 50/50% male/female will have a very different range of viewpoints than one that is 95% male. What I don't understand is why people feel so threatened by this idea. I'm a member of pretty much every over-represented demographic on this site, but I don't see these efforts as threatening in any way. It's perplexing. MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey there MastCell - absolutely no need to apologize what-so-ever; I've always enjoyed our interactions, and appreciated your well considered points of view. Perhaps the only thing I might disagree with is the "grossly" part of underrepresented item. There are a great number of accounts here which are indeed women behind the keyboard, but undeclared in regards to gender ON wiki. Many of them simply refuse to identify their gender because they don't want to get drawn int a "great dismal swamp" (anyone is welcome to link that up if they choose). I'm not saying wiki mirrors the world's population numbers in any given demographic, and I do applaud any recruitment of editors in many venues. The thing is this: The people that are "here", are already "here", so why is the project trying to recruit from within? Things like the GGTF ON wiki is a sure-fire train wreck waiting to happen, and it's already happened. I'm sure we're not equally representative in the areas of skin color, religion, politics, age, and many other areas we all too often try to profile.

In my own experiences I receive this sort of feedback: "I have no desire to learn all that "markup" simply to edit an article." "It would take me forever to learn all those rules you have", "I have no desire to get involved with all that bickering". The whole "technology" aspect of editing wikipedia does attract a disproportionate amount of young males, I don't dispute that for a second. And I love to see improvements to articles like Sally Ride, Marie Curie, Mother Teresa, or Bonny Hicks. And if those enhancements come from editors who happen to be female behind the keyboard, all that much better. As far as "threatened", what I'm seeing is a lot of editors wondering why a group of "declared feminists" are suddenly pointing fingers at editors with claims of "you're trying to subjugate and bully us". Wikipedia was NOT created to be a representation of the worlds population - it was developed to be a repository and sum of human knowledge. Instead of saying "join our efforts to have more women", we should be saying "Join our efforts to create an encyclopedia". Maybe I'm not expressing my thoughts correctly, but I AM trying. — Ched :  ?  18:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What is concerning to me is the formation of a closed membership group that has the real potential to create policies that would apply to all contributors without input from those who are excluded (by policy, no less) from that group. Given the nature of Wikipedia (the real problem of OWN of policy, something of a closed society with "us versus them" overtones, and bureaucratic bloat), such a thing must be seriously considered. Exclusionary groups are rarely a good idea when they're hosted in an environment that claims to be opposed to discrimination and champions equality and open access to information. Intothatdarkness 18:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes - the whole "walled garden" concept. — Ched :  ?  19:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that walled gardens and exclusionary groups are problematic, but I would frame that concern very differently. The Wikipedia community implicitly excludes women in a number of ways, from the outright harassment that a number of female editors have suffered from the lunatic fringe to more subtle and everyday attitudes and assumptions. In other words, Wikipedia is already an exclusionary group, and a walled garden, in many important ways (not least of which is the fact that its editorship is nearly entirely male). You probably don't notice that it's exclusionary, because you're not part of the group that's being excluded. In some ways, the Gender Gap Task Force backlash is useful because it could help generate empathy. The sense of injustice that you feel in being excluded from a closed group (the GGTF) is the same sense of injustice that motivates the people who formed the Task Force in the first place. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My children's school has "affinity groups" that meet once a month for lunch. An African-American affinity group, an Asian affinity group, a children-of-LGBTQ parents affinity group, and a few more I can't recall right now. My daughter and a friend of hers, after feeling shut out of history class on world religion (you had to answer certain questions about "your" religion's approach to various things) are thinking of starting an atheist affinity group. When one white boy with heterosexual parents from an upper-middle class church-going family complained that there wasn't an affinity group for him, one of the kids in an affinity group who overheard him said "the whole world is your affinity group". The head of diversity of our school had lunch with him, and in more flowery and non-confrontational words, told him pretty much the same thing.

