User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Moving forward

I'm done with the stuff above this message. Collegial comments and comments related to article content work are welcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Then trash the whole section. There's work to do--all the UFO albums are unreferenced. Drmies (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

Inspired by User:ChildofMidnight#To_work_on:, I believe User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Sauerkraut candy might best be added to a section on fudge or penuche varients, or perhaps added to the "similar foods" section at sauerkraut. Since it was your idea, what do you think? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Interaction restricted

As discussed here (and more so in the sub-section that follows) and per community consensus, your own agreement, and the conditions of Obama article probation, a restriction has been placed on your interaction with User:Baseball Bugs, and vice-versa. That restriction is as follows:

Until further notice, Baseball Bugs and ChildofMidnight are restricted from commenting on, about, or to each other anywhere on Wikipedia, apart from ArbCom proceedings where both are named parties. Failure to abide by this restriction will result in 24 hour blocks, escalating to lengthier blocks if the violations continue.

As this restriction was prompted by a complaint you registered at ANI, I hope you are happy with this result, and that it goes part-way to addressing some of your concerns. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this restriction does not fall under Obama probation, so any appeals may not be granted by Bigtimepeace - they'd require a community consensus or ArbCom intervention. Should you believe that this restriction should not have been imposed even as a formal (ordinary) community sanction, and you have a legitimate reason for this belief, you have an opportunity to dispute this while the discussion is still open. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. It hasn't been a fun couple of days on the 'Pedia. Hopefully this will help going forward. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

NCOTI

You made me smile.Unschool 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How a 1RR is defined

Hello CoM. A 1RR is just like a 3RR except it takes two reverts in 24 hours to break it rather than four. Everything else remains the same, including the definition of a revert. For some reason, 1RRs are not often applied to articles, but I think the idea can be useful if there has been a dispute. There is an example here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Ed. But I have a question. Additions are not reverts. So my questions is, if there are no limits on how many additions an editor can make, and other editors are only allowed to do a single revert, isn't that a problem? Or am I missing something? Do reversions of new additions not count as reverts? I recall being told and seeing that reverts don't have to be to the same material, but apply throughout an article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that is guaranteed not to be a revert is the addition of brand-new material. Most other kinds of edits are at risk of being considered reverts. Removal of anything whatever would be a revert. (Or the readdition of something that had already been taken out by someone else). Still, if you edit only once a day you can't break the rule. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking the question because on that article the dispute is broad and there's lots of content being added by both sides (and removed by both sides). So I was curious if the 1RR rule only addresses one side of the equation. Anyway, it's not a dispute I'm involved in much although I have an opinion on it, so I guess I will just watch what happens. :) Although I see on the ANI discussion it's full-protected, so I guess a test of 1RR as a remedy will have to wait. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Cocktail hat

I have nominated Cocktail hat, 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/Cocktail hat. 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. NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Block?

I'm sure Viridae will explain his block of me sometime soon. I'm off to bed. The level of civility, respect, and courtesy from admins is certainly impressive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there no stopping the insanity???

Lead arbcom handling case states:

Since CoM was banned from articles and article talk pages, talking about it on ANI is technically not a violation of the restriction. Can be irritating to some from the looks of it, but no vio. Wizardman 01:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

So what is there to discuss? Sarek's had plenty of time to apologize and correct his mistake (though current policy makes it impossible to oversight this kind of abusive block).

So now you'll all have to go after me for responding to an outrageously abusive block that was against consensus, without warning, totally disruptive, and uncorrected even after the CLEAR error was pointed out. Desysop Sarek or at least restrict him from making any blocks except in clear cases of vandalism or with consensus on a noticeboard and be done with it. Same with Connolley. We don't need these abusive behaviors to continue.

How can anyone stand behind a block when its based on an Arb decision whose author says "NOT A VIOLATION OF THE RESTRICTION". Disgusting and incredible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the admin, is the answer to your question. Though it was rhetorical, I'm bored so I thought to answer.--WillC 08:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Stick with me and I'll show you where the excitement is at. ;) Have a good one and stay out of trouble! Careful about posting on my talk page. It probably puts you on some kind of list. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow a list. Alright I'll be included, I hope I'm not picked last in the next round of block ChildofMidnight, which seems to be the newest hit looking at my watchlist. You seem to be on a special type of watchlist to be honest.--WillC 07:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify something about this recent block C of M, though I know you'll still disagree with it which is fine. SarekofVulcan posted here about the block rationale, noting "it was not that CoM was posting in an Obama-related discussion that caused me to block. It was the attacks in that Obama-related discussion that convinced me the block was neccessary." This was my point as well on ANI, which you took issue with above on your talk page. Wizardman had clarified that commenting on Obama issues on noticeboards is acceptable despite your topic ban, so just being on ANI in an Obama thread is apparently not sufficient reason for a block. But personal attacks—even when generally directed—very much can be cause for a block, even more so when you weigh in on a subthread headed by a comment made by a user with whom you are prohibited from interacting. This is the problem I saw, and seems to be what Sarek was looking at as well.

Point being I do not think the block was abusive, and it does not seem to have been made for the reasons you think it was (reasons which would go against Wizardman's recent note as you say). Hopefully we can get more clarification from the Arbs on all of the Obama issues in the near future since there is clearly a lack of clarity. For what it's worth I would not have made this block personally, but I do think you somewhat put yourself in this situation with your general attacks on various editors on ANI (I'm not saying other editors are not also saying things which are problematic, but obviously you can only control your own comments). There are a number of admins and editors about whom you have complained for weeks or months, and if you really see the problem(s) as that severe you should consider pursuing some form of dispute resolution. The kind of comments you tend to leave on noticeboards (with words like "POV pushers," "abusive," and "censors") are not changing the situation and indeed only tend to get you into trouble, which is I'm afraid understandable. Even if you feel you are completely (or largely) in the right, you should re-evaluate your approach as it clearly has not been very effective. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a bad block based on a faulty rationale that went uncorrected by the admin who issued it even after his mistake was pointed out to him. It was made without any discussion or warning, and ignored the consensus of those who did participate in the thread. Suggesting that editors are not allowed to comment on censorship, harassment and NPOV violations at a noticeboard is ridiculous.

I've been good about walking away from articles when someone complained, even though I haven't worked on any articles about Barack Obama (except for adding one link on the list article which was a mistake on my part). Yet here you are still trying to attack me and defending abuse and harassment by others. And it was you who were the one acting improperly and against the Arbcom remedies, as was made quite clear last night. Mistakes happen and I know you were acting in good faith, but seeing your antagonistic behavior and attacks continue even after you were shown that you were mistaken is pretty disappointing.

As I stated repeatedly, the restrictions are for Barack Obama article and talk pages. Yet I still did my best to avoid confrontations and to just walk away when confronted with harassment and false accusations. You still haven't commented on your improper enforcement of the Arb remedies at AfDs and user talk pages.

I'm not going to remain silent about abusive behavior and disruption that violates Wikipedia's integrity. No one should be targeted and harassed over content disputes. The diffs I provided on ANI of clear personal attacks against me show the stalking and abuse I've received. That you continue to go after me even after this abuse has been pointed out to you, abuse which you failed to take action against, doesn't make you seem very fair or impartial.

I have no idea why you would support an abusive block or defend it, even after it was shown to be so clearly improper. That you did so after the clear cut abuse I've received was pointed out to you (abuse that you and others have allowed to continue) is pretty appalling.

I'd like to get back to article work. Take care. I hope you have a good weekend. I still think you're a good guy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

BTP I don't know if you're reading this, but the after-the-fact justitifcation you refer to contradicts his summary when doing the block, so I find it hard to agree with your reasoning. Bongomatic 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for commenting about Baseball Bugs despite a topic ban restricting you from doing so. Sanction: [1] Violations (multiple, but I can only find the diff for one of them): [2]. I realise this was several hours ago, but to have reached the seriousness of a topic ban, you have shown an inability to withdraw from the situation, so warranting a block beyond when other peoples bad behaviour might have been regarded as too old to be bothered with. Viridae^Talk 08:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but that was the discussion of whether this remedy should be enacted and whether it is appropriate. There were still questions and objections addressing whether it should go into effect and how so. You're saying editors can comment in that discussion, but I can't? This must be some kind of joke. Honestly, every day there is a new low of incompetence and stupidity from the admin corps on Wikipedia. Not to mention that I didn't even comment on him by name and was very circumspect, and that a user banned from interacting with me or commenting about me is participating in the discussion and doing exactly that. I hope you're drunk. Because if you did this sober then your judgment is so impaired as to be laughable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

From that very same discussion: "Roux, ChildofMidnight is permitted to discuss it further until this discussion is closed - the same goes for Baseball Bugs. No administrator is foolish enough to inflexibly enforce it in the very same discussion. However, if there are no objections from either regarding the enactment of the restriction, or on the restriction itself, then there is no basis to keep this discussion open for any longer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)"

• Maybe you should think or discuss issues that arise before using your tools in a completely moronic and damaging way? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The remedy had been enacted and logged. Viridae^Talk 08:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on setting a new standard for administrator stupidity Viridae. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can only agree that this block seems arbitrary. I think that this block was unnec. aand unneeded. I have no problems with Baseball Bugs so please don't consider this message of support is indictive that I look down to Bugs. I've just seen a few actions on this page that can we say seem to be questionable.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. I went back and re-read the discussion and despite the restriction being in place at the time (and not referring to BB by name means nothing, you still referred to him), the thread was still open. Consequently, while at first being tough because you were/are under an editing restriction (and it takes some rather egregious behaviour to have that happen), I have changed my mind and decided I should have given you the benefit of the doubt in the first place. Viridae^Talk 14:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Viridae, I appreciate being unblocked, but the damage is done and the stain will remain in my log. Your assumption that "it takes rather egergious behavior" on my part to be under this restriction is also wildly innaccurate. The remedy was made at my request based on strong evidence of my being stalked, harassed and attacked over a long period of time. The remedy is to stop the abuse from happening against me. I suppose I could request that the restriction not be placed on me since I haven't done anything wrong, but I have no interest in interacting with anyone who stalks and harasses me. Understand? Again I must ask that you read and participate in discussions before taking misguided and abusive actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

To Peter Symonds, Chedsky, and Closedmouth for helping clean up this mess. Have a great day. I appreciate your assistance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have a good one. Mathsci (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci if you weren't engaged in taunts at the joke nomination of cocktail hat I would be more inclined to communicate with you. As it is, it seems wisest to ignore you. But it was helpful of you to point out that I was autoblocked. Thank you.

I thought I had edited after the block was removed, but was mistaken. It's all been a rather frustrating and inane exercise in the theater of the absurd, but that's such a regular occurence here it doesn't seem to warrant much comment.

I have so far avoided participating in the Arbcom proceeding that you and your buddy are parties to despite being subject to and regularly witnessing your inappropriate teaming up and abusive behavior because I think you do some good article creation and content work, and I'm sympathetic to an Admin who means well but can't be bothered to behave appropriately. Wikipedia is often a nasty place, so I can understand why some editors choose to form a little gang to watch each others backs. It makes things rather unpleasant and tense, but I can see why the challenges of individual integrity and playing by the rules might be more than some editors can handle.

I suggest we let bygones be bygones. Your writing technique and diplomacy could use some work, but you appear to have a sense of humor and, despite being French, you may have other redeeming qualities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to disappoint you but I'm not French. I'm British. That is why I have met all those nice English economists like Mervyn King for cocktails. He was not wearing a hat. However I do know a Cambridge social anthropologist who wears a reflecting tea cosy. Possibly it's a cocktail hat. I'm sure she would not approve of you - she detests children. Mathsci (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Your writing and affectations made you seem French. No offense intended to the many wonderful country folk outside of Paris. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Country folk in Aix-en-Provence? I almost stroked Sir Simon Rattle's hair and received tiny high-velocity droplets of saliva from the crutch-ridden Joyce DiDonato three weeks ago. Here in France we are sophisticated creatures. There are no pizza-guzzling valley girls here. Last night a small slither of foie gras on a water biscuit washed down with a glass of Montbazillac before the Goldberg Variations in the grounds of the chateau. This is how we are in France. Mathsci (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to saturate your liver with rotten grape juice, but I do hope you're still using soap now and again. I happen to prefer fresh air over the intoxicating aura of thick perfume mixed with body odor. But if sophomoric parlor humor and the egotistical prancing of the lost souls of a fallen empire is your thing, have at it. Vive la France! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I only wear Marks and Spencers clothes. Their celebrated perforated underwear might be one of your future articles. Some British people even wear them as a hat, but rarely in polite society. The shirt should always be tucked into the underpants. Just as the tea should go in before the milk. Unfortunately I'm not sure there is an English version of your timeless Miss Manners. Are you familiar with her oeuvre? Mathsci (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Perforated underwear was all the rage at the turn of the century [3] and (though most of what they print isn't meant to be taken seriously) the New York Times reported that the "theory of a circulation of air next the skin and ventilation which the apostles of perforated underwear preach is one in the American Indians believe" in their Feb 2, 1902 edition [4] (teakwood was also all the rage!).

