Jump to content

User talk:ChildofMidnight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) at 04:49, 12 February 2010 (/tweak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Only a couple weeks left in the Bacon Challenge 2010 Get it while it's hot!!!



The prophetic view of a heavenly-anointed master of rhetorical interaction and richochetotry (aka Proofreader77)
Rhetorical verse in Shakespearean sonnet form — noting that when someone knows enough about rhetoric to know where the knobs are, he or she can attempt to turn it down, but not before. {serious smile}


Midnight Comes


{CoM.001.01} ____ WHEN GANGS OF BULLIES gather, Midnight comes
{CoM.001.02} ____ destabilizing bullshit with her own.
{CoM.001.03} ____ The truth is wasted on the nasty bums
{CoM.001.04} ____ who fill up "ad hoc firing squads" well known ...

{CoM.001.05} ____ ... at ANI — which gives the vile a role
{CoM.001.06} ____ with T-shirts marked "community" to wear.
{CoM.001.07} ____ Decision on the facts is not the goal.
{CoM.001.08} ____ Humiliation is. No, not "what's fair."

{CoM.001.09} ____ Some vague aspersion cast is made to stick
{CoM.001.10} ____ by snowball bullshit that's then packed on top.
{CoM.001.11} ____ Antagonizing target till they're sick
{CoM.001.12} ____ with social blows which no one will make stop.

{CoM.001.13} ____ THEN ChildofMidnight comes and says: FUCK THAT!
{CoM.001.14} ____ (No matter if you're Wales or Bureaucrat.)



I have had tears of joy come to my eyes frying an egg remembering ChildofMidnight in action — defending someone while they slept, leaving them safe from harm until they arrived, and found nothing they needed to do. The horror had past. And by the way, God Herself sent me here to say this, ladies and gentlemen. Have a care with ChildofMidnight — Judgment Day comes ... sooner than you think. {Serious smile}
-- Proofreader77 (interact) 10:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users [and beyond] who endorse this summary:

  1. God
  2. Archangel Gabriel
  3. Guardian angel, Oh Mi (on loan from Proofreader77 who has 11 more)
  4. <Additional signatories removed to protect the innocent and not so innocent>
The Barnstar of Integrity
For balancing the scales amidst the flames. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Other News

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU to everyone who participated in Doughnut Drive 2009!!!! There are still a lot of holes in our coverage, but a lot of progress was made in ringing up some great content fillings!!! Is there anything they can't do?

Apples are said to be good for the heart
Gifts for teacher and preventative medicine, or so it's claimed. Also used for Æbleflæsk

The Bacon Challenge 2010 event is underway. SIGN UP NOW before it's too late, and get started immediately!!! There are plenty of non-pork bacon/ fakon articles to work on, so everyone can participate in the extravaganza!!!!!

Sign in drive 2009: Please leave your mark on the signature page


Hasta manyana


ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Box of Columbiana brand Pandebono.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Box of Columbiana brand Pandebono.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.

  • Child, you should be able to rescue the photo by replacing the license template info with the following [removing the (nowiki)] tags:

{{logo fur <!-- REQUIRED --> |Article=Pandebono |Use=Product <!-- HIGHLY RECOMMENDED --> |Source=own work by uploader who releases photo under CC-BY-3.0 <!-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION --> |Used_for= |Owner=La Venezolana Corp |Website= |History= |Commentary= }} == Licensing: == {{Non-free logo}}

Stuff

  • Windsor school history (google book source) [5] Recommneds closing winsor
  • plans for a school[6]
  • Page 3888 [7] Otis Elevator add for Woolworth building work
  • [8] page 90 notes source with pics
  • Frederick Douglass school history [9]
  • Pendretti family [10]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 2 (January 2010)

Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Fussy?

Hmh. I was about to give you 'autoreviewer' status (a misnomer; it should be autoreviewed) to get you out of my way when I'm doing NPP, but then I saw that you had asked for it to be removed.

The whole point of autoreviewer is that anything you, CoM, create is considered valid by default and doesn't need to be verified by a human.

Are you okay with that? DS (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CoM on this one—since there's no impact of articles never being patrolled, why shouldn't every article—even experienced editors—be flagged? On the other hand, for really new editors or editors with few edits, new articles should be flagged for special attention (beyond the current unpatrolled status). I find it useful to have my new articles reviewed as soon as possible.
And in particular, DS, you wish to give this status to CoM!?!?! Even in the last couple of days one of his "creations" was speedily deleted! Bongomatic 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand the point of pages going unpatrolled, I see. It's to make sure that all the crap is caught. The 'unpatrolled' tag only lasts for 30 days, then it expires. And we have no idea what garbage there may be lying around in the database because it never got checked by a human within those 30 days. DS (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the original point, and if you see my user page, you can see a hint to the fact that I'm a (occasional) patroller. But if anyone really wants that to work, then all semi-credible editors should be made autoreviewers. Otherwise, the volume is simply too large to have a prayer of getting a meaningful fraction patrolled. Bongomatic 01:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DFSS, if it pleases you to grant autoreviewer status upon me, so be it. I've explained my preferences in the past, but it's not a huge deal one way or the other. Basically, I like having my creations reviewed and I don't support a tiered editing system. I'd actually like to shift to an alternate account because my watchlist is too long, but I know that all sorts of aspersions on me if I disclose it and slip up or don't disclose it and am caught "socking". Too many crazies and troublemakers here. I think editing less would be a good thing, but I do enjoy the friendly and collegial collaborations and helping to build articles on interesting subjects. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that you can remove items from your watchlist, right? LadyofShalott 03:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busted!

CoM, finally your continued disrespect for the law is about to come to an end: you got caught by a bot. That one of those many acts of vandalism of yours would happen on my talk page, when I am such a strict enforcer of the proper rules, that can only be called divine and delicious irony. Read your indictment here, and weep. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with objections to anything Longhorn related being included in your userspace. Your disrespect for Tebow was the last straw. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want to be accused of . . .