This probably sounds great to some people, and horrible to others. Personally, I don't think the affinity group approach, or whatever you want to call it when used other places, is perfect - it does tend to instill some level of resentment in the majority, and (IMHO) if the people in the affinity group are more than a pretty small minority of the overall group, it starts to become destructive (the group becomes more interested in winning a fight than supporting each other). But it is not an automatic non-starter, and I know for a fact that it does incredible things for the self-esteem of the kids who are in the group, who would like once a month to sit with people and not feel like an outsider. As a member of pretty much every privileged class that exists on the planet (except one), I can afford to not get too upset that Lighbreather doesn't want me on her subpage. If she or others start to use it as a place to launch attacks on editors who aren't allowed to respond, I'll delete the page. if not, then live and let live. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well-said. Thanks for that; it's pretty much my view as well, although you expressed it much better than I have. On a separate note, Ched, thanks for hosting this discussion, and I hope you're well. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, there are all kinds of problems, and LadyofShalott is familiar with some of them. One of them is that a requirement of "women only" leaves out a lot of people in between the old definitions of male and female. Another is that, the moment you are more inclusive than "women only", it becomes much more difficult to say "Wikipedia needs more women" since you have just redefined the categories. I am not familiar, BTW, with cases of women editors who were chased off because they were women; I know a woman or two I think we can do without, but not cause they're women, and by the same token I know a lot of men we can do without--and yeah, some of them because they're just terribly manly in the bad way. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

break

I really hadn't planned on all of this, but since it is here, then I'm of a mind to bring a few other folks into the discussion if they are interested. Since everything here seems to be going so well, and respect is given to all, I choose to ping a few folks. @Risker:, @Diannaa:, @Drmies:, @Keilana:, @Newyorkbrad:, and since this all originated with a warning that I posted to Lightbreather's page, I think it's only fair that she be given fair voice. @Lightbreather:. I VERY much appreciate the points of view here, thank you all. — Ched :  ?  23:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me add a couple: @Iridescent: and @Jennavecia: — Ched :  ?  23:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What you called a list of "targets"[8] is simply a group of editors whom I expect to show up whenever a) I have a dispute with a member of the group or b) one of them has a dispute with me. I don't think it's a formal group, and they don't all show up for every dispute, but that they have a "list," so to speak, is clear. Some refer to us as the "militant feminists,"[9] but Giano has also suggested "wimmin" and "Les Kaffeeklatsches,"[10] and most recently just "group of females" (followed by the question, "what are we allowed to call them now?"[11]) As far as I can tell, their list includes Carolmooredc and Neotarf (already banned), yours truly, SlimVirgin and GorillaWarfare (see Sitush's comment[12] above), Keilana (apparently because she agreed to moderate the Gendergap mailing list), Rationalobserver, and others. It's our own little gendergapgate. Lightbreather (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

God willing, I'll respond tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  01:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ched, I would suggest not responding, mostly because I see this line of conversation leading nowhere productive. But it's up to you. MastCell ^Talk 01:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked at the warning that Ched gave Lightbreather, but it seems somewhat impossibly vague. Your agenda of "we poor women are being mistreated' has long exceeded the sell date. Your attempts to create a walled garden are an embarrassment to women everywhere. If you continue on this disruptive path then I will put a block on this account. What kind of behavior exactly would you block for? Lightbreather mentioning the mistreatment of women? Editing her Kaffeeklatsch project? Working on the Inspire campaign, which is also working to create a safe "friendly space"? Perhaps you were referring to a specific edit by Lightbreather, but you don't mention one in the warning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Gorilla, I'm not sure what "safe space" means on-wiki. Please explain. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The explanation on the Geek Feminism wiki is the one I generally think of when I refer to a safe space, although I would say it's more aligned with Lightbreather's Kaffeeklatsch than the Inspire space. It looks like they've been working on a conduct policy over at Meta for the Inspire space that's more like a more heavily-moderated version of standard Wikipedia discussion, but that is open to all non-disruptive contributors. I've reworded my earlier comment to perhaps be a bit clearer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what input is desired from me. I'm a feminist, I was once a prolific editor and admin. I noticed the gender gap when I was active, but I guess I'm a crappy feminist because I wasn't particularly motivated to do anything about it. Or even really care. Perhaps that has more to do with how I view the project. Since it's open to anyone who wants to edit it, and since any harassment I received was rarely specific to me being female, I never viewed WP as unwelcoming to women. Rather I assume there's some other reason few women tend to edit... like we're too busy doing more important things. >_> Just kidding. Mostly. So I don't know. As the co-founder of a group that launched as exclusive to admins on this project, I probably shouldn't judge anyone's attempt to create an exclusive group. That's something humans do — break off into cohorts based on similarities. This just seems like another thing that doesn't really matter but people want to complain about anyway. Which is basically what ran me off the project. People caring more about trivial bullshit that doesn't impact them instead of caring about building and improving the encyclopedia. Priorities. Everyone should reevaluate objectively periodically. Lara 01:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And on the matter of lists of editors, I think we can all agree that there are clicks on this project of editors who are always together. When one is in a given situation, their posse shows up. Some seem to be perpetually involved in drama, and having had a peek around the project this week, I notice one group in particular is still all up in the drama, just like they were years ago and years before that. Lara 01:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Listen to me folks, avoid the topic-bans, arb-restrictions & sitebans. The sooner ya'll adopt my gender neutral mantra, the sooner ya'll will get along. Here's the mantra:

"There's no male Wikipedians and there's no female Wikipedians. There's only Wikipedians".

AFAIK, humans make up 100% of the Wiki-community. Unless there's a few Dracs out there, which would really confuse things. GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your time. I'll do my best to digest it in positive ways. — Ched :  ?  15:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My 2c, with the proviso that I haven't read all the background to this and have no intention of doing so:

While "cultural differences" has sometimes become a Wikipedia cliche to excuse obnoxiousness, I do get the feeling that there's a genuine cultural misunderstanding here, which is leading both camps to think the worst of each other's intentions. Looking at the GGTF's contribution history, there's an overwhelming bias towards North America, and almost exclusively the USA, whereas the "other side", seems to be tilted in roughly the same balance towards "rest of the world". (Lightbreather's enemies list you cite above, for instance, consists of one from England, one from Italy, one from the Netherlands, one from Scotland and one from the USA. The list of supporters Lightbreather gives near the start of this thread—Carolmooredc, Neotarf, [Lightbreather], SlimVirgin, GorillaWarfare, Keilana, Rationalobserver—consists of one Canadian and six Americans.)

This is oversimplifying, but the US attitude towards discrimination has been shaped by slavery and segregation, and has as a fundamental principle that "some people need extra help", while the European and Aus/NZ (and to a lesser extent African and Asian) attitude towards discrimination has been shaped by fascism, colonialism and religious warfare, and has as a fundamental principle that "treating people differently is always wrong". To European eyes, the concepts of "positive discrimination" and "affirmative action" are alien and illegal, except in a few specific cases regarding special treatment for people with disabilities. (While I'm not sure there's ever been a relevant test case and both internet law and the law governing free associations are notoriously complicated, if the WMF were based in England hosting Lightbreather's page would legally be very questionable.) The people who run the WMF are overwhelmingly American or USA-based (and as I've said before, running your eye over their photos, while bearing in mind that San Francisco is less than 50% white and—obviously—50% female, makes me think that these people are not best placed to be lecturing anyone else about discrimination and underrepresentation.)

I think there's also a misunderstanding on the GGTF-supporters' side of what the motivations of their opponents are; while in the US the "men's rights movement" is a genuine and vocal group, Europe has no equivalent. (The nearest British equivalent, Fathers 4 Justice, is a tiny group fighting on the single issue of child access rights, and even the turn-the-clock-back-to-the-1930s UKIP speaks the language of equality and makes a point of publicly expelling members using sexist language.) Thus, it looks to me that there are two broad camps here, each of whom, with legitimate cause, thinks that they're the reasonable ones and the other camp is a group of reactionary bigots.

I was also struck by the reaction to the word "militant"—thanks to militant trade unions, Militant tendency and militant separatism, "militant" is standard eng-gb for "someone who works hard for a cause" (A person who strongly espouses a cause, esp. one who is aggressively active in pursuing a political or social cause. In later use also: spec. a member of an ideologically or politically motivated faction or force. if you want the OED chapter-and-verse), while in eng-us it's shorthand for "violent extremist".