Since the advent of indoor plumbing, Ivory soap (99% pure), and a daily change of undergarments (every other day if they're reversible), we haven't had much need to keep airing out our meat. Whatever your colleagues there tell you, stick with soap and a good washing up now and again. There's no substitute. As far as manners go, Laura Ingraham and Phyllis Schafly have that covered. And they aren't very approving of menage a trois, and probably tuck their shirts into their pants, if they aren't wearing dresses or skirts. We're partial to sweet tea and lemonade when available, so there isn't any milk needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ice shaved dessert

Nokcha bingsu or a.k.a green tea shaved ice

Hey, here is a bowl of the whole green mountain tea shaved ice. I hope the weather of the place in which you're good today. Enjoy Sunday with the cold and refreshing dessert!--Caspian blue 17:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks delicious. Greetings Caspian blue, I was meaning to tell you yesterday that I came across a discussion of hanji in this source [5] I was using for the cocktail hat article. It seems interesting.

It's nice outside indeed. Perhaps I should be blocked so I have to go out there and get away from the craziness here. I wanted to do a bit more on the new sophomoric humor article. It's a subject that is very unfamiliar to me, but I'm learning about it as I go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

~ mazca ^talk 06:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

sigh ...

I just skimmed through some of that stuff. Geesh ... I try to stay away from the dramaz boards for a day or two, to work on a couple articles, and look what happens. Stay well, be good, and good luck on the articles you're working on. ;) — Ched :  ?  18:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No drama here. I'm like MJB, Tina Turner (and her legs) and Whitney Houston. Pure Diva. :) Where's my assistant! ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And you wondered why I mistakenly type "she" before I got to know you? ;-) — Ched :  ?  10:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you calling me a Drama Queen? I'm trying to think of some cool male musicians, but they all seem sort of lame. Flavor Flav? WHAT TIME IS IT? (I know he doesn't say that, but I'm allowed to be my own version.) Peter Gabriel is kind of okay, but he's a bit British for me. Hmmmm... This is hard! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The extensive discussion of MC Hammer on Drmies page reminded me of Marky Mark. He was pretty cool. And I have lots of good vibrations and have considered getting into underwear modeling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed that AfD...

No sources? [6] and [7] kinds show differently. Strange. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw this and I thought you were talking about that school that was deleted. I think the problem with the deleted article (kindly moved by Mazca to User:ChildofMidnight/Digital Architecture) was that nothing was sourced or salvageable. I created a new article on digital architecture though. Thank goodness I'm here. :) Reading architectural theory is pretty brutal. What's wrong with academic that they can't write? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This might make you laugh!

Michelle Malkin has a new book out called "Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies." Here is a link to the one star customer reviews of the book at amazon.com. So far there are more than 60 one star reviews. Everyone says the information in the book is wrong, but no one has cited any specific examples of what information in the book is wrong. It's so obvious that they have not read the book, and the reason they are telling other people not to read it is because they are afriad of people finding out the truth. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The book's title is too mildly worded for me. :) Is it fair and balanced? The lack of media coverage of the careers of Rahm Emmanuel and David Axelrod has always been interesting to me. Those horrible lobbysists and wall street crooks!!! :)

I thought of you when I saw new coverage of the flyover incident addressing how the military monitors and uses social networking websites for PR and damage control. Kind of interesting. Those venues provide instant feedback without having to do time consuming and expensive polling. The careers of Doug Schoen (I started that article, yeah me!) and Mark Penn were based in large part on success using polling data effectively to manage campaigns and win elections. Information is power. Anyway, I thought it was all sort of interesting. And of course in Iran and Burma the dissemination of information on the web has played a large part in the protests and the ability to get word and images out to the rest of the world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you thought of me. Nice article that you started. This new book on Obama is #1 on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction bestseller list this week. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's not sold out, I'm sure Drmies will be getting a copy. He's a huge fan of Michelle Malkin, Monica Crowley, Laura Ingraham and especially Ann Coulter. I'm pretty sure he has a thing for Palin too, but he won't admit it.

Have you checked out Mark Levin's book? It seems to have made some waves and is quite popular (#2 on that list for example). I haven't had a chance to read any of it, but I'm interested if it has anything novel or important to say. I don't have time to read much offline since I have to be on here 24/7. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't read Levin's book. I see that Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies has its own article, which has this link to an excerpt. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Grundle. Do you find her rhetoric a little bit heated, or is it just me? I prefer dry, sharp and biting snark. :) Thanks again for posting a link to it so I could check it out and read some excerpts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I do think books about a subject (positive and negative), especially when they are that successful, are worth including in a criticism or public perception type section or article. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I like what she wrote, but I like lots of writing styles. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nerd terminology

These terms apparently deal with certain online communities. See MOO and MUD. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scalper. Your knowledge of all things interweb related is impressive as always! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hats

The mad tea party

Caspian blue is going to tell us what this is all about

Here is a picture, taken some time ago, of me in a rather unusual cocktail hat [8], or maybe it wasn't me but someone else altogether. I have a beard. But it clearly belongs in the article. How do we get it past the wikimedia police? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a feather and it's definitely not a yarmulke. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be offensive. A Kippah or Kipper hat would be materially different. Neither is commonly featured in Vogue, although Vogue is presumably a reliable independent source for the article.[9]. After researching this subject in some depth, it is becoming clear that although some cocktail hats are feathers hats, some feather hats are not exactly cocktail hats[10].

Maybe there is some similarity between Korean hats (see left) and Icelandic hats but I am trying to forget about that whole painful episode. Aymatth2 (talk)

You might need 6 (or is it 3? 9?) seconds of silence/ Nutopia's national anthem to help you relax. Peace on Earth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That bacon hat picture is going into my private reserves. Law _{type! snype?} 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, since my name is mentioned, I'm happily joining the tea party. The girl in the picture is wearing an ayam which is a sort of cap, and originally was worn in winter. A funny thing is that ayam refers to chicken in Malay, so what a six degrees of separation considering CoM's love of chicken feathers! --Caspian blue 12:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between a cocktail hat and a fascinator? Wiktionary provides no guidance on Cocktail hat, but defines "fascinator" as a delicate, often frivolous head decoration worn on the hair, primarily by women - which seems to also describe "cocktail hat". Milliners around the world are waiting for Wikipedia to pronounce on this urgent question. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking clear merge, but in the places I found cocktail hat and fascinator mentioned together they seem to be treated as distinct. And as for soto ayam, yummo. I like kippers too. And omega-3 fatty acids from fish are supposed to be very healthful! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Food-related hats is an article waiting to be written. Hats named after food, look like food, are food. No original research, of course.[11] Aymatth2 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fruit hat, Fruit cocktail, Cocktail hat. But the article would be void and empty, without relevance, meaning or significance, of no value or purpose without the bacon hat illustration. And how do we get that into the public domain? I have no answer, just questions. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom ban

What exactly were the terms of your ban, and what was it for? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link if you want to read any of it for yourself [12]. It's been a rough several days, so I don't want to get into it too much, but basically I've tried to improve the balance and scope of our political coverage and to abide by Wikipedia's core neutral point of view policy by including content related to the notable criticisms and controversies regarding the president.

This met with fierce and uncivil attacks on me, including harassment and stalking that continue even now. I'm fairly moderate and I was very flexible on how the content was added, where it was added, and how it should be worded. But there are many editors who are adamant that we censor and bias our coverage and exclude anything that isn't positive about the chosen one (Durova got attacked for trying to add a featured picture!).

When there was an outside report (from a conservative website) posted on Wikipedia that described the problems with the article and how editors trying to add content that isn't positive I looked into it. I found that they were correct on several points. Any mention of Rev. Jeremiah Wright had been scrubbed out by POV pushers and there were innaccuracies and promotional fluff that wasn't appropriate, while notable viewpoints that weren't positive were wholly excluded, minimized, and (where they did exist) not linked.

An Arbcom proceeding started, it didn't really invovle me, but I was asked by Wizardman to participate. I don't like bureaucracy and try to avoid those kind of involved proceedings (and the time consuming diff digging that's involved), but I stepped up because I saw that admins were reluctant to enforce our no personal attack and other editing and civility policies when there was an outspoken pack of editors aggressively "defending" and "patrolling" the article against anyone who treaded on their turf.

It was a very long proceeding and wasn't helpful. For example a wikialert filed against an editor attacking me by a third party who I've never interacted with, but it was rejected on the grounds that "Arbcom is handling it."

My hope was that arbcom would provide a venue to report incivility (which usually can be let go, but when it's systematic and aggressive on an article like that one it needs to be stopped), personal attacks, and other disruptions so that discussion and content work could proceed. I was a target of the "patrollers" and "defenders" and after a series of 8 or so ANI reports with no merit, one of them was able to get an edit warring violation to stick (4 edits over 2 days with discussion inbetween and my last edit was reverted and I was working on other articles, but it doesn't matter when you have a substantial number of incompetent admins).

Anyway, that one "violation" served as the core of the evidence against me. The rest of the evidence is pretty ridiculous. An edit where I made a spelling correction on a talk page. Claims of "templating" where I responded to a pattern of harassment from another editor by asking them on their talk page to focus on article content. This was called "templating" even though I never use templates except to respond in kind when I'm targeted with them. The whole thing was pretty disappointing, but I think the lead on it, Wizardman, just didn't want to deal with the hassle and just wanted to end the dispute rather than deal with the core issues and problems that were causing it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks for letting me know. If you want to have a good laugh, look at what the "protectors" allowed to happen to the conspiracy article: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. They truly are the defenders of NPOV. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. There was a terrible punctuation error in the first sentence, which I blame on the almost criminal underfunding of public education under the previous administration by a group sometimes pejoratively called the "underfunders." Drmies (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Were you able to add any semicolons? "Underfunders". Funny. I get it. But not that funny. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I read part of it. I think even the good Dr. would agree it's rather obviously slanted to the point of absurdity. But honestly it's not a subject I'm very interested in. It seems moot now that the election is over, even if there were something to it all. And the idea of Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi as president is frightening beyond measure. I am quite certain that Biden is from another planet. He may well be one of the Lizard people. He certainly seems reptilian. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Your account has been brought up for discussion here. BBBfan (talk) 23:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm sorry to see an editor receiving harassment from a sock of some kind. Out of curiousity, how is it possible to tell if someone has tried to edit a page but been unsuccessful? Anyway, I hope whoever created that accounts stops. It's obviously not done with good intentions and I don't need any (more) negative aspersions or suspicions cast on my good name. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the person who left this message may be an imposter of User:Baseball Bugs. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, that seems obvious now that you point it out, but I didn't think twice about it because the original message was so short and to the point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Digital age

Is this just a neologism or does it need an article? Is it bacon related? And is it synonymous (and needing redirect) to information age? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm on it. The term seems to be treated as if it were self-explanatory, see [13], [14], [15]. Even a Google Scholar search shows no discussion of the term itself (I looked at the first 50 titles). The redirect you suggested seems to be the best way to go for now--you go ahead and make it, so you can add another creation to your resume. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ha, "As for educating our son, we are so lucky to live in the Digital Age, where everything from top-notch curricula to videoconferenced classrooms is available" ([16]) can almost count as definitional. I think an article with different sections on what digital age means could be useful--think of education, photography ([17], book printing ([18]), music and recording ([19], [20], [21], [22]), history/historiography ([23]), libraries ([24]), politics and public administration ([25])... And these are just some hits from Google (recent) news. Throw in the books and you have a really long list--but a valid question is to which extent such an article would duplicate what is already found in other main articles. Then again, sections such as Printing#Digital_printing (or short articles such as Digital printing) have little to say on the content and meaning of the 'digital' part--Print on demand does. This might be a nice big project, but with the risk of synthesis and overlapping. Not a bad idea, just to give it a try... Drmies (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

neues Baden-Württemberg

Look what a friend from Freiburg sent me as a birthday present: [26]. (The publisher's website, at [27], also has a few enlarged pages, but their URL doesn't work in WP code). Absolutely gorgeous--I want one of those European homes. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find that book on the company's website, but their other books look gorgeous. The Paul Smith store on Melrose Avenue has some great big coffee table books that are fun to look at. What is the significance of Baden-Württemberg? You've always seems to have a certain animosity toward the Krauts... Definitely a lof of wonderful and beautiful architecture produced during the prosperity of the Bush years. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at [28]. Does that work? My friend lives in Freiburg, which is absolutely beautiful. And yes, Bush is to thank for everything that happened in that period. I'm sure he was instrumental in my dissertation committee passing my final version. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

These are a couple of very long sentences in the summary description of the book: "Planners and architects tackle in a creative and diverse fashion the current pressing challenges faced by the design of constructed environments – ecologically sound and sustainable construction in particular needs to return to the proven resources of wood as a construction material or the steady development and integration of contemporary energy concepts. The fact that technical and functional finesse can be combined with aesthetic design is exemplified not only by internationally renown and outstanding buildings, but also by smaller public, commercial and residential buildings."

Are you sure you weren't a consulting editor on the project? Although I didn't see any semicolons. But then the architecture in the pics seems very clean, so maybe they don't like your punctuation cluttering up their run-ons.