. . . WP:OUTING, but I think I might know why you've been less active than usual the past few days. Bongomatic 06:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy trying to get my motorized barstool back, and dealing with legal issues related to the B.B. gun incident with my parrot that wouldn't stop squawking during NASCAR. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so that's what you were doing for an extended time in Ohio. Bongomatic 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Up your alley

Yum. Where can this be fit in? Bongomatic 06:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would a visit to Ham font help you guys get better? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPR program

Hi CoM. I don't know if you had heard this NPR program from September [11]. I missed the original broadcast and just heard it this week. Shinerunner (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Shine. It was an interesting and thought provoking interview in a number of respect. What made you think to suggest it to me in particular? What did you think of it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking—I think the analogy is flawed. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't the editors, but the content. Now even when the population reduced, there were still quite a lot of rabbit turds left around—evidence of success (by analogy). Bongomatic 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was interesting in a few areas. I can't say that I agree with every aspect of the segment (there are still a large number of new non-trival articles that can be created). Also, I thought that you might be interested in the program from your work in creating new content and from the programs statments regarding BLP's and Wikipedia bureaucracy.Shinerunner (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were a lot of innacuracies and misunderstandings. I thought the whole thrust of the "peak" theory was interesting and the description of the evolution from wild and wide open creative space to a bureaucratized sphere controlled by experienced editors was worthy of consideration. I don't actually remember a lot of discussion about BLPs, other than I guess the adding of additional layers being discussed? I also thought the discussion was interesting in the context of a Time magazine reporter talking about the possible demise or maturation of Wikipedia. It seems to me that Wikipedia is growing rapidly, which certainly cannot be said about the magazine industry... As far as problems experienced by new editors and contributors, I think that's a real conern. Thanks again for the link. Interesting stuff. What they did cover (and didn't) and their misunderstandings were also, I think, telling as far as perceptions go. The latest divide in the community over BLPs seems pretty serious, but perhaps hasn't bee noticed much yet outside with WikiverseChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images in infoboxes

See this. What I usually do when I can't figure it out is go to the template page, in this case Template:Infobox darts player, where they will show you how to use some of the fields, and what they actually expect in some of the more ambiguous ones.--kelapstick (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange because I didn't see brackets in the templates where images were being used. But I guess that was the problem. I'm glad it's sorted out now. Competitive dart players should have the appropriate template. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon explosion

Working on

Friesinger's Candies

Sorry, never heard of them before. I can't give you any information on them at all. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you call yourself an Ohioan! I saw the neapolitan coconut candy bar in a candy shoppe in MBC. Looked interesting. It was next to an Idaho Spud. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you get for asking someone who doesn't like chocolate or ice cream :-) Wanted to let you know — I was in Springfield today and got a few photos along Main and High Streets downtown. I could have gotten more (I walked past three sites because I'd not noticed their street addresses on the printed alphabetical list that I was carrying), but you can expect to see photos for the Lagonda Club Building, the Main Street Buildings, the Masonic Temple (Springfield, Ohio), the Municipal Building (Springfield, Ohio) (it already has a photo, but it's taken from such an odd angle that I didn't recognise it until I realised that it was sitting where the municipal building was listed as being!), St. Raphael Church (Springfield, Ohio), and the Tecumseh Building. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to add the photos to the articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photo is now online for the municipal building; I'm going to get the rest in a bit. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all of yesterday's photos are now online. Most are now at National Register of Historic Places listings in Clark County, Ohio, although I've uploaded two others of the Tecumseh Building. Sorry that they weren't online yesterday; snow shovelling has caused me to get way behind on other things, so I needed to catch up. Couple of comments, by the way — (1) For examples of what it looks like in Springfield and slightly to the north, check File:House at 320 Scioto in Urbana.jpg (part of a district in Urbana that I illustrated months ago) and the photo for the Main Street Buildings. Yesterday's weather was wonderful compared to anything in the past several weeks, and likely compared to the next few weeks; we've had several more inches of snow today. (2) I'd advise against creating substubs as you did for several of these listings; at least please add the infobox from Elkman and the categories that it supplies. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without references, they're useless; you'll see that I had to rewrite everything. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of editorial review? Do we know that they check their data rigorously? Moreover, Wikipedia articles also require the citation of reliable sources, but that isn't enough to make Wikipedia articles into reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. Individual building profiles say nothing about their sources, so we don't know how trustworthy they are; if we can't check the sources, we can't know whether they're really reliable; and in the absence of evidence of strong editorial control, there's no way that we can trust a site as reliable. Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we include anything without sources? I don't know that some of this information is correct (e.g. the bits about architectural styles), so yes, I contest it. It's not like adding an unreferenced "destroyed" comment to the Reeser House line; the photo is quite sufficient to show that the house is destroyed, but the photo of the Tecumseh Building is insufficient to say that architectural historians have assessed it as being Beaux-Arts. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did reply; that's the comment made at 02:52 yesterday. It's simply that you know these buildings are notable, and I know these buildings are notable, but most people may not. If you don't add the infobox and some other data, you're making it more likely that they'll get speedied (although that's wrong, since buildings don't qualify for speedy) or taken to AFD. The Wilson and The Cathcart just barely survived AFD: they were very small stubs and, because they misunderstood what was going on, several people thought they were not at all notable. If you'd asked me this two weeks ago, I might have been more open to the subject; I simply want to be spared more AFDs. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, boys . . .

. . . but I'm going to consider filing ANI, RfC, ArbComm and various other reports about your OUTing.

By the way, happy Year of the Tiger, y'all. Bongomatic 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is a great Year of the Tiger for you with a lot of bullseyes! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the Olympic representative from Narnia your biography shouldn't have to sit in userspace. Take it live!!! kelapstick (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cheese dreams

Can an admin tell me what was deleted? Apparently the subject is enormously important subject that will need to be recreated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a two-sentence article about a flash game called Cheese Dreams. The article was deleted in fall 2008 as a G11. If you think it has promise, I can userfy it for you. The creator did not provide any sources. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Eddie. I'm always curious when I see something was previously deleted where I'm set to work. Thanks for your assistance. Much appreciated. I suppose I should set up an alternative account so I can get adminship and do these things for myself. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made it to level 3. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fastilysock

They're giving me all sorts of shit now. Other people have a problem with them too. They're nominating all sorts of stuff for deletion. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CoM!

Hi, Child of Midnight! It is already funny - my sweet heart beloved user:Jasepl restarted his war with Aeroflot = me. Any piece of advice? )))) --Dimitree (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: hope u r ok this New Year... May I ask u: where r u from? US? UK? Commonwealth?[reply]

Yes, I saw that. Are Russia and Central Asian states still being moved into Europe by rogue Wikipedians?
How is the Russian team looking headed into the winter Olympics?
My only suggestion is to try posting the issue(s) to the WP:Content Noticeboard or on project discussion pages to try to get input from other editors. Whatever the consensus is, all parties are expected to abide by it. Good luck! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, nothing is being moved. However, additions without a valid reference are being removed. As is policy (both Wikipedia's and the Aviation project's). "Aeroflot Planning Department told me" is NOT a valid source, from any angle. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is already a progress - nothing is being moved. But it is still regress when smone's opinion (or angle) is still the only one that rules. --Dimitree (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC) P.S.: the only one rogue English-speaking Wikipedian thinks himself the "King of the World" who is able to decide what is valid and what is not...[reply]

New article?

Oh, yes.