With all that said, I endorse pretty much everything Lara says above. Wikipedia is way too full of people using it to fight petty turf wars who should really be kicked off until they learn to behave, and people with a grossly inflated sense of their own importance; it also has way too many groups of friends who will find excuses to defend each other even when they're clearly wrong. (As you know, you, me and Lara have all been guilty of this in the past.) I'd add to this that, as Somey predicted about a decade ago, as the tide ebbs Wikipedia is becoming increasingly dominated by people using Wikipedia as the medium to fight their battles—both the cranks and activists using it to fight for their real-world causes, and the wiki-obssessives using it to fight pointless time-sink turf wars about syntax and article-assessment. Having spent four years now just occasionally dipping into Wikipedia rather than taking an active part, it's very striking not only that each time,the atmosphere seems to have got noticeably more toxic, but that the people who actually run the place (particularly but not exclusively Jimmy Wales) have begun taking an active part in the toxicity. – iridescent 17:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This comment isn't in particular reply to any above, but just in general. I do weary of all the fighting here. I think some folks - male, female, and probably other - look for things to fight about. I do think that having a great gender gap is detrimental to the encyclopedia. I agree with Lara that I never felt unwelcome here, and when I have been in disagreements, it was not because I am a woman. I do consider myself a feminist. I signed up for the KaffeKlatch - not because I felt I needed it, but to support something that I thought could help encourage other female editors - but ended up removing myself because I had strong disagreements with some of the requirements. This is not a very cohesive series of thoughts, but there you go. LadyofShalott 17:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Thanks for that - it was very thought-provoking. I hadn't really thought of this particular dispute in geographical terms, but your comments immediately reminded me of a recent paper from a couple of people at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation contrasting the US and European approaches to reducing disparities in health care and outcomes, as they made similar points. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Butting in here, obviously. Also agree with Iridescent here. It was said above that one of the groups here which might need support is the older editors. Actually, I agree with that strongly. I remember @Carrite: saying that he thought, based on various factors, that many of the most regular long-term editors here might be, roughly, at least baby boomers. As we do get older, yeah, unfortunately, we males tend to get a bit more "set" in our ways of thinking. That ain't always good, particularly if our pre-established ways of thinking have perhaps lost at least some support in the broader community. I think we have, and have had, a lot of people who have been trying to build a memorial to their own closely held beliefs here. In most cases, honestly, we probably can. The amount of RS material published these days probably makes many if not most ideas notable or notable enough for inclusion somewhere. The problems seem to arise when, for instance, we deal with how much modern material to include in articles like, for instance, Atheism, which has both significant historical content and a lot of slightly different modern usage, like with New atheism. Honestly, the best way I can think of do address this is by trying to find out how many subtopics are notable enough to create and then spin them out, but, unfortunately, probably for most of us, that is probably more work than we want to undertake, and it seems to, at least implicitly, imply that any given editor's "The Right Way"^TM isn't necessarily "as" right as they want to think it is. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about the age disparity on Wikipedia as well. I remember a survey (that I'll have to find again if somebody needs the url) from a while ago that estimated the fraction of active female editors at around 15-20% - that means we would need to perhaps triple the number of women to get close to the 50% ratio that exists in the population. The survey also found that the fraction of over-50s editing actively was no more than about 5%. That's interesting because we would need to probably increase the number of over-50s six-fold to approximate the 30% or so of the population in the English-speaking world who are over 50 years old. There's almost certainly a bigger age gap on Wikipedia than there is a gender gap and I wonder why this isn't the topic of more debate? I acknowledge that Wikimedia Deutschland ran an initiative called Silberwissen from 2008 to 2013, but I'm not aware of anything comparable in the UK or USA. I'd be happy to be enlightened on that. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately?) there doesn't seem to be the Wiki-equivalent of "militant oldies" to create a fuss, but if (like me) you believe in the efficacy of positive discrimination, it may be time to look at ways of addressing the severe shortage of elder editors. --RexxS (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly be interested in information, links, or projects dealing with our senior editors. I'd also gladly help where I could to improve the ratio if possible. And again I thank those who have given their time to provide insight into all of this. It has certainly given me a much larger frame of reference with which to work, and I will consider each post made. Iridescent, LoS, and Lara have indeed given me a lot to think about. Thank you all for the respectful and rational manner that this has all enjoyed. If only all areas of of wiki could be so fortunate. I also look forward to any further observations if anyone is so inclined. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

