User talk:ChildofMidnight

WIKIPEDIA IS CENSORED BY POV PUSHING VANDALS I will not now or ever remain silent in the face of attacks on Wikipedia's integrity, including the censorship of minority perspectives in violation of our core neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) policy, and the attempted intimidation and harassment of editors holding minority viewpoints. Some things are worth fighting for, and I will never kowtow to ignorance and bias or the thugs that advance them as a righteous cause.

Like Germany under Hitler and Hermann Goering, seen here at Nuremberg in 1928 (before their rise to power), Wikipedia is patrolled by "brownshirted" stormtroopers in 2009 censoring those they disagree with from speaking

The alliance of work and people as displayed in a 1934 Nazi exhibition, an environment not unlike that on Wikipedia where content contributors who don't toe the line are subject to grotesque abuse

"I would find it impossible to just sit back and watch the blatant injustice without doing something about it. I'd have reversed that block immediately and blocked the blocking admin for 24 hours, until he'd sobered up." -common sense (uncommon on Wikipedia)

Delete all content that I think is boring or that can be obtained from other sources. But keep both the articles that remain. — One of Wikipedia's Wise Men

• Please leave your flattering comments and appreciation for my good work at the bottom of the page.
• Read about the Kelapstick Bacon Challenge 2009 or get an early start on the 2010 Bacon Challenge coming up in December, 2009 as a giant Christmas present to all of Wikipedia that will be unwrapped March 1, 2010 for National Pig Day!
• For meta-discussion of this talk page please see its talk page at User talk:ChildofMidnight/talk, and for meta-discussion of the meta-discussion see that page's talk page at User talk:ChildofMidnight/talk/talk

For later

• Tomas Gabzdil Libertiny ref name="" Rosecrans Baldwin April 23, 2009

The Digital Ramble | Furniture Design New York Times blog /ref

• AE statement

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)

Bacon

[1]. 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)

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 [2] and/ or[3]. Canary melon [4]. Pancit [5] We already have photos of poori, but none as good or as encyclopedic (showing accompaniments) as this one [6]. Lechon kiwali by CeciliaMQ (although I see there is already a good photo). [7]. Bacon wrapped breadsticks [8]. And this photo for West 8 (one of my fav articles) is also good. :) Piel de Sapo [9]. Koulourakia [10]. Kofte kebab [[11]]. And there is a photo already for orecchiette, but this a lovely shot of a dish using it [12]. 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)

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 [13], 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 [14] as an external link to the hummus article, but other editors weren't receptive. This is sort of funny and painful [15], 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)

Puri (food)

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

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)

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)

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)