They really like that Adolf Loos kind of stuff over there. It's a little cold for me. I actually prefer the more playful effects of your Dutch colleagues. But it looks like a great book from a top notch publisher. I'd like to see more of it. Will I see the book on your coffee table when you have me over for clams casino and boiled peanuts?

Feel free to send me a couple of their books, and I know Warrington would enjoy the one on landscape architecture.

G Dub, like Thomas Jefferson, had a great passion for architecture and was a major patron of the arts via the prosperity and free trade his rein helped propagate and encourage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Footlight Parade

File:Clinton.jpg

Thank you for the compliment, Child.

I just watched this movie on Turner Classic Movies. Wow. Now, that's a movie! And a great evocation (if that's the right word) and dramatization of the 1930s, Hollywood, film's influence on theater, dance, and the best synchronized swimming scene I've ever seen. I guess Busby Berkeley (choreographer on this) is famous for a reason. Lloyd Bacon directed. And I'm not particularly fond of Cagney or musicals, but still this was good stuff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Must be nice, not to have to go to work like the rest of us, but instead lounging away watching synchronized swimming. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I watched it last night during my free time Drmies, if you must know. And it takes research and expertise to produce the informative and fascinating articles that I write up on important subjects. If I want them to reflect a wordly perspective, I have to expose myself to great art. Speaking of which, they had some cool segments on Burning Man constructions on Current TV. I'm glad Laura Ling and the other one (Euna Lee?) are free. Good job Willy Clinton. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bacon? Now there's a name you'll never forget! Grundle2600 (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha. I didn't even notice that. But it makes sense that bacon had something to do with it. Althought I am convinced Kevin Bacon is a fraud. Are we sure that's his real name? Seems like fakon bacon to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha, me neither. Say, did you ever make a difference in the world by writing that Turkey bacon article? Oh yeah we did, I see that now--all of us did. And I called K-stick a "turkey man" in an edit summary--should I apologize for that? Now I'm off to work, where a pasta salad with bacon and squash awaits me. And some work, possibly. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, which you created, has really grown in size. Many people have added to it. If this bill passes, it could be the most important piece of legislation passed during Obama's entire presidency. Millions of people could end up reading the article that you started! Grundle2600 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Grundle for you kind comments. Much appreciated. Truly though, the article was your idea Grundle so you deserve all the credit. It's another example of your major contributions and collegial efforts to add important article coverage to Wikipedia.

If I am to get credit for it though, I want to know if I get to make a speech? Will there be an awards ceremony? Open bar? Do I have to invite Drmies? (If so, he should be at the kids table. He's been posting some very scandalous talk page comments!)

What was the one about the wild horses? That seemed interesting, but I never got a chance to do it. I'm supposed to be helping MQS with sauerkraut candy too... These darn hats keep getting in the way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You do get to make a speech, but you can't use a teleprompter. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Julian Burnett

Have to disagree with you on this one CoM, if high school is all that he has, than he doesn't have much. Also it was a copyvio of this.--kelapstick (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're right that there isn't much notability aside from local coverage of high school sports and a local scouting report for an incoming college freshman. Aren't you on vacation? Are you finishing up a game of ferret legging or what? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Vacation (or holidays as we refer to it in Canada) starts tomorrow. The weather forecast (that doesn't come from an insulting dog) doesn't look overly promising, but time will tell. I have a feeling that Drmeis will put JB up on the chopping block. If I were here I would support its deletion, could fall into WP:BLP1E territory, the one event being drafted. This is the whole debate about if "local" coverage is significant. At a CFL players AfD one argument was that the San Fransisco Chronicle was a "local newspaper", so didn't count as "significant coverage". That rationale didn't really hold water. I always say that a school/college/university newspaper isn't independent enough to pass the GNG, but since this paper is independent, I don't know. Could also be a case of WP:IAR to get around the GNG. Maybe I should have left the Georgia Tech bio on there and tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio :D --kelapstick (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You sound like you need a vacation. Have a great time. Traveling with kids is always joyous. :) Are you wearing a Hawaiian shirt yet? Say hello to Magnum and TC. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too bad, he is a pretty good traveler and we only have to stop in Salt Lake City. My wife flew to Halifax with my son at Christmas, two connections and 13 hours...eeek...then when she was going to meet me in Toronto the next week, every flight in central/eastern Canada was canceled and she had to spend the night in the airport. By the time she got to Toronto she had no luggage, no car seat and no Christmas presents, they all got "delayed" in Montreal. The car seat finally caught up with us when we arrived home in Nevada a week later! Hey can you believe that List of honorific titles in popular music is up for deletion? And such an awesome list.--kelapstick (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mitsubishi Ichigokan Museum, Tokyo

Just a quick note on Mitsubishi Ichigokan Museum, Tokyo, the construction has actually finished (in Mar/Apr this year) and the building's totally done, inside and out. They just haven't yet moved in the artwork. Let me know how you think that should be handled. Thanks.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding a source to that affect would be good. I updated the article and left a couple comments in my edit summaries. Cheers. Good luck with you RfA candidacy! ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and apologies if my reply to your comment was against RfA etiquette.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I appreciate when candidates reply. I think the process should be a discussion, but it often seems more like a mine field for candidates. :)

You seem to have understood my point and your clarification seemed perfectly appropriate. I think when people try to argue or prove someone else wrong they get into trouble. But it's a tightrope walk for sure and I've seen some outstanding candidates fail for strange reasons. I find it unpleasant generally to oppose, but when there are real concerns I think it's worthwhile to stand up and be counted. Adminship is, in fact, a pretty big deal. In your case, my only remaining concern is really experience and expertise, so I will probably switch to support. I don't think admins have to be perfect, only reasonable, and you seem to possess that quality. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Either way, thank you for the feedback.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   05:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Aurelia-Leasath Relations

Here is a good source for your planned article. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it premature to use a source, albeit highly reliable, for a conflict that doesn't take place until 2020? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that any of the reviewers will see a problem with that since the war is, after all, fictional. Another impeccable source is here I look forward to reading your article with considerable interest. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So there's no difference in notability between a fictional war that has taken place and one that hasn't happened yet? I wonder what their national anthem is... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathematically no difference. The national anthem is quite pleasant. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Latur Division

I am not able to locate any sources about Latur Division. The Maharashtra Government website doesnt talk about this division. I added a hoax tag to the article. I had posted in the talk page of Maharashtra for clarification about the number of divisions, but no response till now. Can I nominate it for deletion? Pl guide. Paalappoo (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means delete away. :) Thank you very much for looking into it. Enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Enjoy! Paalappoo (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Statuary

Thanks, but if you liked that one you will love this one: Nina Skrdla Santiago, my granddaughter eating her first Piragua (smile). Tony the Marine (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

:)

Hey there

I just thought I'd let you know about this. Are you interested?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The name makes it sound like it is about drama. I've had enough drama for a while. :) But good luck to anyone who can settle disputes. Welcome back, by the way... ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You knew I was about to retire?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyway, I decided I couldn't leave. By the way, User talk:Abce2 is not retiring either.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Roadkill cuisine

I'm not sure on the title. But I'm launching this important article if anyone wants to help. Waste not want not. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Good start. The ironic tone works well (and is appropriate) but sometimes achieving it detracts from the coherence of the article:

• "Fresh kill is preferred" not (clearly, anyway) related to US.
• "Worms are a concern" not (clearly, anyway) related to UK.
• The red/blue comment doesn't clearly relate to the contents of article.

Generally, you might want to discuss topics that are not geographically related in more detail beyond the lede.

Good work! ^Bongo_matic 00:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A health section needs to be broken out. Since people are so into reliable sources articles start a bit thrown together. But hopefully some logic can be imposed once the collaboration gets going and the OR kicks in. :) I need to do a google book search too so I can see what's out there. Anyway, it's more than what was on Wikipedia yesterday. Thanks for checking it out! I'm always glad you're around Bongo. Thanks for all your help! Can you knock some sense into Doc? Have a good one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"However, there is little evidence of widespread use of the animals in Australian cuisine, despite the availability of various recipes for roo stew." It is an acquired taste, but a small section of roo meat can be found in grocery in even the smallest towns. Given that this is unsupported by RS, I'd suggest a rewording, or dropping of this sentence. --125.236.223.156 (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Roos look like they would be gamey. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. I don't care for it personally. --125.236.223.156 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have to withdraw from this project. After the Iceland-South Korea relations fiasco I am concerned about the damage I may cause. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This project needs you! It was strange to see you work on an actual article. I thought you just did that relations nonsense. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see you remain deserving of your Oddball barnstar, CoM. P.S. Remember that whole small-case doppelganger username we talked about? No longer necessary, they fixed the issue. cheers, –xeno^talk 19:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's they? This sounds ominous. I just watched the latest Batman, so I'm in a dark mode. But things are always darkest before the dawn... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What a weird but funny article and you are the creator! :-) However, a little OR steak to me.--Caspian blue 00:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would say a certain collaborator/ co-conspirator has tilted it in a more creative direction. It probably could use some tweaking to make it more encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your co-conspirator made me lost an appetite with the gross French named image! The too innovative image should be removed for a high encyclopedic value. (by the way, why the France section is missing?)--Caspian blue 01:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why, the developers, of course! –xeno^talk 01:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User names are no longer case sensitive? GENIUS! But I did do a redirect or two for you a while back (just in case)! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have to protest against these ridiculous suggestions on my talk page. Roadkill: A Jim Kowalksi Adventure may appear at first sight seems to be a commonplace and factual dissertation on everyday topics like cannibalistic mutants, paranormal truckers, and monster insects. But the Reverend Baba-Yaga Boogity? I think not. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an 80 page epic (story), not totally unlike the Odyssey. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this one is yours. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Townhall protest

Hey ChildofMidnight, why is there no mention of the protest in the health care article? Have you not seen what has been going on at these events? People at these townhalls are very upset about this and do not seem to like it. It has received significant coverage from the media. Richard (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article started out about the legislation. I'm actually not clear on which article deals with the Senate legislation, which article deals with the House legislation, and which article deals with the overriding issues, or if they are in, or need to be in, one article all together. But I am aware that a lot of people are concerned that the government will run health care the way they run Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the post office. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey look at these polls that say the people do not approve of Obama's health care plan.[29][30] And take a look at this, one poll has the people having more faith in the republicans on health care reform than Democrats![31] You have to be kidding with this, who would have ever of fucking thought this?!?! I'm surprised you will not add a public opinion section in the health care article you created. Richard (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! (Cow cod soup)

I think after discovering exactly what "cow cod soup" is, I may have to go vegan.  :) Thanks for the laugh; it was to bizarre not to expand on. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It's got spices, banana sweetness, and rum. What's not to like? One of the sources I was looking at said it has goat brain and feet also. Hopefully we can tie it down (so to speak) soon enough.(nevermind. I had it confused with mannish water.)

I'm having a lot of fun with Jamaican cuisine articles. I think it's super cool that there's a 120 store Jamaican patty chain called Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery and Grill. And there are all these food I've never tried or heard of like ackee, bulla cakes and desserts like toto (Jamaican food), and lots of existing articles too. But the story of how Jamaican nurses in the Bronx and Brooklyn are franchising Golden Krust stores is fun. Someone out east will have to sample for me (and I need lots of photos!!!) and report back. I saw you deleted some prior version of cow cod soup and I was curious what was there. But I figured I'd throw something up (figuratively, I think...) and take it from there. Thanks for the note! Cheers. And if you're going vegan, you should read roadkill cuisine, because some vegan sects allow this type of meat. So you won't have to go completely without... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Discouraging information

Wikipedia Featured Articles listed by section

Some content in Roadkill cuisine got me considering starting one on Game pie, a type of food that reached its peak of popularity in Victorian England, elaborate in preparation and involving specialized moulds and serving dishes. There are more hits in Books than in regular Google. But a check for images just found Félix Pie at a ball game and this one. The title of the last and smallest bar seems like an ominous comment. I will leave it to another editor. Sad. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be a hollow cod piece. Whatever it is you're talking about (I haven't looked yet), a revival can always happen!!! Roadkill cuisine is at DYK. I didn't add you as conom, I couldn't figure out how. And I know you're shy about you good works... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks tasty [32]. Where did you read that it was popular in Victorian times an required molds? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of covers, I just had a look at Caduceus Cellars. Note the name of the associated vineyard. ^Bongo_matic 03:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous link that isn't related to the previous heading

I'm also going to be adding stubs for items not covered on Wikipedia from this source. [33]. I'm just noting that because I wanted to close the window and have a link to it. :) Cheers. What do you have against game pie? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) [34] and [35]

Speedy deletion nomination of Game pie

A tag has been placed on Game pie requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 01:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

CoM, please look at this Google book search and generally search for '"game pie" history' to try to get some context.