RexxS, you're probably understating the discrepancy by an order of magnitude. Over-50s account for roughly a third of the adult population. However, when you take into account the relative probability of over-50s and under-50s being at work, looking after children, studying at college etc, the over-50s probably account for going on 75% of "total spare time", and by virtue of more experience they're disproportionately more likely to have something interesting to say. (I couldn't tell you where it was, but I remember explaining way-back-when my theory that while the semi-mythical "child admins" get most of the attention, the real key groups on Wikipedia are retirees, single mothers and the military. All three groups have a disproportionate amount of spare time on their hands, and all three have (a) strong cultural reasons not to go into detail about who they are and (b) strong cultural reasons to be less likely to want to boss people about online, so they tend not to draw the attention to themselves that the younger and overenthusiastic admins do. I wouldn't be surprised if you can also add the disabled to that list, for the same reasons.)

Going back to "people who are not in a position to preach about systemic bias", take another look at this photo gallery and tell me how many people over 50 you see there. While the "child admins" may be largely a media creation caused by a couple of highly-visible bad apples, it's undoubtedly true that Wikim/pedia has a massive systemic bias towards youth which is even stronger than its systemic biases towards "white" and "male". Because the decision-making levels are so dominated by tech-industry and education-program types, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if they genuinely haven't noticed this—the people making the decisions spend their lives surrounded by people their own age or younger, most of whom are also white and male. – iridescent 16:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Iridescent. I almost always have something interesting to say. It's just that by the time I start typing, I've forgotten what it was. Retirees like myself are a vast diversified conglomeration of potential editors. We have very little negative attitude, a rich and fertile field of life experiences to draw from (many in management positions) and available time on our hands. . Buster Seven Talk 20:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It is true that a lot of older editors will be in management positions which allow them more freedom during the work day, and may also have shorter work weeks to allow them more free time. I seem to remember, although my memory fails rather often lately, that I read something recently about a group of retirees in Albania or some other European country who gathered together to create articles in their home language wiki. One of the advantage older editors might have is a better grasp of some sort of broader perspective and maybe a bit less youthful "enthusiasm" for some topics, making them perhaps less likely to think that content related to Warm River, Idaho, for instance, is maybe not as important to the encyclopedia, or as widely written about, as maybe some of other, more widely discussed, topics on that area. They will also, probably, have a better idea of at least some of the better relevant sources in their particular fields of interest. I'd love to see some way to get them more active, but given the numerical and proportional size of the group, it is kind of hard for me to see any particular venues to specifically target them primarily. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to Minding the Gap which actually, better said, might be Be Mindful of the Gap, Wikipedia has an imbalance of gender and so an imbalance of power. We all have our views but they are based on our vantage point. Most of us are not women. Most of us do not use a woman's brain to think or to respond or to co-habitate here in WikiWorld. And so....that means that the majority of Wikipedia editors are missing a very important ingredient. A womans touch. A womans willingness to listen. A womans willingness to be part of a group rather than a proud lone wolf. A womans diplomacy. . Buster Seven Talk 20:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I would join a Wikipedia group for over-50 editors; I also think Wikipedia should advertise in publications and on programs that have lots of over-50 readers and listeners. I think the fuss that is raised over exclusive forums/projects is blown out of proportion. WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations and WikiProject members have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors, so as long as they're not hate groups, I don't care. Lightbreather (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

In that Lightbreather, I agree greatly. It's just that I fear that "isolated" groups ON wiki is counter to our goals. When you try to establish a "<group? only>" situation, you're effectively saying to those who don't fit that demographic "you're not welcome here." — Ched :  ?  21:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Iridescent: If you believe that single mothers "have a disproportionate amount of spare time on their hands", all I can say is... :O

  To go back to your point about the US vs. European attitudes toward addressing disparities (roughly, "some people need extra help" vs. "treating people differently is always wrong", respectively), I came across this article in the Times today: "German Law Requires More Women on Corporate Boards". I didn't know this, but apparently Germany is now going to require that women occupy at least 30% of the seats on corporate boards. Even more surprising, to me, is that Norway, Spain and France have 40% quotas for women on corporate boards, and Belgium, Iceland, Italy and the Netherlands have fixed quotas as well.