When you are done dreaming of cheese, I was just informed that Dini's Lucky Club occasionally offers chicken-friend salmon as a special.--kelapstick (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you requested change of licence on Flikr for a picture?--kelapstick (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I usually do a shotgun approach since it's very hit or miss. Which image are you trying to get? Does it have cheese in it? Bacon? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either this or this. Probably the second one, it shows the most I think. I haven't had much luck in the past asking for a change in licenece. It would make a great picture for your DYK hook, which I think needs improvement.--kelapstick (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do they freeze well or refrigerate well? I think you said your Grandmother froze them, and I saw something about preserving them that way on one of the recipe pages I found, but now i can't find it. People have room in their freezer for this stuff? I can't imagine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)They do freeze well, you can ask my grandmother. She used to store them in 6x9 Tupperware containers (note the plural, she would make about six dozen at a time), with waxed paper between them. I removed it from the lead, because I don't think their ability to freeze is relevant to the notability. Feel free to prove me wrong though.--kelapstick (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's so typical of you. Dick. Hey, would take a look at the DYK nom? Someone is objecting that it's lame. But I was operating on the assumption that most civilized people aren't familiar with you and your family's exotic culinary traditions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

←As usual I am three steps ahead of you. Nice addition to the end....doesn't make me look weird at all...--kelapstick (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources point to the cheese dream as a fancy word for a grilled cheese sandwich, not the open faced variety...--kelapstick (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not from what I saw. No one cooks a sandwich in the oven. Quit trying to stir up trouble. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just spouting my original research. Also did you look at those pictures, they were done in the oven...--kelapstick (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Cheese dreams, being open faced, are often prepared in the oven. Quite unlike sandwiches. First you caused that trouble with Elvis, and now this. When will it end??? :) Also (in addition to not being true sandwiches) since these aren't cooked on a grill and aren't called grilled, they aren't grilled cheese... :)ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a very confusing subject. Hope you have a great weekend...--kelapstick (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You too brother. Keep it real. Say hi to Grandma and enjoy the kiddos. Rainy here, but hopefully the Saints will bring some sunshine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I think my family made those too, when I was growing up, but I don't remember them being called cheese dreams. Did you make Monte Cristo sandwich es too? Are you a fan of tuna melts? Lobster rolls? Sushi rolls? Tootsie rolls? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have the Monte Cristo, and in the Maritimes you can get a McLobster sandwich at McDonald's, and a a lobster sub at SubWay. Tuna melt, not so much for me, but bring on the sushi rolls.--kelapstick (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaping in to the cheese, I think I could make these and photograph them so CoM doesn't have to wait for the Flickr author to wake up and smell the CC-BY-SA. But I noticed the article doesn't seem to mention they are open face sandwiches, to distinguish them from grilled cheese. The Flickr pics do make that clear, but the article doesn't. Anyway, this is a lot easier than catching that rascally calf for Drmies' calf liver and bacon article. And I can use bacon on the top! Geoff Who, me? 02:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First you have to 3 sets of sit-ups and go for a long walk. I will not be held responsible for the ill health effects of these foods Kelapstick is foisting upon us. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm marveling at the idea of "chicken-friend salmon". Do the chickens and salmon play games together or go to the mall and hang out? :) LadyofShalott 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe it: I had a bacon-topped cheese dream for lunch! This is true serendipity. It was delicious, by the way, esp. with the triple-thick bacon I use now. I'll see about getting that picture off my cellphone (I sent it to the Mrs. immediately) onto WP. Hi Lady--can you believe it, the tickets for Neil Gaiman were gone in 30 seconds. Fortunately, I know someone over there, and I got 12 tickets in via email. See you there? Are you going? Do I need to deny one of my students and save you a ticket? Drmies (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to see NG in person. I don't think I'll be able to make that event though, and I'm jealous! A signed book from him would be a major score for my personal library, and to meet him... LadyofShalott 03:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2)See Drmies talk page for evidence of me being infallible when it comes to spelling. So they must be friends, chicken of the sea or something like that. It's been a long day. So what's the word, are you officially joining the cabal? I can see past your SAT scores, not sure about the others though. kelapstick (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Just look at the picture I added, above. That should qualify me. And considering I counted bacon consumption without realizing that I eat thick or triple-thick cut, I think I should be alright. But then again, I understand this is a Republican talk page, and teaching the test is much more important than reality. BTW, the quiz should have asked how much bacon you usually have in the freezer. Well, cabalist, I got two pounds--sitting next to six pounds of butter. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Well, if my poor exam showing can be excused, and I'm not expelled, then I'm in... the cabal anyway, even if not a seat at Neil's appearance. LadyofShalott 03:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on Lady; the macrame club can do without you for one week. You know you love him! Drmies (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do, I do; hence, the jealousy! So, do you have a favorite work by him? LadyofShalott 03:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Hmm...Neverwhere and American Gods. But that's all I've read, besides Coraline. I got him to sign a copy of American Gods for a colleague last year, and they practically spooged over it, haha. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some hippie dude and his dog named "cabal"(???)

What the heck is this Neil Gaiman guy doing all over my page??? And why didn't Drmies melt the cheese properly? Is his broiler broken???? Here I am trying to relax on a Friday night and this is what I come "home" to. Outrageous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're just jealous, admit it. Hey, I wasn't following any recipe--I just had some bacon and a tub (!) full of cheese. And hunger. So this whole section here, that's just coincidence. Now, this Gaiman talk, it's in part an effort to educate you. But let's get back to business: no, let's make a new section for that. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I heard Gaiman interviewed on Definitely Not the Opera once, it was quite interesting. To get the true effect, you need to use cheese slices for a cheese dream. But this our "family recipe". I was going to watch Logan's Run, but Netflix doesn't have it in the watch instantly section, so I am stuck with Blade Runner...--kelapstick (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rollerball (the original movie not that crap remake) would have been a more appropriate choice for Superbowl weekend. Or maybe Woody Allen's Sleeper (film)?
Drmies failure to cook a proper cheese dream is one more piece of evidence establishing his Anti-American socialist tendencies. Speaking of which, I was reading about how the University of Southern California helped desegregate Bear Bryant's University of Alabama by opening a big ole can of whoop ass on them in 1970 with Sam Cunningham kicking some bubba butt. Too funny. Y'all will figure it out eventually Doc and are sure to catch up with the rest of us eventually. And to get you started, here's a hint: Choice is in baby! Communism went out with McCarthy. The last remnants got mopped up by Reagan and Bush, and the biases, segregationist low expectations, and discrmination of the Southern Democrats is best left in the dark ages of the past with all the other inhumanities. Even the Canadians and French are catching up with the times. Stop being retro and get with the program buddy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the jingoistic tripe that some Southerners manage to produce. Good thing he's with your party now--good riddance. Drmies (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you attack that patriot. My favorite part is "The Fifth District of Alabama put a man on the moon, launched the first satellite into space, built the Lunar Roving Vehicle and the Hubble Telescope." HELL YEAH!!!
What was the name of the black player on UA in the 1970 game? I'm reading some tidbits in For the Good of the Game; A fateful Trojan football contest in 1970 ended 140 years of segregation on the college gridiron. The article discusses Turning of the Tide: How One Game Changed the South by Don Yeager with Sam Cunningham and John Papadakis. The book's website says "Travers also reaches the conclusion that Bryant was a Lincolnesque figure; a quiet hero of the civil rights movement. His friend John McKay is portrayed as a modern Moses of progressivism when it came to providing opportunities for black athletes in the 1960s. However, he gives free reign to the opinions of others: white and black; Yankee and Dixie. September 1970 is viewed through the prism of football as a metaphor for a changing America. This game was a seminal moment in which liberalism and conservatism met at the 50-yard line, in many ways for the last time. The winner was America." But of course it was Keyshawn Johnson who brought a Superbowl to Tampa Bay. Just saying. The story of Greg Page and the other Kentucky player who were the first black SEC players is also interesting. Is this subject covered in the Encyclopedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Southern California for showing Doc's friends and neighbors the way forward
Oh wait, John Mitchell it says here. Hold please... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... says he didn't play until 1971 [16]. Exactly one year AFTER the Southern Californians had to show the way. And here we are 40 years later... and people in Southern California are still instructing you on how things are supposed to be done. The more things change the more things stay the same I guess. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HELP!