• A good illustrated source is at Pies and Chewitts. Scroll through it. A Google Books search turns up all sorts of references to game pie in books whose copyright has long expired. I suppose the nursery rhyme Sing a Song of Sixpence refers to a very old game pie. Preparation was elaborate. First, the more different types of game the better. Then, all the game was cooked together to blend the flavors, allowed to cool down, aspic reserved, game placed in the pastry crust, cooked again, aspic poured in through a "chimney" in the crust, allowed to cool again, served cold. A two-day effort. I suppose the closest thing today is the commercially prepared Pork pie. Modern recipes for game pie are not the same thing at all, just meat pies served hot that happen to contain game such as rabbit. But there are NO PICTURES. A huge drawback to any article like this. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Those are gorgeous. I offer this in return [[36]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Crispy family carnival

Can you save this circus? Drmies (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a horror flick... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to 2011 Pro Bowl DYK

I have replied to your comment on the nomination of 2011 Pro Bowl for DYK, as well as providing an alternate hook. Your comments and rereview would be appreciated, as it stands stale right now. Thank you. MobileSnail 18:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I commented there. Saying "is contracted to return" or "is scheduled to return" seems better to me. But maybe I'm being nitpicky. I don't think it's quite right to predict future events. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Do you think it's ready to go now? MobileSnail 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be okay. It's been approved for a while. I'm sure someone will add it to the queue. Are you in a hurry? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gary Wood (filmmaker)

A tag has been placed on Gary Wood (filmmaker) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Roadkill Cuisine DYK

I believe your article should definitely make the DYK page. However, I also believe there should be something more permanent to it: I just took care of a WP:WEIRD listing of your article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure these are Dutch tourists [37]. And in Canada [38], when they're not on vacation in Hawaii... In nature (where it belongs) [39] And food made to look like roadkill [40]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't look like the motherland to me. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there are several Netherlanders hiding out on American soil. What they are on the run from and what they may be up to here (aside from field dressing roadkill) is cause for concern. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Larrakeyah, Northern Territory

Locality names in Australia are always (with the exception of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra) disambiguated.This is in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian places#General strategy and discussion forums. I disagree with this convention/guideline but there are lots of guidelines and conventions I disagree with that I nevertheless follow. There has been several discussions about changing this guideline but there has never been consensus to change and due to bureaucratic inertia, I doubt there ever will be. Given the above, the Larrakeyah article has been moved back to Larrakeyah, Northern Territory in line with the naming guidelines. Thanks, Mattinbgn\^talk 07:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the note and explanation. Very strange. But I guess doing things upside down makes a certain amount of sense when it comes to Australia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Game pie

Hello! Your submission of Game pie at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  – iridescent 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems my best buddy Aymatth has been involved in more synthesizing than a Depeche Mode concert. I will try to keep a closer eye on him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles

No problem...there's a major backlog at Category:Category needed these days, so I've been spending a lot of time working on it :-) Bearcat (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy happy joy joy

...I have taught you well, young fellow: [41]. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a terrific and saucy article on Hollandaise mole, no doubt about it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Paté de Gibier

Pardon? La cuisine française est la seule cuisine. n'est-ce pas? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Magnifique! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How do I send mail?

How do you send a message to another editor off-wiki via wikimail? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You can only do it if they have email enabled on their profile - not everyone does. And it will reveal your email address to them. Depending on what gadgets you have enabled it will be visible under the "USER" tab - email user - if enabled. As an example, mine is enabled so you should be able to see it for me (I can see it on your profile as well). Relevant policy here. Regards.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 7. Very helpful. I searched under wp:mail, but not "e-mail". Sorry your admin nom wasn't successful, but you got an impressive amount of support. I expect to support you next time, and I appreciate all your good work. Have a delightful weekend.

No prob.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   04:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

With apologies to Jake Holmes and Randy Newman:

I stalk on the 'pedia and I'm proud

I used to be a lurker, now I'm loud

And if you look around these days

You'll see a stalker every which way

Have a good weekend, ^Bongo_matic 04:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Undated things that didn't archive

Thanks

Thank you ever so much,have fun as well Secthayrabe (talk)

Putting this here for now since I can't edit my userpage at the moment. Maybe once Connolley sobers up?

References

The Dutch don't need no stinking references!

Possibly unfree File:Candy dots as art.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Candy dots as art.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

If I have misjudged your intent, then I apologize.

--NBahn (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My intent was to make a comment relevant to the discussion and wasn't meant to be confrontational. I generally steer clear of Tarc because we've had disagreements in the past and he's been aggressive in going after me. I also don't find his approach to editing Wikipedia constructive or collegial. But I made a simple comment on that particular issue to note something I had read about. He's welcome to remove my comment or to ask that I avoid posting on his talk page. I try to honor that type of request as common decency would indicate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that I was mistaken; it was my fear that you were teaming up with Grundle2600 in order to harass Tarc. Once again, I apologize for misunderstanding your intent.
--NBahn (talk) 05:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Grundle is one of the nicest and most good natured Wikipedians I've met. Those who disagree with him have come after him hard core, but he's remained courteous and collegial. Having a different opinion or a sense of humor shouldn't be a reason to be castigated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I fear that we will have to agree to disagree. Viva la diferance and all of that.....
Respectfully,
--NBahn (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Grundle has a thing for Michelle Malkin and wants to share his love with others. He posted here about the book also. Try to assume good faith and keep in mind that Grundle has a sense of humor. While deleting someone else's article efforts is aggressive and frustrating, noting points of interest on a talk page seems harmless and friendly. I note stuff with my Wikipedia colleagues all the time. They don't have to agree with me. And again, if Tarc doesn't want Grundle to post on his talk page all he has to do is say so, and he's free to remove any message he doesn't like. I think you're reading far too much into an innocent and playful communication. Grundle is fantastic, if slightly insane. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Dramaout?

If you are talking about the DramaONLY, I decided in the end not to participate. I've been working behind the scenes lately and patching up articles, but I have fit in some time to revert vandalism (my personal favorite duty). How about you CoM. Any interesting articles as of late?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 02:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. My mistake. Was naming it that meant to be funny?

The article mentioned above has a certain entertainment value. The Ice Hockey in Mali is also imbued with a special sort of fun quotient that's a bit unusual.

I'm not working on anything especially interesting at the moment. I'd like to do an article on Michelle Obama and fashion, but Wikipedia is safe for now because I am prohibited from working on that article subject area as punishment for insisting that there are actually notable criticisms and controversies related to the Obama clan. I kicked out some Jamaican cuisine articles that were fun. See Mannish water and Cow cod soup. And I worked up roadkill cuisine and game pie articles with a whole lot of help from Aymatth2. But I don't have a new muse, yet... ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Photos

These articles still need photos if you can believe it: glorified rice, seven-layer salad, cow cod soup, grater cake, fish tea, Pink Dot, Hof's Hut, Drago restaurants, cookie salad, Tart 'n' Tinys, and Chili Bowl (restaurant). Why not make some tonight?

• These photos need uploading. Black garlic [42] and/ or[43]. Canary melon [44]. Pancit [45] We already have photos of poori, but none as good or as encyclopedic (showing accompaniments) as this one [46]. Lechon kiwali by CeciliaMQ (although I see there is already a good photo). [47]. Bacon wrapped breadsticks [48]. And this photo for West 8 (one of my fav articles) is also good. :) Piel de Sapo [49]. Koulourakia [50]. Kofte kebab [[51]]. And there is a photo already for orecchiette, but this a lovely shot of a dish using it [52]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pinoy pop

I think the article should be deleted and Original Pilipino Music be created in its place. Nothing in the article is notable or neutral enough to be kept.--23prootie (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you create an article on Original Pilipino Music, I will see if there is anything worth merging from the Pp article and then redirect it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to point out the obvious, but to avoid wheel reinvention, please see Music of the Philippines#OPM (Original Pilipino Music). ^Bongo_matic 06:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Roger, Roger. I concluded it is independently notable and ripe for expansion into its own article. You know me! Pageless encyclopedia... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Usmene predaje u Bosni i Hercegovini

Generally we don't use machine translators, as you might have noticed, the article is still barely understandable, and arguably worse for wikipedia since if its not deleted it will most likely stay in that state for a long time. Machine translations should only be used to learn what an article is about--Jac16888^Talk 03:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well how am I supposed to decide whether to keep it or not if I can't read it? I think it's better now. But if you want to revert it and find a Croation editor to translate that would be okay too. But I don't see how we can delete something because no one has translated it when we don't know what it says. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You could just read the translation without actually adding it. The whole point of the AFD is that no has bothered to translate it, so either the afd causes someone to pop up and translate it properly, or it gets deleted--Jac16888^Talk 04:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't help to know what the article is about and to get a sense of what it says before it's decided whether to delete it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, you can always just read the translation without adding it, however, generally, it doesn't, the only criteria for deletion being used here is the that fact it hasn't been translated in two weeks, that's just how PNT works--Jac16888^Talk 04:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Check this out

A surprisingly amusing edit of vandalism--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 06:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen better. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have too, but you have to admit it's one of the best in a while.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 06:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Bacon

[53]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I was just going to start a section here called "Bacon." Although wikipedia already has an article called Double down which mentions the new bacon chicken sandwich from KFC, it's simply altered from an already existing article about a different use of that phrase, and doesn't even have any sources. I suggest you create KFC Double Down if it hasn't already been created yet. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a strange article indeed. It started out strange. Got stranger. Was redirected to blackjack#Rules of play against a casino. And now it's strange again. I thought doubling down was what you do at a casino if you're in a hurry to lose money. As I recall it's also a nickname given to one of the characters in the Swingers (movie). I'm not familiar with the KFC sandwich. But I assume it isn't kosher? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's not kosher. I thought you'd like to be the one to get credit for starting the article, but I see it's still red. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Skishing

Oh well done, you clever lad! You have no doubt saved this article from deletion. Now please find a category it can can fit into. An article on over-resourced, fat-arse US-americans pouncing about in such stupid and destructive ways has no place in the fishing project! --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We invented fishing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Had to comment on this. While Geronimo's comment was somewhat overly aggressive, please please please tell me you're joking--Jac16888^Talk 19:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Roadkill cuisine

On August 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roadkill cuisine, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I put it where folks might expect to find it

I copied the stub from my sandbox and placed the contents in the section in Sauerkraut about sauerkraut candy [54], as I cannot find enough for it to exist on its own. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you will enjoy this video.

This two minute video at YouTube is the best description of the Obama administration I've ever heard. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. He made some excellent points. I didn't like that he walked away before the congressman could answer though. But I respect his passion. Si se puede. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Photo licensing

Photos do need to be availble for commercial use and derivative work. "Permission for use on Wikipedia" is not legitimate- the entry on the upload form is a "trap" and tags the image for speedy deletion. There's also no issue with faces on photos- on Commons, there is a template for personality rights, but on Wikipedia, it's not really an issue unless we are accusing someone of something- standard biographies of living people stuff. Is this related to a specific image? J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:World Focus 004.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:World Focus 004.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No longer orphaned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Tweak?

wp:edit summary - You are a highly (VASTLY) experienced WP editor, and changing an article from being about "Vegetarianism" to one about "Vegetarians" is not a tweak.- sinneed (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there was an edit conflict so I didn't get to finish. I was trying to work in vegetarian and vegetarianism (since that article has to cover both as there is not vegetarian article) but didn't get the chance. That article is a mess. For example focusing is spelled incorrectly. It seems kind of ridiculous that vegetarian redirects to vegetarianism anyway. But if it's going to be a combined article it should at least cover both. Cheerios! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the article. :) I *knew* there had to be some explanation. I do wish it were easier to handle edit conflicts... Maybe it could pop up another window instead of painting over the exiting one, or something. All the best.- sinneed (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see something related and REALLY painful, look at some of the versions of Vegetarianism in Sikhism. I ran away quickly.- sinneed (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I see I'm over my head there. But at least it was changed so it doesn't say that vegetarian and herbivore are synonymous (although I see at least one dictionary definition makes that claim). Thanks for being understanding. I seem to have gotten in over my head on that one stepping in and trying to collaborate in fixing it up. I will take a look at the other article. Are you vegetarian? What about yeast?  :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I couldn't get past the first sentence. They do that "In XYZ," formatting on mathematical articles as well. Makes for a very awkward and dull lead sentence. And it only gets worse from there. :) Truly it's a bit of a monstrosity.