  Now, legislating the gender makeup of corporate boards seems like an extreme example of what you characterize as an "American" approach of giving extra governmental help to disadvantaged groups. You wrote that "the concepts of 'positive discrimination' and 'affirmative action' are alien and illegal" to Europeans, but quite to the contrary, it looks to me like much of Europe practices a form of gender-based affirmative action that is far more extreme than anything that would be contemplated in the US. (I think we in the US would give up our God-given Constitutional right to own assault weaponry before we'd allow the government to mandate the makeup of corporate boards). It looks to me like Europe is actually way ahead of the US in terms of active governmental intervention to promote disadvantaged groups. I'm not sure how to square these policies with your view that this sort of affirmative action is un-European. MastCell ^Talk 01:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Iridescent, I also wondered why single mothers (but not single fathers?) would have more time than most people. Re: affirmative action, universities in the UK have been practising it for years to increase the numbers from state schools (e.g. [13]). Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 05:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

[Citation needed] for that claim, which is a thoroughly-debunked decade-old conspiracy theory relating to a single university, which the university in question has always denied, and which even the Independent Schools Council grudgingly had to admit was a lie. (A post on the blog of the Guardian Teaching network certainly does not qualify as a reliable source.) Aimhigher, which encouraged the payment of scholarships to poorer students and the targeting of advertising, taster sessions etc to poor areas, was abolished years ago.

As I suspect you know perfectly well, "single parent" in Britain is effectively synonymous with "single mother". Except when the courts intervene, under UK law parental responsibility is automatically granted to the mother if the parents were unmarried at the time of birth, or to both parents equally if the parents were married at the time of birth; other than a few cases where the mother has died or been convicted of a crime, and an even fewer cases of gay adoptions where the couple has subsequently split but only one of the partners has retained parental responsibility, there is no such thing as a "single father". – iridescent 18:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the exception proves the rule, but I was widowed over 10 years ago while my kids were still teenagers and I'm pretty certain I could talk about the experience of being a single father. Coincidentally I was among the first tranche of working-class youngsters from state schools who studied science at Cambridge in the wake of Harold Wilson's "white heat of technology" initiatives to broaden participation. I was at Cats a little before you were at Kings, Sarah, and I wonder if you found it as interesting an experience as I did? --RexxS (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

break 2

The "who has the free time" issue is an interesting one. Personally I can relate to something that indirectly ties one to another. Disability and Age. As we get older, often our body begins to fail us. The mind, spirit, and soul are willing - but the body fails us. Wikipedia is a tremendous opportunity for those unable to be active physically to contribute great things to the world in accumulating knowledge. One item often seems to be a stumbling block however. There are times we don't suffer disrespect from obvious (and often obnoxious) younger editors very well. That's not to profile any group, and there are plenty of editors here younger than my daughter who have taught me much. (Lara, Neuro, and Juliancolton come to mind for me personally). We may not know the finer points of wiki-markup, or even policy details and TLA, but through our years of life experiences we have damn well earned a modicum of respect. As we get older, we have less to lose - and often when treated with disrespect, we won't hesitate for a second to tell someone to "stick it where the sun don't shine". Block us/them? Your loss. In the grand scheme of things we have much we're willing to share - but when we're disrespected, don't expect us to beg for something that in the end benefits all. If I drifted off into a rant, my apologies. Also, I'm not sure of it, but I think the person I hold in the highest regard, Huntster, is younger than me as well. New editors can take a beating here, and in my case I was so very lucky to have him take me under his wing, encourage me, and help me get acclimated. ... OK ... I'll get lost for a bit now - just wanted to get out what's been bottled up for a while. — Ched :  ?  21:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• note to Huntster and JC .. not trying to drag you into this, just linking to the accounts I'm talking about. — Ched :  ?  21:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm middle-young aged. Hi Ched! :D — Huntster (t @ c) 21:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• note 2 I admit that there are times I have to work to keep from letting wiki become a substitute for real life. It's why there are times my emotions are evident. I'm working on it. — Ched :  ?  21:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• note 3 I suppose there's times I come off as condescending and "paternal" ..it's not meant that way. I've been a parent, and spent many years in management positions. It's not easy to change the things that have worked for you in the past. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Am I younger than your daughter? I know I'm quite a bit older than JC. I do want to note that I had a lot more free-time as a stay-at-home mom. Although I also had a lot more free-time when I was working retail full-time. Didn't bring work home. But my life is completely different now than it was five years ago. Sort of unbelievable really, but I digress. Part of the problem with Eric and Giano is the reputations they've established lead people to take any little thing they say as an excuse to block them. Things that another editor who doesn't have a reputation for offending wouldn't even get a warning for. Not to say they don't go over the line, but I think admins are too eager to block them. That said, my comments are heavily based on what I witnessed when I was active, but I'm assuming it hasn't changed much since Wikipedia's pages evolve while the community doesn't seem to. Lara 02:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, she is a year or two older than you, but I could have that backwards, or confused with someone else. She's in her mid-30s (looks a lot like you too) — Ched :  ?  18:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh. My perspective is almost 180 out. Because I'm both chronologically and emotionally well into adulthood, I never felt a particular need to get upset just because some stranger on the Internet says something snarky about me. NE Ent 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Women! men and women welcome