Hey y'all, I just merged Hoegaarden (beer) to Hoegaarden Brewery, but even combining strengths didn't make for a good article on an obviously notable (and very tasty) beer. They spearheaded the revival of wheat beers in the late 80s or so. Can you kids help out? I'm going to call it a day soon, and after Piraat and Lindemans Brewery, I don't feel like doing the same thing again. Thanks! Your FA star awaits you! Drmies (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stock up Doc, we might have a shortage brewing. I'll head to Wholefoods right away! —SpacemanSpiff 04:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doc was it you who started the pecan beer brewery article a while back? That seemed interesting. Stop playing around in the hoe garden and get on board with come JD, Buttweiser and Pabst Blue Ribbon. Let freedom reign! ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely drink, but now that the Ladyz and children are in bed I'm going to have a brewski in your honor! Here's to the saints! Trader Joe's Fat Weasel Ale from Paso Robles, California (and I'm munching on lefse) here I come!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just opened up a can of whoopass, but I don't know how long it will last... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Considering the quality of the "applications" you're adding, it's not even a can of lite diet whoopass. But enjoy it while it lasts, you masochist. As for Spiffy's comment, above, who cares about Heineken anyway? Haha! Drmies (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what's in the encyclopedia my brother from another mother. So don't blame for the suspect quality of those bits. Did you see that it played a part in the establishment of the Power Puff Girls? How is that not notable?????? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, please don't cast aspersions on my character, I'm NOT a Heineken drinker! According to the article, Hoegaarden was also shut down for a week; looks like InBev's got their priorities wrong, they'd be better off getting the insurance money for the Bud plants. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 06:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe now that it's not just McDonalds under fire the Dutch judiciary will take needed action??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:ArrogantBastardAle.jpg
You're not worthy
Well, this happened in Belgium, including the Heineken shutdown. But tonight, it's Yorkshire Samuel Smith Brewery's Imperial Stout for me. —SpacemanSpiff 06:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmmm... Good choice. That's up there with Newcastle, Guiness and Paulaner right below Corona with lime and Sierra Nevada. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! And what about Stone's Arrogant Bastard? "You're not worthy..." Geoff Who, me? 13:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That fancy stuff is out of my price range. But you enjoy it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trick is to get someone to buy it and bring it to you (as a gift) in their (checked) luggage and/or to arrange a biz trip to San Diego (or somewhere in Southern California) so you can expense it. Or something. Geoff Who, me? 18:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out the regional beer I drank as a teenager is still being produced Genny Cream Ale. I'm shocked by all the awards it's won. It's tempting me but I don't if I should take a staggering trip down memory lane. Shinerunner (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A teenager? You were drinking it in 2009? Genny light and Genny Ice are tough to beat. Are people still imbibing Saranac black and tans? Killian's was popular up there also. But when it was 4.99 for a case, Old Milwaulkee was really and truly the King of Beers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2009 I wish! I've seen Saranac and Killian's around but I'm not sure how popular they are. The one beverage chains up here is selling micro beer by the growler with about six different brands on tap at a time. Do you remember another cheap beer - Red White & Blue Beer? Shinerunner (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oregon growler
A Growler
Another Growler
Naval Growler
This would be a picture of an icy Growler, except that image from commons is being overided by the this one on English wikipedia. What is it?
A black ice Growler
Hmmmm... never heard of RW&B beer. It definitely seems patriotic, and anything associated with Pabst is uniformly outstanding. We need a picture of a growler, so you'll have to pick one up... What you do with it after that I leave up to your perogative, as Bobby Brown would say. When I was in Minnesota a bar was advertising $2 Premiums. So I got a Leinenkugels, but they mean that Grain Belt Premium was $2. Language barrier! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gummies

The article Gummies has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.--Carter | Talk to me 06:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial of Geert Wilders

Thanks again for your remark. See Talk:Trial_of_Geert_Wilders. --JanDeFietser (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "Wilders enjoys no protection for anti Islam comments he made in the media" is a matter of opinion and remains unsourced. It seems to me it is at the very heart of what the trial is meant to determine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of opinion but of fact: the very fact that he is now prosecuted proves that he does not enjoy that immunity! Perhaps you did not understand that immunity = to be exempted from prosecution? --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: not be prosecuted is not be mixed up with not to be punished --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I think there is a language barrier issue involved in the editing of that article. If you want to clarify the wording to "immunity from prosecution" that would be helpful. It still needs a proper citation establishing the source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime I added a note that refers to the (Dutch) text of the first decision of the court of February 3 on the preliminary defense of Mr.Wilders and his lawyer "LJN: BL1868, Rechtbank Amsterdam , 13/425046-09". Under 1.1., 1.2. and 1.3 (Absolute competentie, Relatieve competentie and De ontvankelijkheid van de officier van justitie) the court rules that it is competent and that Article 71 of the Constitution does not apply:
"Artikel 71 van de Grondwet luidt onder meer dat leden van de Staten-Generaal immuniteit genieten. Zij kunnen niet in rechte worden vervolgd of aangesproken voor wat zij in de vergaderingen van de Staten-Generaal of van commissies daaruit hebben gezegd of aan deze schriftelijk hebben overgelegd.
De rechtbank is van oordeel dat de parlementaire immuniteit zich niet uitstrekt tot wat een volksvertegenwoordiger buiten de vergaderingen van de Staten-Generaal heeft gezegd of geschreven."
The court refers to previous decisions in comparable cases by the Hoge Raad (Dutch Supreme Court) of April 2, 2002 (LJN AD8693) and June 2, 2002 (LJN AE1544). The protection of Article 71 does not extend to what the suspect said / wrote or is accused of having said / written outside of the parliament (Staten-Generaal). --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've done a fine job for the most part with the article. I hope you don't mind my calls for clarifications.
I used to have a much wamer approach, but trying to keep Drmies in line all the time has worn me down. ;)
It seems to me that the case is at its core about what amounts to hate speech and whether freedoms of speech are protected. So when you say that someone doesn't have immunity for their comments, that strikes me as rendering a kind of verdict and a legal opinion. At the very least it needs a citation establishing the source for that claim.
I understand your point that there are legal immunities afforded to politicians and political speech in the Netherlands that may not apply outside of official proceedings. But again, I think we need to be very careful and clear in the wording and use quality sourcing.
It's certainly interesting that this flamboyant politician who espouses views that many find outrageous is going to be at the heart of a trial over free speech. I don't know if the if that situation is better or worse than the way one of America's porn peddlers, Larry Flynt, became a standard bearer on similar (though not political or religious) speech issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I think I may have removed a characterization of Wilders views as "anti-Islam"? I wasn't sure if it was an accurate paraphrase of his views, but after looking at a couple sources I see that it is definitely accurate and appropriate. So I think it should be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is indeed a very interesting case, that comes to the heart of a very very principal matter, the core of what freedom of speech, law and civilization are. As long as it is not possible to figure out what my personal opinion is, I think I do it well - but your attention is appreciated. --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 99.999% sure you are not a fan of Mr. Wilders. I also think you believe he is guilty of the chargers and should be punished. Do I win something if I have guessed right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not a fan of Wilders as I am not a fan of any politician, and there is nothing to bet, or "win" by guessing.
I dare to predict that his lawyer will build a further defense in this case on what is called "ontbreken van de wederrechtelijkheid", i.e. not having an illegal intention, probably referring to an odd case in the history of Dutch criminal law: although the facts were proved, the lack of any illegal intention by the suspect was then recognized by the Hoge Raad (Dutch Supreme Court) in its verdict in that case of the Huizense veearts (transl. "Veterinarian from Huizen"), HR February 20, 1933 (NJ 1933, 918).
I can NOT predict if the Amsterdam court will grant such a defense and I have NO opinion about the question if it should accept such a defense or not. My prediction on the court's first decision on February 3, about which of the desired witnesses could be heard, was quite right. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another architect