I'm going back to where it's safe. :) Any time a subject is a piont of passion for people it is hard to achieve rational editing and collaboration. I also think it's interesting that people with alternative lifestyles that are based on tolerance and empathy are sometimes very closed minded and fanatical about their version of the subject or practice being the only one that's valid. Being omnivorous I support equality for all. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The history of vegetarianism article is a mess too. I think an article on the diet at vegetarian and the belief system at vegetarianism would be good. But I think I'm done. It's too difficult to work with the people involved in feuding over those articles. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yeast is good because it makes booze.  :) Vegetarian, nay, I just followed a vandal into Vegetarianism and put it on my watch list... I am not at all sure it is fixable but I figure if I just murder a small number of Bad Things (Vegetarians are synonymous with herbivores *blink*) it will help at least a tiny bit. An editor I have worked with (and opposite) pointed me at the Vegetarianism in Sikhism, and I actually made several edits before I decided that a) I wasn't going to accomplish much anything and b) it was going to hurt a lot, so I fled. Be safe. Have fun.- sinneed (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery & Grill

On August 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Golden Krust Caribbean Bakery & Grill, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification from Talk:Vegetarianism

Hi there, I hope I didn't cause any offense. When I mentioned your diet it was because of my own misunderstanding: When you said "What about fungi? They aren't plants are they?" I mentally switched the words "aren't" and "are", which made me think you said the complete opposite of what you did. So, when C6541 then said "Fungi are fungi, not plants. Sigh... vegetarians...", I thought s/he was refuting your comment (instead of actually agreeing with it), and sighing at the stupidity of vegetarians who would think fungi are plants. So I mentioned that you weren't a vegetarian, and pointed out that some vegetarians (like me) actually understand the difference between fungi and plantae. When I realized my mistake, I reverted my mention of you. Anyway. Thanks for the reminder to keep COIs in check; I always make every effort to keep mine in check, but reminders are always helpful. And vegetarianism has not infrequently been a target of POV-pushing (from both directions), so being careful with COI is a good thing to keep in mind there. Thanks again! -kotra (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• It gets worse. Give peas a chance. Fungi may be the only choice. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add this [55] as an external link to the hummus article, but other editors weren't receptive. This is sort of funny and painful [56], but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if spam is ok for vegetarians. It certainly doesn't resemble meat. -kotra (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not okay. That one's not a gray area. :) Not according to my POV anyway. Whether it is actually meat is an open question though. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Could be okay Just try not to cause any unnecessary pain to the celery. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

I think your changes to the lede today are a big improvement. This gives a much more complete summary of the topic than was there previously, so thanks for that. I've made small tweak which hopefully won't be controversial.--Michig (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I have big plans for how the subject is covered. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Childofmidnight blog

I have just eastablished the ChildofMidnight blog: http://childofmidnight.wordpress.com/. Since I have a lot of important and interesting things to say I wanted to give others a chance to share in the learning. Does anyone have any experience with this sort of thing? I'm planning to do some posts on food, So Cal., Wikipedia, politics, and other things that interest me. Is that too broad? :) I expect to make a lot of money from it as it grows and advertisers line up to be a part of the awesomeness. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Sodolak's chicken fried bacon.jpg

File:Sodolak's chicken fried bacon.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Chicken Fried Bacon.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Chicken Fried Bacon.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize I'm replying to a bot, but it seems unfortunate that the commons image is so poorly captioned and the appropriately captioned photo we had here will be deleted. The information on where and when the photo was taken will be lost (Chicken fried bacon with cream gravy from Snook, Texas in 2006, Flikr account carabou, http://www.flickr.com/photos/carabou/270361246/ freely licensed with attribution), which is very significant to what the image is of. The new caption "the real thing" or something like that is silly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Levin article

I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I have made some edits to the changes you made earlier on the Mark Levin article. The edits are minor and I haven't made any substantive changes to the way that you reworded the section, but I wanted to bring them to your attention so you can review them and verify that you're okay with them. I think the disputed words in question were acceptable, but I don't want to make an already acrimonious situation worse by being pedantic. I'll probably do some further clean-up to the rest of the article but wanted to bring this to your attention first. BigTex71 (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your courteous message. I'll have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally it looks okay to me. I think some more substance over Levin's positions might be good to add to the article. I don't really know what his stands are other than beign opposed to Dems and (American) liberals.

I do have one remaining concern with the text as written. I haven't actually read or listened to Levin, so I have no idea how confrontational he is, but the way one sentence is written it seems to make a judgment that isn't very neutral. I would prefer to have it written in a way that is more encyclopedic and either attributes who is describing him as being confrontational or just leaves that opinion out. So from "David Frum, a conservative journalist and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, has also criticized Levin's confrontational approach as an example of..." I prefer "David Frum, a conservative journalist and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, criticized Levin's approach as being confrontational and an example of..."

or "David Frum, a conservative journalist and former speechwriter for George W. Bush, criticized Levin as an example of..." It's not a major issue, but I think one of those tweaks would be an improvement because the way it's written we're saying he is confrontational. If that's an important point I'd rather make it elsewhere with good sourcing. I also took out the "has" as being passive voice which is what I was trying to do on the other bit with Pelosi, but I see that I didn't do it properly. Anyway, I suppose we can carry out further discussion on the talk page, but I'm pretty okay with the way the content is treated now. Have you read any of his writings? I saw that his book was pretty successfull and I know he's partisan, but I haven't read what his positions and take are. I presume you're not a fan :) but I wonder if there is anything novel or interesting in his work or if he's just staking out the usual battle lines. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article in general could stand to be expanded, and the section I added would probably benefit from the perspective of those who have defended Levin, including Levin himself. I don't have the stomach to do it myself because (as you can tell) I'm not a fan, but I do think it would be fair, which is why I suggested that people who were opposed to my edits improve the section by adding context. As far as the statements above are concerned, I think they're fine, and I frankly regret getting so hung up over semantics earlier. I do think I was correct about the disputed words in question, and I have a tendency to be stubborn when I'm convinced I'm right, but if the information can be restated in a way that is more broadly acceptable to the community without censoring relevant information, then that's something I can support.

Regarding the Levin article, I'm probably going to take a few steps back and perhaps try coming back to the article later with a fresh perspective. I'm working on a few other articles right now and will probably seek out a few non-political ones to work on as well, to give myself an opportunity to build my editing experience a bit in a more peaceful setting.  :-) I haven't read much of Levin's writing and definitely don't listen to his show regularly, but what I've heard/read of him leads me to think that he's pretty much a louder, male version of Ann Coulter, both in terms of ideology and style.

Thanks for being patient with me as I learn the ropes here. BigTex71 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for rolling out the welcome mat

The links & information you posted on my talk page will be most helpful and are greatly appreciated. Side note: I got a chuckle out of the fact that one of the articles listed in the suggested tasks box was Fingering (sexual act), and was even more amused when I noticed that it was listed right after Quinceañera. I suppose that says more about my sense of humor than anything else.

Thanks again. BigTex71 (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed comments

Hi. While looking at the most recent edit history at Talk:Matt Sanchez it appears that while formatting the page you removed Bluemarines response to a post that he had struck out - you later unstruck the post. Was Bluemarines response removed in error, or in regard to some discussion (I haven't located it)? Although Bluemarines language is yet again non optimal, I think he isn't violating any guideline, policy, or restriction in the context of his post. Can you review this, please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi LVU. I removed it on purpose and explained why in my response. It was bold, but given the circumstances and the level of drama surrounding the article I thought it was the best approach to nip a discussion that wasn't going anywhere in the bud. The post was about the anon editor who posted, so it wasn't constructive or useful to article building. I thought about it and decided it was best to keep the discussion focused on article issues rather than editors, and tried to get that across to Bluemarine in my reponse and explanation. If someone objects they can revert me, but I think keeping the discussion narrowly focused on the article would be ideal. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Some wine?

From Morgan Creek Vineyards, perhaps? Drmies (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight topic banned

As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.

By motion of the Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification,

Remedy 9 in the Obama articles case is replaced by the following (timed to run from the date the case closed):

ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces.

Discussion of this motion should be directed here.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on what? What a joke. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarian

I was the one who sort of "removed" the content on the article and tried to add in a stub-ful of information. On IRC, certain people wanted to delete or redirect it (most of these people voted on the AFD, redirect) because of it's "OR", so I tried to add in some information that supposedly wasn't OR, to try and save the article. However, re-reading the article now shows that the content is not OR, but just needs a few references. Just wanted to tell you, I didn't mean to remove your content on the article, and I thank you for your efforts in trying to save the article. Warrior4321 17:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the note. I understand the concern about citations. Common information that isn't disputed doesn't actually have to be cited. So if anyone disputes the content they can add citaiton needed tags. There is a fanatacism about citations, but many articles that weren't created recently have no citations, and some of them are quite excellent. That being said, the vegetarian article certainly needs to be based on reliable sources and as it is expanded and developed it should be cited. I don't think there's anything there that can't be cited. It's ripe for expansion. Unfortunately, new articles are often targeted and squashed before they have a chance to develop. Hopefully this one can be saved. The diet and the belief system are distinct enough that they should be treated independently. Cheers. Thanks for the note. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

A dish made with trout that Durova sent you, could arose your appetite in autumn, but CoM, you really should not assume bad faith on and mischaracterize the admin who has helped you regardless of your animosity against him, and Durova just out of your frustration over the ArbCom case.--Caspian blue 22:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight has been sent a sample of the relevant material, although neither a request nor a response has been forthcoming. In good faith, it is possible this editor has not checked his/her inbox yet. This is formal notification. Perusal has, so far, demonstrated to every person who has seen it that the circumstances are entirely different from what have (thus far) been CoM's very vocal conjectures. Yes, I do expect appropriate retractions during followup. Durova³⁰⁶ 23:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the connection is to the ANI report. But I will say that it's laudable (and slightly insane) that many editors choose to disclose their true identity. Given the number of crazies on here, I'd rather be anonymous. I tried to modify my comments a bit, but couldn't come up with a good modification. It's tricky because they've already been responded to so I couldn't figure out a good way to go about it wihtout making it seem like I said something horrible. Really, I don't think there's anything there that's very objectionable, but I am sorry that it irked you. That wasn't my intention. I remain concerned about the use of IRC and e-mail to make decisions that don't involve the editors involved and that don't give them a chance to defend themselves. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That was the straw on the camel's back which precipitated my resignation from mentorships. The only one which remains is Bluemarine, which I haven't been able to hand off yet. The editor who created it is someone I never encountered on-wiki. He had been sitebanned for over a year before I started mentoring ScienceApologist, but he held a grudge so long that when I helped ScienceApologist with the optics drive that got created in retaliation. And I never use IRC. Durova³⁰⁶ 00:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the abuse you've taken as a mentor first hand and it is very unfair and unfortunate. This community often freaks out over mild incivilities, but seems to ignore patterns of behavior that are far more damaging like stalking, persistent baiting, hounding and harassment.

The ANI issue is kind of moot since the IP was blocked for using an open proxy. I have no idea if there was sufficient quack to connect it all up to the same person, but my concern is more general anyway. But again, I'm sorry that you felt I made a dig at your character. I'm pretty sarcastic and it was a pointed comment, but I was not intending to malign you. Thank you for your good work and for your efforts to stick up for troubled editors. I'm sorry that you've sometimes been harassed and critcized for it. I do think you take things too hard sometimes, but I haven't walked in your shoes, and so far I've been able to stay anonymous, so I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt on that issue. Have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's wearying. As you may be aware, I am one of only two Wikipedians who have gone public about having opened formal FBI cases in response to Wikipedia-related harassment. Even that so-called 'secret mailing list' was something I had initially joined in order to try to address a problem where an elderly relative was being harassed as a result of my Wikipedia volunteer work. Yes, some of them go after your family. I hope you never encounter such things firsthand. Best wishes, Durova³⁰⁶ 00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. That's awful. I hope that abuse has stopped. I'm sorry you endured it. You are opinionated, but you an enormous amount of good work and there's no excuse or reason that anyone should go after you in that way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's gotten easier, mostly. Bit of a sore point. Naturally, it isn't the sort of thing one wants to detail very much onsite. There's a risk of getting retargeted. And well-meaning people occasionally make poor judgment calls. When news of the FBI case came out (and the perp was at large within driving distance of my home), one Wikipedian went over to user talk to deliver a lecture. He supposed I wouldn't defend myself in a pinch and thought I needed a dressing-down because of that. Not only was the assumption unfounded, I'm actually a war veteran who served overseas, have earned the military history project's highest service award, and chose a username after a historic military officer. Have always wondered whether that assumption would have followed if I had been male... ;) Best wishes, Durova³⁰⁶ 02:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

The Nazi images are also very concerning. You would better take out them from your page.--Caspian blue 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to have any part in standing by silently while history repeats itself. No thank you. The only thing I agree with you on regarding this matter Caspian blue is that the comparison with the Nazis is eerie. I've sectioned this part of the discussion becuase I don't want it to be unduly associated with the one above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Now we wait for them to start rounding up the jewish, gypsy, and crippled wikipedians to be hauled off in the happy vans. Then we'll start burning the website for its "dangerous ideas" and finally, Jimbo Wales will grow a moustache. Give me a fucking break COM, this has got to be the biggest load of crap I've ever seen in my life. You got topic banned, woohoo, that pales in comparison to the six million dead in the holocaust and 15 million+ dead in WWWII. Perhaps returning to reality would be in order? Soxwon (talk) 00:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