We have a great chance, male or female, young or old, whatever skin colour, to work on a presentation of women on the Main page in March: an amazing mix, read, review, add more, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

you always make me smile Gerda .. thank you. — Ched :  ?  21:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Fringe

I'm going to create a separate section for this. MastCell, there were issues a while back regarding "spiritual" issues. Something about meditation IIRC. I think that @Littleolive oil:, TimmidGuy, GoodDay (I'm not sure on the exact user names) took the brunt of that case. Fringe is one thing from a scientific point of view, but I'm really uncomfortable with ascribing the term "Lunatic" to it. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that people believed that the world was flat. IJS — Ched :  ?  23:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever used the word "lunatic", or anything remotely like it, to describe practitioners of Transcendental Meditation. (If I have, please correct me). So I think we're on the same page there. I am uncomfortable with the degree of conflict-of-interest editing—both disclosed and undisclosed—associated with the TM pages, and in particular I believe that there's been an inappropriate long-term effort to use the Wikipedia article on TM to sell the product (so to speak). But my concern is entirely with the way that the purported medical benefits of TM are presented, not with the spiritual aspects of the movement, for which I feel the same basic respect that I do for anyone's spiritual beliefs.

And for what it's worth (not that this was central to your point in any case), it has been a long time since educated and rationally-minded people believed that the world was flat. The Greeks figured that one out in the 3rd century B.C.; heck, Eratosthenes even calculated the Earth's circumference, to a reasonable semblance of accuracy, around 240 B.C. MastCell ^Talk 01:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I likely misunderstood the context - my apologies. — Ched :  ?  14:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Bore With-No Problem

You wrote in my talk page "And there are also some administrative concerns which I won't bore you with." . I don't mind . I won't get bored to know the details. I wanted to know why one user was allowed to use a name which is similar to a book and also that book Eats, Shoots & Leaves has Panda picture [14] on its cover similar to the User:EatsShootsAndLeaves [15]

At the end you wrote "I very strongly suggest that you undo your revert, as it could cause you problems that you wouldn't want to deal with." Was that a warning ? . Can I know what problem I can face if I write on someone's talkpage . I was expecting a reply there ; not revert.

When I was opening the account I thought of some names but a red message appeared all the time rejecting those names as they were similar to some other notable movies , people , organizations.I was curious how his name was allowed. But your warning looks like I will become Curiosity killed the cat for asking a question --CosmicEmperor (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I did notice that you seem to have run into some problems in a very short time, judging from your talk page. I'm getting ready to get some sleep right now, but I'll try to help tomorrow. I'm guessing from your syntax that English is not your first language - and I may have a few suggestions in that area as well. I'll look through your contributions tomorrow, and try to offer some things you can improve on. The specifics on EatShootsAndLeaves aren't really important or germane here, I was just trying to spare you some unwanted drama. — Ched :  ?  08:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked at some of your edits, and I think Wikipedia:Username policy would be the page to start with. — Ched :  ?  14:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

test

test one button archive — Ched :  ?  17:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

IJS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx3nTsFJEQE

— Ched :  ?  09:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh yea, forgot to mention

The pings on AN for Kirby D didn't work. It's not a reliable gizmo Wikipedia:Notifications#Known_bugs NE Ent 20:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

OK - thanks for letting me know. I'll try to remember that in the future. — Ched :  ?  21:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)