Here's one for you that I did a bit of work on: Jacob Wrey Mould. Perhaps you care to find some appropriate images; I haven't found any yet. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Elkman's tool (see bottom of my userpage), these seem to be National Register of Historic Places buildings he may have been involved with:

I'm not sure about the one in Virginia or the Museum. Could be a different Mould. The Trinity building has a photo. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article suggest he is the Mould involved in the design of the Museum (which has photos...) But since his name isn't first it suggests he was a junior partner, so the extent of his role should probably be clarified if possible. The Chapel and the Clapham Stern House seem to be credited to him. Good luck. Rainy here, but I'm off to shop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was having a hard time finding him as the senior partner in any projects. But when you come back from shopping, click on the link in the reference for the Long Island country homes--it has some pictures of amazing houses. Have fun! Drmies (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, H. Neill Wilson is on the chopping block, so it's hard to imagine how big the homes need to be to make a fellow notable these days. I guess the Edwards, Gore and Kennedy families have really raised the bar? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I keep asking you to get WP:Autoreviewer. By the way, why did you change the spelling of Shadowbrook?—SpacemanSpiff 08:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy to be on the receiving end of the same ill treatment that all the other mere commoners on Wikipedia endure, thank you very much. It's Shadowbrook? I'm not sure how it got changed, but I think I've changed it back. If not feel free to fix it. Thanks for your help Spiff. Have a good one. Peace out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT obit (and Carnegie's WP article) listed it without the space, you added one in, so I was wondering if there were some other sources that mentioned it that way, so I asked. I would hasten you to stop wasting people's time by creating articles on architects and instead focus on more productive topics. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 18:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of H. Neill Wilson

I have nominated H. Neill Wilson, 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/H. Neill Wilson. 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H. Neill Wilson

Good luck with that. I am amazed it was up for deletion at all. Short lived account (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations

This edit summary is out of line. What "massive removal" of mine? I cleaned up after after someone's edit. If you can't be civil, is it too much to expect you to get your facts straight? Please retract your smears. Guettarda (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not out of line nor uncivil and smears as accused here. --Caspian blue 18:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He accused me of a "massive removal", when I did nothing of the sort. Making false accusations is uncivil. The text also implies that there was something wrong with the underlying change, when in fact it's in keeping with the MOS. So implying wrongdoing when there is none is a smear. Guettarda (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed a massive removal without a prior consensus and discussion. Saying clear WP:SPADE is not uncivil. --Caspian blue 18:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, the edit history clearly shows that you and Hipocrite removed a very large portion of content as well as numerous sources. Please don't come to my talk page making false accusations of incivility where there was none on my part. I initially reverted myself, after I first tried to restore the sources you removed, so that I could investigate further. Then I carefully reviewed the history and what was taken out, and determined that there was no prior discussion and that the massive removal was not warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Was it by me? No. Then his accusation is false. And if he wants to take issue with someone's actions, it would be with Dave's decision to spin off the section, not Hip's follow-up action. Implying that there was wrongdoing by Hip and me is clearly a smear. You can't invoke WP:SPADE when (a) your accusations are, on the face of it, false, and (b) when you're spinning legitimate actions to cast them as misdeeds. Guettarda (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if the wording wasn't clearer. I usually use "tweak" because providing good edit summaries is such a fine art and comments are so often misconstrued. In this case an explanation was needed and I didn't feel that tweak was sufficient, so I tried to explain what I was doing. A large portion of content and the sources supporting it were removed entirely from the article by two editors, that's what I was undoing, and that's what I was trying to explain. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted in my edit summary (and tried to do myself), I think some conslidation and tightening would be helpful. However, if you want all of those sources and that large section of content removed, you're need to explain yourself on the article talk page. That's where your edits should have been suggested first, before excising all tof hose sources related to the content that Hipocrite removed. I think it will be difficult for you to justify why those sources aren't useful and why all of the content discussing why the e-mails are controversial is inappropriate to include, but you're welcome to explain your view there. I'm sorry if my edit summary seemed unfairly critical. I did my best to explain what I was doing. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[I]f you want all of those sources and that large section of content removed, you're need to explain yourself on the article talk page - So you're saying that I should leave this version, with all the broken refs? Seriously?! Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the content is what wrecked the formatting of those refs. So if you wanted to fix the article you could have undone that edit. You also could have fixed and restored the refs without the content, or you could have initiated discussion about the problem to get consensus on the way forward. Instead you chose to remove the refs in a followup edit to the removal of the content. That's what I noted in the edit summary where I indicated that you and Hipocrite removed a large block of text and the sources supporting it. Reality is my ultimate defense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I undo an edit that was entirely consistent with the MOS? Dave's spin-off was discussed. Hip's conversion to summary style was in keeping with the MOS. My edit fixed some broken refs. "Reality is my ultimate defense"? What reality? That you didn't bother to look into the matter, you just blindly reverted? Damn. That's a "defense"? Guettarda (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style