They didn't start rounding up the "undesirables" right away. First they spread their propaganda and consolidated power. An encyclopedia that contains false, misleading and innacurate information and that is governed by bullies and liars is a real danger. I haven't suggested it's in any way equivalent to slaughtering people. But it's very much like book burning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Any comparison of people on an encyclopedia website to the group that organised the most abhorrent genocide in human history is not only fatuous, it is unspeakably disrespectful to the memories of those who died in the camps, those who survived, and those who love(d) them. I suggest you remove this from your page, or I will have to seek wider community comment on this; it's disgusting to make that comparison. → ROUX ₪ 01:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparing those who promote censorship and engage in propoganada pushing by harassment, intimidation and thuggery is legitimate. I find it very offensive and I share your outrage. We should never forget history or the damage and dangers inherent in ignorance and hate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Roux's outrage is clearly directed at you, as you must have noticed. At some point, when multiple people tell you the same thing, including people who have defended you before as Caspian Blue has, it might behoove you to acknowledge that they may, possibly, have a legitimate point. You might also think about the simple fact that people tend to notice visual cues right away and do not always take the time to read text that accompanies an image, particularly a shocking one (I blame this laziness on video games!). Folks who stop by your talk page will promptly be treated to a photo of Adolf Hitler and other Nazis acting like Nazis. In our world of short attention spans, perhaps that's not the best thing to feature prominently on your talk page. The "subtlety," such as it is, of your "Wikipedia is sort of like early Nazi Germany" critique might be lost on some folks. Perhaps you can simply revert to an earlier, slightly less strident version of your talk page—ideally one which does not serve as an unintentional paean to Godwin's Law. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

None of these editors have suffered the incessant harassment and stalking that I've endured. No good faith contributor, let alone one with my outstanding record of content building on a wide range of subjects, should suffer a constant barrage of abuse. They should be outraged. You may support these thugs because you agree with their content position, but there's no excuse for this kind of hounding and censorship. You've made your views clear and I think your behavior has been disgraceful, hateful and intolerant. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I literally have no idea what you are talking about (which is probably for the best), but I thank you for your kind words at the end there. I'll now leave you to the privacy of your calm and understated talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I find your comparison of a Wikipedia topic ban to the Holocaust vile. This is not because I disagree with your "content position", but because I'm a human being. When I first encountered you, it was after a bad block made against you. I had great sympathy for you then. None remains. And I'm considering removing the vile images (and ludicrous comparisons) at the top of this page. The very thought that such comparisons exist anywhere on this project disgusts me to the core. UnitAnode 04:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been subjected to a constant campaign of harassment and intimidation. You saw one bad block, but you have no empathy because you haven't suffered or witnessed the kind of continuous abuse continuous that's taken place before and after that one event. And yes, I take censorship and propaganda pushing very seriously exactly because it is dangerous and destructive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and giving skewed and biased information is a serious problem. I don't want history to repeat itself and I'm not going to remain silent when this kind of behavior goes on. I'm certainly not the only one who's been attacked in this way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because I haven't commented on every problem you've had, doesn't mean I haven't seen them unfold. Nothing you've "gone through" is 1/1,000,000,000,000 of what happened during the Holocaust. This is my last post to you, ever. I have no use for a person who insists on comparing their wikitrials and wikitribulations to the greatest human tragedy I know of. In my view, the initial posting of the comparison could possibly be explained by a fit of pique. This continued defense of such a comparison is so vile, I don't have the right words to explain just how disgusted I am. UnitAnode 04:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't compared my trials and tribulations to the concentration camps. This is a totally bogus straw man argument. I have compared the treatment dished out by the brown shirted thugs who intimidated, censored, and propagandized in order to create an atmosphere of hate and intolerance to those who engage in similar behaviors here. If you want to cover your eyes and ears and look the other way, that's your decision. When I see or experience things that aren't right I speak up about them. Perhaps that's a result of my family background. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

CoM, you've been really helpful reaching compromises in some of the global warming related articles. But you need to back off the Nazi stuff. I wouldn't want to lose your contributions and fear that is where things could be headed if you continue along this path. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it shocking that the entire lesson of the holocaust, to never forget, to never allow that kind of abuse, censorship, intimidation and intolerance to exist, is so often forgotten. If my Wikicareer ends speaking out about the harassment and intimidation I've experienced and witnessed then so be it. I've tried to ignore it and go about my business long enough. The holocaust is not some memorial that we should never mention and can't touch, it's a scar that should remind us always that kowtowing to thuggery, ignorance, and intolerance is never acceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, there is genocide going on right now against the Tibetan people and their culture, minority groups in Burma, there's a holocaust in North Korea where people are starving and kept as political prisoners, and there's genocide and slavery in parts of Africa. So standing up for free speech and unbiased reliable information is absolutely critical to educating people about the world they live in so they can make informed decisions, put a stop to the horrors going on now, and so we never repeat the insidious mass murders of the past. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads Up

Tarc has left a comment for you at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I just thought I should let you know. And, just so you know, I am not supporting any argument by any party in this matter, but I have been watching this event very closely and will continue to be watching. I really do hope that things can mould back into place for you.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've brought my concerns about the conduct of certain editors to the attention of the appropriate parties. I will always do my best to speak up for those who are harassed, stalked and intimidated. Our core policies and the integrity of Wikipedia are real concerns given this site's influence and the pattern of abusive behavior I've witnessed. The majority generally rules on Wikipedia, and we will have to decide whether abusive tactics are allowed and whether we allow mob rule, abusive harassment and intimidation against those who don't hold majority viewpoints. I've made my opinion clear and will continue to do so for as long as I am able. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Even more unsolicited advice

Hey CoM!

Great to see you in the thick of it, fighting for what you believe is right. At one time I was advocating passionately that the Atropa belladonna article should contain no mention of homeopathy. You are arguing that the Barack Obama article should contain mention of birther conspiracy theories.

One thing I can say is this: if phrased the right way there certainly can be room on the Obama page to include birther conspiracy theories. In particular, the idea of Barack Obama as a cultural phenomenon [57] is one which has been studied extensively in reliable sources including political journals and social commentary. The Birthers obviously represent the views of a vocal and crazed extremist minority in the United States that is scared shitless about "the other" coming in and ruling over them, but there are also historically oppressed people who view Barack Obama as a culmination of years of struggle. These are certainly different sides of the same coin (the United State's relationship with its current president) and while in 1950s and 60s the ideas of segregationist-USA weren't considered crazed and extremist, they simply are today. The sad fact of racial relations and political demagoguery in this country means that the same fights get played out again and again -- just on different battle fields. The battlefields of the intolerant racists are now confined to talk radio, fox news, and self-published webpages, and, as such, are marginalized blather. All we can say is that Barack Obama as a cultural phenomenon has been a galvanizing and motivating force within the African American community as well as the core Democratic Party base, but also within the isolationist, nativist, and racist communities.

But realize that it may take months if not years for the full import of this to work itself out. Why we try and insist on writing encyclopedia articles about current events, I don't know. It is impossible to get perspective on what's going on while it's going on. Sometimes I look at news stories from a year ago and then find the Wikipedia articles abandoned and looking like a stale crime scene. Cleaning up those articles can be a real fun thing to do and won't get you in any trouble. My suggestion is let it sit for a bit. The article will still be here in six months, a year, two years, a decade. After a bit of perspective and after people's passions have cooled, it may be a lot easier to see the forest for the trees, as it were.

Now if only I could figure out what to do about atropa belladonna.

Take care, you're a real pal,

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Sci. Thanks for the note. It's good to have you back!

I'm not involved in editing or advocating on the conspiracy theories you've mentioned. I'm not sure where you got that impression (although I see now it was raised on JW's talk page). There has also been a long term smear campaign against me to make me out to be some sort of radical.

I haven't made a single edit to that article or a single edit related to that issue. I'm truly a moderate and I think a reasonable balance of mainstream opinions is the way to go, with fringier content given appropriate weight and context as fringier stuff.

I'm not allowed to discuss that article. Such is the extent of the censoship campaign against me. Go figure. There is no crazy content I've ever tried to add to any article. It's just that I don't tolerate bullies and censors, and as a result the worst of the POV pushers are after me. I understand it may be hard for outsiders to understand or to believe that I'm not making it all up or paranoid, and that's okay. But there's nothing okay about harassment intimidation and stalking. Cheers buddy. Thanks again for your note. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're just not allowed to discuss it at the article pages. You can discuss it here, of course. I'm just trying to show a light at the end of the tunnel, which, believe me, is difficult to see. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are correct about what I can and cannot discuss. You're welcome to ask Arbcom for a clarification. My experiences with those individuals shows that they have little competence, fairness or judgment and generally can't be bothered to investigate issues properly. I hope other editors have better experiences than I have, it may well be because I am not devoted to diff digging and I don't find it's a constructive use of my time here. I'm working on getting a photo of a person with tape over mouth so I can depict my experience editing here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Footwear

Hi, I have been in Natucket for about a week, without secure email/Internet access, so I am using my less secure Sock account. I'll be back next week at work. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm back. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Report at WP:AE

You are the subject of a report at WP:AE, you may wish to comment. [58]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Left Censored Image text

Do you mean "hateful". Didn't just want to change your User Page! leaky_caldron (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Yes indeed.

It's been made clear to me that those images and the related captions are offensive to some, so I am seeking a better analogy and illustration. I find those atrocities distasteful also, which is why I have strong convictions about the offensiveness of gangs, militias, and paramilitary groups engaging in censorship, bullying and intimidation. I feel very strongly that we shouldn't allow those types of behaviors and actions here as they are very damaging to fundamental and core values of building and maintaining a free, fair, and collaborative encyclopedia. It's very important that we speak up and stop them whenever and wherever they occur.

Feel free to copy-edit anything of mine here or elsewhere. I am a big believer in collegial collaboration as being a core value and a necessity for a productive wiki. The idea that we should leave one another's mistakes in place so as not to cause offense strikes me as being particularly ridiculous. It seems strange that many consider the recording of an edit fixing something in a page history as more embarassing than having one's stupidity and ignorance on display for all to see. :)

Maybe that's a little harsh, but you get the idea. I don't think every minor typo needs to be corrected, but fixing obvious grammar errors and assisting those of us with poor copy-editing skills can aid in communication and deter the repetition of common mistakes. I believe corrections of that sort should be rewarded rather than discouraged, but as on many issues, it appears I am in the minority. Having to notify one another when a copy-edit is needed and having to ask permission to fix something in good faith doesn't make much sense to me.

Thanks for stopping by and for the note. Enjoy your editing and have a great week. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey...de-lurking to chime in re: minor edits...for me, when someone makes a corrective edit to someone's comments or talk page it reminds me of someone's mother coming in and tidying up her adult son's room without permission: well-intended but a little bit irritating. Articles are common space, so keeping things tidy can and should be done by everyone without asking for permission, but talk pages and talk-page comments are a little bit more personal and feel less "common" or "public" to me. But I recognise that it's completely a personal opinion, and that objectively there's nothing to tell me that I "own" a talk page or a comment I've made.

Also, glad to see you're backing off on the Nazi stuff...I'm too new to wikipedia to comment on what your experiences have been, but the unfortunate effect of mentioning Nazis is that it attracts a certain amount of (justified and un-justified) shrillness. It's one of those topics that causes some people to turn off their brains (or at least the rational part of it) and impedes discussion and the ability to work together as a community. I'm pretty sure that your intention is to highlight an area of the project that needs improvement and may be on a very dangerous path, and not to incite a rabid, irrationally hateful mob into attacking you.Quietmarc (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

All points well taken. Thank you very much for your comments.

I had actually looked for an image of a person with tape over their mouth and checked the censorship article for appropriate images, but didn't find any.

There are other historical analogies I could have used and current examples of censorship in China and North Korea (for example), but the combination of intimidation, bullying, and stalking that I was trying to get across seemed most consistent with the storm troopers of the Nazi era. I wanted an offensive analogy to get across very clearly how wrong, digusting and inappropriate that type of behavior is, but I understand the criticisms. Many people feel that the comparison is too much of a stretch and it may have seemed an absurd diminishment of the horrors that occured at that time and an exageration of what I and others have experienced here, but there is value in remembering those horrors and making sure we hold ourselves to high standards of integrity and that we stand up for those in weak and vulnerable positions.

I think history has the power to teach us and to be learned from so we don't repeat the mistakes we've made in the past. As I spend quite a bit of time here this is one area where I have some influence and control, and I don't like to see abusive behaviors or anyone being ganged up on and harassed.