Would you care to explain why we should disregard Wikipedia:Summary style in this article? It would be nice of you to explain why you believe we should disregard the MOS. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving an extensive timeline of the leak/possible hacking while removing most or all of the content related to why the e-mails are controversial does not comport with my understanding of summary style. I'm happy to discuss the issues with you on the article talk page. I would like collaborate with you towards a tighter and more coherent article. I think the discussions related to that effort are best kept on the article talk page so that everyone who wants to weigh in can do so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "nutshell" version of WP:SS says "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place". It's simple - if a section is spun off, it should be replaced with a summary. Now we have the same text in the spun off article, and the main article. Which is contrary to the MOS. Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to the spin-off article? I'm not seeing anything about it in the article history or on the talk page. As I recall a previous attempt to spin off the e-mail issues was not well received (it was attacked with viciousness and all sort of personal attacks), so that kind of initiative would require discussion and consensus. I'm flexible and try to be accomodating, so I was okay with splitting up the article or keeping it together as long as our coverage was comprehensive, accurate, and balanced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean other than the one at the top of the section you edited? Seriously - did you even bother to look at it, or did you just revert blindly, like you did with my edit? Is it really that difficult to take a second and scan the page? FFS man: Climatic Research Unit documents Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw the Climatic Research Unit documents link. What I didn't see was any discussion or explanation of why most of the content and sources related to the controversy over the e-mails should be removed from the main article. Don't you think massive changes of that kind should be discussed first? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said: Do you have a link to the spin-off article? If saw the Climatic Research Unit documents link, why are you asking for "a link to the spin-off article"? Just for the fun of it?
What I didn't see was any discussion - well, you (a) didn't ask for that, and (b) didn't bother to look at the article's talk page, since Dave posted a link to the discussion 22 minutes before you posted that comment.
Don't you think massive changes of that kind should be discussed first? - it was discussed. As I explained to you in the previous section, a full 25 minutes before you replied here. Guettarda (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And seriously, is it too much to ask that you participate in the discussion of your edit on the article's talk page? Guettarda (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too much to ask that you intitiate discussion before making massive changes to controversial article content? I didn't see any discussion on the talk page when I reverted the changes you made, so please don't misrepresent the history to try and attack me. You're antagonistic approach is seeming more and more to be an clear effort at trolling. If you can't be civil and respectful then I'm not going to continue engaging in discussion with you here. If there was discussion and consensus for the changes then all you need to do is point out where that took place. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this discussion here? I think a lot of people are waiting for their retractions and apologies, and your self revert on the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it too much to ask that you intitiate [sic] discussion before making massive changes to controversial article content? - No, it's not. But I fail to see how this relates in any way, shape or form to what we're discussing. I did not make any massive changes. Your accusations notwithstanding, I simply removed some refs, in response to Sphilbrick's request, which were left behind as a result of Hip's edit. Which was a consequence of spinning off the section into a daughter article. Which was discussed. This is all on the article's talk page. You should read it before reverting, especially on an article that's subject to probation like this one is.
  • I didn't see any discussion on the talk page when I reverted the changes you made - Well, it was there. My edit, for example, was in response to Sphilbrick's request. The conversation is documented there. Dave's spin off of the section was in there too. It was in response to Nightmote's suggestion. Not having been around for a week and a half I read through the talk page before jumping into the discussion. You should really do that too.
  • so please don't misrepresent the history to try and attack me - I'm not.
  • You're antagonistic approach is seeming more and more to be an clear effort at trolling - Trolling? Let's see, you use deceptive edit summaries, make false accusations against me, and either ignore or deny the content of the article's talk page. Though I wouldn't use the term "trolling", I think it's closer to your behaviour than mine.
  • If you can't be civil and respectful then I'm not going to continue engaging in discussion with you here. Seriously, I came here to raise the problem of your incivility. I'm being very patient with you, despite your repeated dissembling.
  • If there was discussion and consensus for the changes then all you need to do is point out where that took place - How can you even begin to consider that a reasonable request? Dave already provided a link to the discussion about spinning off the section - I have asked you repeatedly to join the discussion there. If you haven't seen his link, then you haven't bothered to look at the talk page.

    My edit was made in response to what was the third-to-last section on the talk page at the time you reverted it. If you had bothered to read the talk page, you'd have seen it. You talk about civility and respect, but can't be bothered to be civil to your fellow edits, or to treat their efforts with the slightest hint of respect. Guettarda (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you had seen the discussion and believed there was consensus why would you say "And if he wants to take issue with someone's actions, it would be with Dave's decision to spin off the section" and wait so long to provide a link? Listen, I'm sorry you're unhappy with me. I've explained my actions and have responded to your repeated accusations. As you've noted, it's being discussed now on the talk page, so you're concerns are best communicated there. I'm just one of many editors and I'm happy to abide by whatever consensus is determined going forward. I'm optimistic that the title and the article can be fixed and the content be made compliant with our policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sing that song in the Philippines

Really. Don't invite trouble. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second time this week that I've been implicated in extraordinary Philipines related events. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Implicated? Just where were you on the night of May 29, 2007? And what have you got against My Way? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since they took away my motorized barstool I haven't been able to get around as much as I'd like to. And now that the parrot and B.B. gun are gone too, times are tough. But these setbacks won't be enough to stop me! Sure, it was problematic that my Asian market was out of longan and banh bao yesterday, but I did have some good pho and falafel. Make of that what you will... I also picked up some gravlax at Ikea and animalitos (my name for a Mexican brand of graham crackers) from Wally World. So I am definitely still able to get around. You'll never catch me! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly get around. Don't do any of that in Massachusetts. That's illegal in Massachusetts. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? With universal health care and gay marriage, I was hoping your progressive state would be more tolerant of my alternative lifestyle and religious beliefs. Praise bacon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing progressive about it: They make mozzarella pie from Pepe's in New Haven, Connecticut exactly the same way they always did because you can't improve on perfection. I provide this purely to torture you for implying that the Bay State is "my" progressive state. That's an WP:NPA violation, by the way.
My "progressive" state is Connecticut (the part that hasn't been blown up yet), home of the Apizza and birthplace of the hamburger and the submarine (although not the submarine sandwich, although it is the birthplace of the Subway (restaurant), although that isn't something I'm proud of). You obviously haven't seen the latest Mel Gibson flick, so my brilliant comment flew over your head like the debris of an exploded power plant, alas, alas. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CoM, (hi there, incidentally, hope you've been well and such...) ...CoM, every time I come to your talk page I learn something new. Often it's the sort of "something new" that leaves me wacketing through Wikipedia playing follow-the-linky for hours, postponing my bedtime and aggravating my cats with my constant listener-free monologue (the sad habit of the only child who now lives alone). I'm girlcotting your page for the next two weeks, therefore; my ex-husband-but-no-longer-ex-boyfriend is coming into town for our eighth non-aversary next week, and would not take kindly to hours of my time being used for learning about--of all things--Sinatra-related killings. My goodness--the things people get in a dither about!!! GJC 03:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that food item pictured to the right is making me REALLY hungry. GJC 03:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article (along with childhood visits to Wooster Street pizzerias) is one of the reasons I was so jazzed about working on the Alan Scott article. Bongomatic 03:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When Pepe's did the unthinkable a few years back and started making pizzas at other locations, they took the exact measurements of the coal-fired, brick oven they'd been using for decades and had new ones built to the same specifications. There's nothing like the taste of a hoary, iron-bound, musty old tradition. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who doesn't know what wacketing and girlcotting are? Where are the Wikipedia articles when I need them? I'm very consfused about it all. Gladys, am I to understand the we've been engaging in a non-platonic relationship? Or is the otherwise highly reliable Urban dictionary misleading me? This is all making me very hungry for brick oven pizza and all I've got is Tony's is the freezer!!! Connecticut? So I have to make lame spelling jokes about the state's name, comments about the big homes and elitists in Greenwich, and the communist leanings of Yaleys? This isn't much to work with. And where's the picture I need for Yale's Street Hall designed by Augustus Russell Street (supposedly the first art school building at any U.S. college)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlucky for you, I'm in a prolix mood: Yale, Schmale. They've been commies there forever (although there are however, some exceptions). It's a stage they go through between their Greenwich childhoods and Old Saybrook parenthoods. Girlcotting is obviously what girls do when they boycott. Isn't "wacketing" a word in some Lewis Caroll poem? Isn't that what the frubious Bandersnatch does? The Alice in Wonderland movie (starring an [anti-American] Connecticut resident [part-time]) should be out in a few weeks or months, and you can settle it then. The part that I don't understand is the ex-husband-but-no-longer-ex-boyfriend. But I won't go there. All jokes about Greenwich mansions have already been made, and guess who's laughing all the way from the bank? (The AIG offices where so many of the bad decisions were made and where the big, big bonuses went out were in guess-which-state. The UBS AG offices that were arranging for the U.S. wealthy to stash their cash away from the IRS were ... guess where. We have traditions to uphold here in the land of steady habits, as the guy on the fifty dollar bill found out. And I'm just connecting to the southwest quarter of the state here. Don't get me started.
In answer to your question, the recent movie with Mr. Gibson (who's had his local home on the market -- wanna make an offer?) has a plot that's too involved, silly and forgettable for me to recount in detail, but it's one of his better performances. Some British actor does a good job in it, too. The flick's full of left-wing conspiracy mongering, but nobody's taken any of that stuff seriously for, -- what, 35 years or so? The funny thing about the movie is that it hints that the Connecticut River is somewhere in the near suburbs of Boston. The last scene was unexpectedly good. One nice couple of lines, repeated once, got a laugh out of the audience I saw the movie with: "You know, that's illegal in Massachusetts." Reply: "Everything's illegal in Massachusetts." Nothing about Massachusetts government is shown to be any good and not much about Massachusetts law enforcement, Massachusetts manners (actually, there aren't any). Which is actually pretty accurate. (Think of the corruption of New Orleans and Louisiana, but without the pleasant accent or the warmer weather.) There have been half a dozen films in the past 12 years or so covering the same territory. Call it "Boston Noir". Oh, and one character is a Republican U.S. Senator from Massachusetts! Ha! Like that will ever happen ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get an article for Street Hall and I'll take a pic. It'll take a while though. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute: They've been doing massive renovations, expanding the art gallery over that bridge and into it. [17] I was diagonally across the street from there a month ago, but I didn't look closely. As the pic here shows [18], the best time to take a building picture is before the leaves are back on the trees. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, the girlcotter thing makes sense. I didnt get the gender twist, and the old reliable urban dictionary gave me an alternate meaning. I wonder if Gladys is always this girlsterous about herstory? The article is up so get to it. I imagine the snow will provide a lovely backdrop... I originally took the Mass. comment as being a generic corruption/ big dig cement collapsing type generality, but you threw me with this movie specificity. I checked and you're the only one who's seen that movie. So next time try something with broader interest like Juwanna Man, Pootytang or Shakespeare. Thanks for the wild ride through New England culture. Made me hungry for Steamers and chowdah (though I prefer Manhattan Clam Chowder to its creamy cousin... You can take the ChildofMidnight out of Manhattan...)ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More popular cultural references? You mean, like, The Borg?
You call that an article? I'm supposed to schlep up to New Haven with my camera for that? I write captions longer than that. I write barnstar explanations longer than that. I reply to Tarc longer than that (but not much longer). There are user names longer than that. In fact, your user name is longer than that. I add categories with more bytes than that. If you actually added a proper footnote to it, it would be longer than all the rest of it. And no, I'm not the only one who's seen that movie. There were at least two other people in the audience when I went to see it. At least they were there when I arrived. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil modes of address

I believe that User:William M. Connolley has already requested that you refrain from using some modes of address. Please simply use "WMC" when the context is clear, or his full username when it might not be. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And CoM, please refer to me in the third person only as "his majesty", or "your highness" when addressing me. Bongomatic 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, "your highness" is second person. Not that I'm impugning your royalty, Sir Bongo. Geoff Who, me? 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that's why I said "'your highness' when addressing me", as "addressing somebody" (as opposed to "referring to somebody") implies the second person. There was a comma after the clause including "refer to me in the third person", indicating a separation between that and what followed. Bongomatic 23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, oh, a comma! I thought it was a speck on my screen! My apologies, your eminence. ;o) Geoff Who, me? 23:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's telling that The King's English was written by the Fowler brothers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. His majesty the Earl of Drummery seems to be getting fast and loose with his parts of speech. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you are also still not referring to me as Major Trusilver, USAF (ret.). This is very rude and needs to stop. We have ways of dealing with people like you. Trusilver 20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always assumed you held an even higher rank: 4 star general, admiral, or commandant. At least you're not a corpseman. As I've been known to pronounce colonel phonetically, I'm with the golden boy on that one. If people want to be called kernals then they should spell it out! Hmmm... according to this [19] commandant and major are the same rank? It's all making sense now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very rarely use full names for other editors, and I generally only use acronyms and abbreviations when those are the actual usernames or the most established name for something.
If an editor doesn't want to be called William or Connolley then it doesn't seem a very good idea to use those names for their user name. Imagine my getting outraged at someone calling me Child. That would be ridiculous. We're welcome to ask people to call us by something other than our usernames, but as long as people are civil they are free to shorten and abbreviate as they see fit.
It's very simple: If someone doesn't want to be called something then they shouldn't use that term as a name for themselves. Using Will, a standard short from for William, is entirely appropriate, and so is using someone's last name when it's part of their username. There's nothing uncivil about either. As I don't know what the "M" in WMC stands for, I'm not comforatble using it. I'm willing to address him as "W.C." but I suspect that may not be appreciated.
There is also a problem with hypocrisy in this request. Connolley has referred to other people as per his whims, for example "Lord V" for Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So it's obviously not a case where he thinks doing that kind of thing is unacceptable or improper. This is obviously an abusive bullying attempt to try and control other editors by telling them how they are allowed refer to him. I'm calling bullshit on it. If that's the standard then why isn't it applied to him or in other cases?
The real problem here is that William is an editor with a major conflict of interest. He has a history as an involved party with activist groups on the Climate Change issues and maintains a blog where he attacks those he disagrees with and advocates his opinions. That's fine, but he isn't allowed to try to push those views by distorting and biasing Wikipedia's content for propaganda purposes. His abusive behaviors include efforts to disparage biographical subjects, the censoring of notable and reliably sourced content, and the twisting of content to reflect only those views that he agrees with. Those behaviors are not acceptable, and his edit warring, incivility, wikilawyering and other disruptive and obstructionist efforts need to be addressed.
If you want to institute a name use policy please do so at the Village Pump. Your attempts to target me with arbitrary and abusive enforcement measures as you've done in the past are entirely unwelcome and unacceptable. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have never called him "Doc W". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Doc Mies (Drmies) and Doctropics, not to mention Baby Doc Duvalier. Given the frequent popular uprisings, Wikipedia is often a physician heal thyself type collaboration. And credentials aren't always verifiable. It would be nice if more appreciation were shown for my impressive restraint in not using the nicknames Wilber, Willis, and Willy more. I'm trying to use William as much as possible but it seems awfully formal when Will is so much more natural and concise, so I'm not finding it easy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Art of Negative Thinking