As far as copy-editing comments, many editors (including some I hold in high regard) share your viewpoint. Mistakes in text sometimes cause me to stumble, and I think it would be better to jsut fix them so other don't have the same trouble and so mistakes aren't multiplied through repitition and imitation, but I hear what you're saying and I know it's a VERY sore spot with some editors (I found that out the hard way). So I try avoid it except among collegial friends and as something of an inside joke over "refactoring", which is actually allowed per policy but is clearly a sort of third rail on Wikipedia unless you're a bigshot. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Userfied articles you asked for

• User:ChildofMidnight/Empire Square Tower
• User:ChildofMidnight/Schwa (restaurant)

You didn't ask me to userfy Kosvinsky but i can do that too if you like. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Spartaz. Much appreciated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dirac and the h-bar

$\Delta x\,\Delta p\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}$

To your comment, sometimes it is interesting to recover articles on topics I know absolutely nothing about, like Matrioshka brain, Beverage Digest or Khayal Muhammad. Take a break from the wars and try it. But articles like Introduction to Dirac's constant fill me with uncertainty. The well-intentioned attempt to clarify the subject you saw did not really help me all that much. Sometimes I think I get it, but I can never remember when I wake up. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A "hypothetical megastructure"? That seems defacto notable to me, at least as much as the 46th finisher in badmittion at the 1994 Olympics. Speaking of which, someone is trying to delete the Jedi Temple article and Jedi Academy (which I believe is where User:GTBacchus went to school). The temple is reported to be 1 km high, so it seems very impressive to me as well as being something of an engineering marvel! But I suppose buildings are getting taller all the time, and one person's notable megachurch is another person's listcruft. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life

1km high is nothing. The Matrioshka brain computer will be about 1,600,000,000 km across. The answer, of course, is 42 so I'm not quite sure why they are planning to build it. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I was listening to Quirks & Quarks this weekend and they were talking about building a space elevator 20 km high, to be used as a platform for launching rockets (resulting in a 30% reduction in lift off cost). Also it would function as a cheaper "space tourism" destination.--kelapstick (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Space tourism is really taking off. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

With an informative program like Quirks & Quarks it's hard to believe the Canadian space program isn't further along. I suppose it beats sending up outdated death traps designed to deliver payloads by a delivery system that is totally impractical, inefficient, and no longer used much for anything worthwhile. Leave it to us to come up with an SUV model for space travel and exploration. There are plenty of cup holders for the Tang. God bless America! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Summit candy bar

Yo, Child! Nice work finding those cites. I fixed them up by reformatting into wiki book cite format. I also think a merge into Mars might be better than having a stub standalone for this discontinued product. Shall I add a merge tag? Geoff ^{T C} 15:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea (and my instinct was to agree), but looking at the Mars article I actually don't think it will work. I found another article on the bar and while news archives from that time period are a bit hard to come by, I think there's enough to leave it a stub. I know it's not a great article, but it documents a bar produced by one of the world's largest candy companies and based on the cites in the article and the other ones on google news that I can't view without paying, I think it's notable enough to live and let live. I think it's a significant and notable subject in the history of candy and candy bars and Mars product introductions and development, like the Edsel and K Car. Remarkable for being unremarkable. :) If there were an article on Mars candies or their bars that would certainly work. But there's no such article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll leave it be. Geoff ^{T C} 17:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For some reason your gracious magnanimity reminds me of the tradition where our presidents give a break to a turkey at Thanksgiving. :) Candy lovers everywhere are rejoicing! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

For the thanks you gave me 2 days ago. Yeah, stumbled into categorizing uncategorized articles(which is a category, of sorts. Ah, irony is ironical sometimes! ;) ) by accident and now it's my pleasure to edit such. So, I'm at your service, just in case you have other articles you can't put in a category. :) --Alvin Seville (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the comment. And, don't worry. You haven't stressed me at all. It was just the fact that a good editor like you, who contributes massively to the project, has been abused so much on here. I don't know how you manage and for the sake of you and Wikipedia, I was saddened...--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

..and as far as Jafeluv's RfA, I'll wait to see how they respond to my question. I'm sure I'll support though.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

good changes at WP:CIVILITY

Thanks. I feel embarrassed I missed those fluffy bits! Tony (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm an EXPERT on civility. :) Thanks for your kind note. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, an outside set of eyes looking at something fresh is very useful. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia works so well. It can be very hard to copy-edit and do an effective rewrite of one's own material. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps google "strategic distance" ... it will bounce back to something interesting on our own WP. I'm now living proof of it! Tony (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete as neologism. :) Cool. I checked it out a bit and will have more of a poke around when I get a chance. Are you the one that was working on admin recall button? What happened? I guess it's like developing SDI, hitting a missile with a bullet is no easy feat. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Game pie

On September 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Game pie, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 05:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Good job Aymatth2. You helped too. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Architecture photos

Interesting- the article is not quite what I expected it to be, and is still rather short. It doesn't really focus on anything in particular, but I think an image of Coruscant in the lead would probably be a good thing. It could probably be replaced by something else as the article develops (or perhaps moved to section is Coruscant is discussed in more detail later) but, for now, I think it would be a positive addition if given an informative caption. With articles like this, it is important to find a conservative balance between giving key examples to illustrate the important issues in the text, and throwing in images of everything mentioned. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The fair use rationale goes in the summary section- I recommend using this template to ensure you include all the necessary information. Focus on the "purpose" section- explain exactly what it is illustrating and why that needs to be illustrated. Also explain why the image cannot be replaced by words alone. As for your album cover question, as a rule of thumb, album covers should only be used in the article on the album. However, if the cover itself is significant and worthy of discussion, it can be included elsewhere. A solid example of this would be the one here (NSFW). As such, as the architecture is significant and worthy of discussion, there is potentially a valid use elsewhere. In fact, the architecture article is probably a better use than the main article, as the main article does not discuss the buildings/skyline in any meaningful way, and lacks a rationale. J Milburn (talk) 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jeeesh Milburn. You and your racy links. There goes my innocence! Thanks very much for the information. I'll see what I can work out when I have some time. Very helpful. Thanks again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maria Mitchell Association

I did as you suggested, and created re-directs for the two major staff persons to the respective articles. I've also nominated this article for DYK. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you do me a huge favor, and download it? I am a newbie when it comes to such things. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed

Yes, very good. It's useful having you around as a check and balance, CoM, but sometimes you just have to call it as you see it :) Black Kite 23:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I got a laugh out of it anyway.

Leaving a follow on edit at least eliminated it from watchlists where it is no longer the last edit on that page.

I've been told a simple "thanks" or "thank you for your comment I will take it under advisement" works. But I don't believe it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Wish even to lend a cat's hand

That is a Korean proverb meaning that someone desperately needs more people's hand but could not find one. I'm not sure whether you're not interested in articles of a foreign city (yes South Korean one), but I'm nudging your in hope that you would help me. Gyeongju, one of popular tourist cities in South Korea and the capital of an ancient kingdom is one of a few FA of Korean Project, but has faced in danger of delisting, so I've been working on expanding the article for about 2 months. So the closing time is near close (I hope not though), but as reviewers have pointed out the prose of the article is not good in the current status, and my grammatical errors are not fixed since I'm the only one working on the article, especially Gyeongju#Cultural properties, Gyeongju#Economy and Gyeongju#Healthcare and utilities. I've been struggling to find copy-editors although two people copy-edited a portion. So could you consider my asking for the favor? Thanks. (this is duplicated on some of users, but well many copyeditors would be helpful to improve the article in my wishful thinking)--Caspian blue 23:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What's in it for me?  :) I may not get a chance to even have a look until tomorrow, so I hope there's no rush. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Something I've learned from mathematics

This comes up fairly often, in teaching or even just discussing mathematical ideas: Once someone doesn't see a fact as "obvious"... it's not obvious. We avoid words such as "clearly" when we're writing proofs conscientiously. It's about putting yourself in the other person's shoes, which is a good habit, even (especially?) in a setting such as AFD.

Cheers, -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That perspective makes a lot of sense coming from a Jedi master inhabiting Dagobah. As it's sunny and warm here in my world (except for the occasional marine layer), there is much greater visibility and it's possible to see things quite clearly without having to sense and feel my way through swamp and thick fog. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're doing. Do you really believe that making these arguments in AfD is going to work? If not, why do it? I mean, are you following in Badagnani's footsteps? Kidding aside, "Jedi master" bullshit aside (and frankly - you can shove that crap back up your ass), what's up? Do you think that disregarding the opinions and understandings of others is going to produce something good? Seriously? Can you be serious?

Are you really claiming that putting yourself in anothers' shoes and understanding where they're coming from is somehow for chumps? Really?

Do you know what your supposed "clarity" is worth, if you're unable to share it with others? It's worth precisely one bucket of warm shit. You didn't even try to convince anyone; you just said they're clearly wrong. That is an effective strategy 0 times out of 10. If you're not interested in being effective, then I guess those are real cool odds.

I note that you failed to save either Jedi building article. Why didn't you try something that would work? Do you find it more satisfying to lose than to win? I mean, I know there's a real kind of satisfaction in turning one's cause into a lost one - you get that nice, warm, martyrish, loser feeling (This is NOT a joke or sarcastic. Don Quixote felt really cool, most of the time) - but is that really what you're after? Would you really rather knock your head repeatedly against a wall than open the door and walk through? If so, I think you should stop editing here.

I think you're basically a good guy (or gal, I dunno), and I'd much rather see you work effectively than waste your time. It's up to you, though. If you enjoy wasting your time... then please stop bothering me with notes about AfDs where you aren't willing to walk the walk. Whenever you decide to get serious, I'm your friend. Until then... nah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm here to build an encyclopedia not to go round and round in discussion. I won't use any more Star Wars metaphors with you, I didn't realize you didn't care for them. I understand you disagree with me on those AfDs. It was abundantly clear that there was no way to convince you, so there was no point in wasting time engaging in frivolous argument for the sake of argument. I find your approach to AfDs just as useful and helpful as your dispute resolution techniques. I have yet to see them work or improve an article in any way. I worked on improving the articles under discussion and on finding sources, you worked on arguing. Your hostility is a bit sad since I've always tried to be friendly even though I don't care for your methods of encyclopedia building. Trying to push for endless discussion when there is no chance an opinion will change is disruptive and unhelpful. I prefer mediation to resolve differences, find common ground, and to work out compromises so editing work can move forward. Those articles were closed as merge, which isn't teh best outcome, but is okay with me. I'm not interested in discussing this further. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd said "I find your approach to AfDs just as useful and helpful as your dispute resolution techniques. I have yet to see them work or improve an article in any way." a long time ago. I'd rather know when someone disagrees with me than have them engage in some kind of charade of respect. I don't consider that to be remotely "friendly". Reciprocally, your strategies are precisely what I've seen lead to many an ArbCom case and many an indef block. If that's your poison, cool.

If you think I'm trying to push for endless discussion, then you don't understand a word I've ever said. I see we're done, so as you said, take care. I wish you good luck. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've let you know that I didn't agree with your methods in the past, but I've certainly tried to keep it light and to avoid harping on the disagreement. I can disagree with people and still have respect for them. My "poison" is focused on building an encyclopedia by adding content and improving articles. That's why I hold Badaghnani in such high regard. His commitement and contributions are awesome. Sometimes he's a bit prickly and difficult to work with, but once it's clear where he's coming from, it's really not hard to understand or to accomodate him, and he's extraordinarily generous and kind. Good luck to you as well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

remaining concerns at Solomon biography

Hi ChildofMidnight, I'd like to discuss the situation at the Solomon biography because I don't really see the underlying problem as anywhere near resolved. Supposing we finally get a fair lead line in that in some wording acknowledges Solomon's distinguished career working on environmental issues, what happens next? I already proposed a number of other issues I'd like to work on here and as you can see, Kim D. Petersen seems to be ready to oppose every little change that any known global warming skeptic might propose. Your comments in the talk suggest you read this and broadly agreed. So how would you suggest that we handle this situation? Alex Harvey (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposal for the lead notes his work on environmental issues and seems to be broadly supported. I think it gives a clear and concise descriptiona without using the word environmentalist which several editors have objected to on the grounds that they dispute it or think it is misleading. I would like to move forward with the compromise and some other non-controversial improvements and to take it from there. I think it's a fair lead line that acknowledges his work and accurately describes the most notable aspects of his career, whiel avoiding the semantic dispute. It is probably possible to note his being described as an environmentalist in some manner later in the article, but that is another step, and I think we should take it one step at a time.

I don't think total agreement on every issue is possible on the talk page at this point, but I think moving forward and seeing what improvements we can agree on making would be helpful at this point. It's protected until Sept. 10 now, which is very unproductive at this point, even disruptive. Once it's unprotected I certainly hope that people will refrain from edit warring or making changes that don't have consensus support. I'm optimistic on that front. Are you objecting specifically to the compromise wording? I reread the discussion page, and while I understand your arguments for the environmentalist terminology, you seem to be okay with the proposal.ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly object to the compromise wording although it still remains the fact that there is far more support for "environmentalist." Even Atmoz has supported it. My concern was that moving forwards that we would encounter the same obstructions for every minor change we propose. If it is your intention to assist on this article moving forwards, then I would be less worried however. Thanks!

By the way, did you see what happened at the same time at the Richard Lindzen page? It was protected by Raul as well, after only 2 edits in 2 days. He then accused me of being this scibaby. I've tried to talk to him and he's clearly not interested in responding. I think that's serious and that he should withdraw this accusation... Not sure how to handle that either. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

Thanks for saving Summit Candy Bar.

Associated Press has this article on Deep-fried butter in case you want to read it and/or start your own wikipedia article on it.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Grundle. Texas fair? Interesting. Thanks for the link. I think deep fried butter can be mentioned in the deep frying article. That's a little too racy for me, but the deep fried pecan pie sounds interesting. :) Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Aww, that's too bad. I had just compiled a nice list of references and was heading here to see if you might be interested. This is the work of Abel Gonzalez Jr., the genius behind Fried Coke, Texas Fried Cookie Dough, and the Fried Peanut Butter, Jelly and Banana Sandwich. Given the intense media interest (the Google News hits count was huge!) it's a shame that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this culinary miracle. It could rival chicken fried bacon for DYK hit count. - Dravecky (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Bacon!!!!!

Yummy bacon!!!!! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Bacon diarrhea...not so yummy... Drmies (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Close!

I saw the last couple of minutes of that game--very, very close. I thought he should have ran for it. Anyway, it was an exciting close, and that's all I've seen today: I even missed the field goal just now! But the gumbo is finished and soon I can sit down. Roll Tide! Drmies (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you amused by funny vandalism?

This one in my opinion is worth seeing.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 10:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange. How about this one [59]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An offer

Hi, CoM. I've just posted a thread at WT:AFD#"Having to" defend articles against deletion, but I'd also like to inform you specifically, because you helped clarify this issue in my mind. If there is ever an article that you think shouldn't be deleted, and you find it nominated at AFD, I don't want you to think that you need to take any time away from working on the article in order to argue in that venue.

In particular, here is my offer: If any article is deleted at AFD, when you think it can be improved to adequate standards, I will be more than happy to recover any deleted content to your user-space, where you can work on it at your leisure. It's virtually impossible to convince someone else to improve an article that they're not motivated to improve, so it strikes me that this may be more useful than making arguments in AFD.

Far from suggesting that you participate in endless discussion, which you seem to think is my "AFD strategy", I think you can freely ignore stupid AFD discussion, and not let it interfere with your article work. I would have you discuss less not more, in pointless deletion debates. It's a shame you somehow took my message to be the opposite of that. I guess I'm not a very clear communicator.

I actually agree with what you recently told me, that you've never seen my strategies improve an article. You weren't around when I was working on Abortion, or on Iraq War, for example. I haven't worked directly on content (except in trivial, gnomish ways) for a long time, partly due to time constraints, and partly due to lack of motivation. Knowing this, I consider myself to work entirely in the service of writers such as yourself. Therefore, if you ever need admin assistance, in this regard or in some other, I hope you won't hesitate to tug on my sleeve. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response. I wanted to think about the issues for a bit and to formulate an appropriate response. My feeling remains that editors who are willing to work on improving articles should be given as much assistance as possible in the AfD process and that nominators who treat AfDs in a way that doesn't seek to improve the encyclopedia or to find the best outcome, but to be vindicated and "win" is unfortunate.

Any time someone is willing to come to a subject, determine in good faith that it's worth fixing, and to try to do so they should be given the benefit of the doubt and as much assistance as possible. I have quite a bit of experience at AfD, and sometimes I make statements a certain way for a reason.

I know you edit in good faith and I know you always mean well. I do not mean to be condescending or demeaning, but I often find myself disagreeing with your approach. I liek to keep the focus on article content. I don't like a lot of discussion that isn't directly focused on how to improve content and I'm not big on process.

I like the focus on what needs to be done to improve the encyclopedia, I think that's the whole idea behind the Ignore All the Rules guideline. If there's disagreement then that has to be sorted out, but it should be done in good faith with a focus on how best to improve the encyclopedia. I didn't mean to attack or offend you. I often find that once positions are staked out there's not much that can be done. People have different approaches and viewpoints.

I'm almost always willing to compromise and try to work things out in an agreeable way, but the time spent in trying to get rid of things that are useful and interesting when they can be merged or are fairly notable doesn't seem useful to me. There's plenty of room, so if things are reliably sourced, it's a matter of how best to include content.

Sourcing is sometimes difficult to come by, and much of it is available only for a short time. So we do the best we can. I appreciate your offer about articles and my userspace and I will certainly come to you if I need something moved there. I have a lot of projects and have to help Caspian blue, but there's only so much I can do. :)

I am all for deleting pages that aren't useful to encyclopedia building like wp:dick and all sorts of other essays and guideline pages that don't serve any useful purpose and aren't helpful to the collaborative enterprise of encyclopedia building. Many/ most of these pages don't do much but give wonky editors lots of acronyms to clutter discussions with instead of focusing on the specifics of the issue at hand. I'm not sure this clears anything up, but maybe it will give you some insight into where I'm coming from. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just leaving my 'flattering' comments here. 'insert appreciation text here' :) Have a nice day! --eric v. dilettante (mailbox) 05:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your flattering needs work. A Nobody on the other hand does an excellent job! I didn't do any work on labor day. So it was a big success. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop the gross WP:BLP violation

If you keep inventing words unsupported by the source, and clearly derogatory, in Barney Frank you have a very short path to a long-term block. Don't do this! Cut out the crap that you know perfectly well is complete bad faith. LotLE×talk 22:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Please also understand that the WP:BLP policy applies to the entire article, not just those sentences that refer to Barney Frank directly. Also, your argument that it is 'well sourced' does not trump BLP policies. MichaelLNorth (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I added (in addition to other bits) that: "Frank's father was involved with the Mafia, according to Frank.[9]" The source says: "According to Frank, his father was involved with the Mafia. “Funzi Tieri, a big-time gangster with the Genovese family, came to my brother David’s bar mitzvah, when I was twenty-three,” he said. Sam Frank died at the age of fifty-three, while Barney was an undergraduate at Harvard, and Barney took a year off to help resolve the family’s tangled financial affairs. “The Mafia guys were very helpful to me at the time,” he said."

So you guys should cut out the bullshit and false accusations because that's a blockable offense. I don't know if you mean well and are just confused or can't be bothered to check the source, or you're trying to censor appropriate content and push a point of view, but there's nothing wrong with that content. Feel free to apologize. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not the verifiability that's the BLP violation, it's the placement of the quote and the fact that you're giving weight to it. It's placed in a section talking about a legal controversy, and then you say "oh by the way, his dad was connected to the Mafia". You are asking the reader to fill in the blanks while pushing them toward the idea that Frank is a criminal and this is the WP:BLP violation, regardless of how well sourced the fact is. Also feel free to file a complaint about my "blockable offense". I would very much enjoy that. MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in this dispute will tell you ChildofMidnight that if you continue you will be blocked for edit warring over BLP. You can seek consensus for your change on the talk page. Chillum 03:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, I'm glad you're here so you can put a stop to these false attacks on me. There is no BLP violation. It is not in a legal section. It is in the early life section where his family background is discussed and it's perfectly appropriate. I've been accused of making a "gross" BLP violation and vandalism. These outrageous and totally false attacks should be stopped immediately and I'm sure you'll see to it that if either is repeated again the offenders will be blocked. Much appreciated. If there's something objectionable about Frank's family background and Frank's statements about it, I would be very interested in what it is and happy to discuss it, but these false attacks are over the top. I was courteous enough to add a quote of from the source to the ref so there can be no mistake about what the source says. Jeffrey Toobin is quote liberal, by the way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about edit warring. You tried to put something in and got reverted, now take it to the talk page and look for consensus. Repeatedly re-adding it is edit warring. Consensus can decide if it is a BLP violation, it does not seem to be a clear cut case. Chillum 03:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I see a discussion has already started on the talk page. Thank you. Chillum 03:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How would noting that Frank said his father was involved with the mafia be a BLP violation? His father is dead. The L stands for living. And you shouldn't be ignoring false accusations like vandalism. That's outrageous and it is damaging to the encyclopedia when good faith editors adding well sourced content are attacked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The living person is Frank. The statement is in an article about Frank, not his father, and the potential for connection by innuendo is real. My view (as expressed at the talk page) is that the fact is appropriate for the article, but it's an opinion that reasonable people could disagree on. I also think (again, as stated at the talk page) that sensitivity needs to be used to make sure that there is no unintended implication. "Stating a simple fact" isn't necessary neutral. BRD applies here. There are reasoned opinions on both sides and consensus (even if it differs from your view or mine) should be observed. ^Bongo_matic 03:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're accusing Frank of innuendo against himself? He makes numerous statements about the mafia tie and about how they were helpful to him after his father died. But noting that is a BLP violation? If someone wants to reword it go for it. It is what it is. I don't see what the big deal is. There are all kinds of statements from Frank, and this one is from a New Yorker interview by Jeffrey Toobin, a liberal legal scholar. If they want to keep it out because they don't like it, that wouldn't be the first time that's happened, but to accuse me of vandalism or "gross" blp violation for including note of Frank's comments on his family background in the section on his family and upbringing is preposterous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm accusing him of nothing of the sort. I said, there is a potential for connection by innuendo, not that that potential is always realized, and that it is reasonable for editors to be concerned about wording, placement, and prominence in order to avoid it. Frank may have made "all kinds of statements" about this, but he doesn't introduce himself "Hi, I'm Barney Frank, son of a mafia-connected truck-stop owner". Don't be tendentious. ^Bongo_matic 04:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to "false accusations like vandalism", rise above them. Period. ^Bongo_matic 03:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful. I think you are already breaking WP:3RR 1,2,3. Also, please note that you (ChildOfMidnight) have accused others of vandalism falsely in edit summaries. MichaelLNorth (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The first edit was not the same content. And it was reverted with the false statement that the source didn't support the statement (which of course it did). And another time it was reverted as vandalism, which is complete nonsense. But I will leave it be. You or Lulu should certainly apologize and fix your mistake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want to argue semantics? It's content having identical meaning, and one sentence earlier than your subsequent edits. 3RR is a "bright line", across which is almost certainly edit warring. Regardless of whether you think it's justified, it's "complete nonsense" or it is deemed by you to be vandalism, repeatedly trying to slam through a particular edit 3 times in 24 hours is edit warring. I have nothing to apologize for, as it is you who is violating wikipedia policies. Even if the consensus is that this is not a BLP violation, my wanting to discuss it, especially on an article as frequently vandalized and POV-pushed as Frank's, is far from unreasonable. God bless. MichaelLNorth (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to discuss you could easily have brought it up on the talk page. What you and Lulu did was come to my talk page and make a series of demonstrably false statements and smears. That's not constructive to the encyclopedia. Take a good long look in the mirror, and think about what kind of person you want to be in life. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the edit-warring or close-to-edit-warring, it is unarguable that since the material was well-sourced and obviously not vandalism, BRD points out that it is helpful for the first reverting editor to initiate discussion on the talk page, which this one failed to do. ^Bongo_matic 04:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Take a good long look in the mirror, and think about what kind of person you want to be in life." Wow. I don't understand how you expect to be taken seriously when you say something like that, in the context of a wikipedia revert. Chill on the melodramatic nonsense, and join our collaborative editing effort. MichaelLNorth (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Mr. North, I do believe that returning to the article talk page to collaborate would be the best course of action at this point in time. Your points have been noted, and I don't believe there is any further reason to belabor your views on an editors talk page. Thank you for your consideration. — Ched :  ?  07:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oudin

Has nice shoes. And the Miami v. Fla. State game was quite good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey Child. As you created the article Burger Heaven I'm guessing you live in or near New York City. Am I correct? Because according to Paper shredder (there should be a red link in the article's text) there is a place called "Horseshoe". Is this an actual place or not? There doesn't appear to be an article about this place and all Google seemed to give me were matches about a bar in the area. Thanks.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard of a place called Horseshoe, but I haven't been back in NYC in a while. :) If someone could try out Golden Krust for me, I would appreciate it. :) Yah mon.

(post ec) after you clarified your comment I looked into it some more. There does appear to be a person by that name and an area known as Horseshoe [60]. But I can't find anything connecting him tot he paper shredder. And one source, that can't be viewed, seems to suggest the first one "Discover‎ - Page 67 Education "The world's first shredder, built in the early 1930s, was modelled after a

Bavarian... a German printer and manufacturer who was also an amateur inventor,... but this doesn't really confirm much. I think I would remove that bit and post it to the talk page for sourcing, investigation and discussion. My spidey sense feels that it's sort of bogus. I wonder how long it was in the article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look through the revision history and it has been there for years. But it still isn't sourced. I think I'll start a discussion about it on the talk page.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This source discusses the Low fellow [61]. What does his article say about him? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. According to page 90 Horseshoe is a lake!--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 05:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I've found it. Horseshoe is here. Thanks for looking that up for me. ;)--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 05:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that source say he is second only to Edison in patents? Where is the Abbot Augustus Low article? Bongo, stop fucking around and get to work! (He's probably waiting for the New York Times obituary, but the man has been dead for some time...) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

See also Horseshoe Tavern in Toronto, a regular stop for Stompin' Tom Connors. --kelapstick (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WQA - Barney Frank

Hello, ChildofMidnight. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding uncivil editing behavior. The discussion is about the topic Barney Frank. Thank you. MichaelLNorth (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you help . . .

. . . with this important topic? ^Bongo_matic 04:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

redirect to User:Drmies. kelapstick (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting because I was just going to point out that you are an expert. I added a popular culture section (unreferenced) so the article looks fine now. I think Doc shows up to work, just for a very very limited time. Office hours: Thursdays 3:15 to 3:45 p.m. But he will be away the next two Thursdays... grilling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to include me in the "see also" section. kelapstick (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This biography may be up your alley, too. ^Bongo_matic 08:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Abbot Augustus Low

Excellent. ^Bongo_matic 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I hope you are well and staying out of trouble! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You made the article just this morning CoM? Very nice.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I really do have to applaud you for making this. I just made a few tweaks to the categories section by changing "Inventors" to "American Inventors" and I added the article to "1912 deaths". I'll say it again, very nice!--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Those were good edits Sky, thanks. If you want to start something I have some possible subjects on my user page and I'll keep an eye out for something interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)