Updated DYK query On February 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Art of Negative Thinking, 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, quick check ) 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm an expert on the Art of Negative Thinking so I'm happy to see the subject is now covered. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt cake

Perhaps, you can improve the article up to DYK standard from the doomed status given your love for sweeties. --Caspian blue 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks very much like your stove top... Have you been "cooking" again? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I sometime "cook" for making a cereal, but given your fondness of Glorified rice and Snickers salad, I believed you'd love to shape up the article.--Caspian blue 18:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you were eating dirt cake as a kind of breakfast cereal? Fascinating. What did you make for lunch? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....pouring milk over the cake is not that surprising thing. Milk and butter are in kinship. After all, the primary purpose of cakes and gummies are for eaters to gain fat. :-) --Caspian blue 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see butter in the dirt cake recipe. Did you develop a new recipe for butter cream dirt cake breakfast cereal served in milk? How innovative! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article

If someone is willing to move Feed Notifier to my userspace, I'm curious what the article looked like. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Jonathunder (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I'm not sure what to make of it. It's not my area of expertise, but I'll see what the Google Gods have to say about it when I get a chance. I appreciate the bang up job you've done of helping me access it Jonathunder. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duns Scotus reverts

Just FYI: There was a banned user using a sock to evade their ban, that's why I reverted the edits as vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. They look like valid contribs. Is it okay that I restored them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the preferred approach because we don't want to legitimize their socking, but it's not like you proxy edited for them or something. I think it's more or less ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why it wouldn't be OK. The edits by Damian made the three different dates of birth in the Scotus article (1264, 1265 and 1266) consistent by giving a single date (1265) which may not be correct, but is at least consistent and agrees with modern scholarship. Another example: what if the article on arithmetic made the claim that 2+2=5, and that a banned user came along and corrected this. Would an admin be compelled on grounds of policy to revert? And if CoM came along and reverted back, would this only be 'more or less OK'? And what would be the 'preferred approach' here? There is also the matter of a perfectly good and well-sourced article that has been entirely deleted. John Watkins LLD (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there isn't some way to bring Damien back onboard in good faith. As easy as it is to reblock it strikes me as being kind of crazy that as a community we're so strict with enforcements and the "standard offer" nonsense when we know full well that most people can go ahead and create a new account to edit away without us knowing; as long as they don't acknowledge who they are, which I assume is part of the point he was making? It seems like a kind of absurd kabbuki we're playing with shadow puppets of our own making. Meanwhile, those who got into trouble, but can't or won't create alternate accounts don't get another chance to "blend in" or to come clean and are mostly gone for good. I say if someone wants to come back let them. They end up being watched like a hawk anyway, and if they mess up it's not hard to reblock. Why create such a large incentive to game the system? It doesn't make any sense to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an actual request to be unblocked made in the usual manner, I'm usually a supporter of a second chance, and in fact I just wrote this essay on the subject. But as you know, we admins must act according to established policy and not dictate new policy ourselves (at least that's how it's supposed to work) so I followed the standard procedure and undid all the socks edits. I only vaguely remember Peter from his sometimes bizarre requests, like asking all vandal fighters to stop reverting vandalism in order to prove some grand point of his, so I really don't know what the community reaction would be to an attempt to unblock him, but at a glance I'd say it's unlikely given the recent sock accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the unblocking process involves acts of ritual humiliation such as prostration and kowtowing to the whims of whoever is considering the request that don't make it enticing for people who have pride. My preference would be to extend good faith as a way to encourage getting more of it in return. I've had my differences with Damien in the past and the whole destroy Wikipedia to save it scheme didn't seem very constructive, but the guy has expertise (as far as I can tell) in a variety of subjects and i think the encyclopedia would benefit from having him back as a contributor. Academics can be opinionated, argumentative and passionate (especially about their areas of interest), but I think it's good to have them around. Insights and ideas, even provocative ones, can be useful, and sometimes provide inspiration for novel solutions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the 'bizarre idea', at least one well-respected admin (and steward), user:Lar, has a banner on his page saying "This user demands flagged revisions NOW and refuses to do vandal fighting." The point is that if people stopped vandal-fighting, Wikipedia would be compelled to introduce some sort of registration scheme and uniquely-identifying accounts. The emphasis on vandal-fighting detracts from what this project ought to be, the building of a comprehensive and accurate reference source. We seem to have the opposite: articles on genuinely encyclopedic subjects are being deleted as 'vandalism' which is surreal. John Watkins LLD (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Work actions are discouraged. Perhaps understandably. But there are other means of protest, some of them can result in indefinite blocks and even bans though. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's another aspect that is missing there too. A lot of vandal fighters aren't content contributors and don't want to be. Although Wikipedia doesn't exist just to entertain them with the cat-and-mouse game of vandal hunting, a lot of these users would probably just walk away because they had nothing left to do here that interested them. I do agree with you that the unblock process can be needlessly humiliating sometimes, I do my best to tell the difference between someone who was blocked for newbie mistakes and the ones who actually have bad intentions, but it can be very difficult to judge someone's true intentions based only on text. Maybe we should start offering the option unblock via Skype so we can see and hear who we are dealing with, but I imagine a lot of admins who are ugly/naked/drunk (or all three) might not be into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

CoMonics

I have some questions on grammers (sic). Maybe one of my stalkers is a high school English teacher?

When responding please indicate if you are a colonialist oppressor of Britian (cob) or freedom loving American (fla).

1) Is one of these incorrect? Do they have different meanings?:

Bobby discovered the books were destroyed.
Bobby discovered the books had been destroyed.

2) If an article discusses The Nautical Exploration Committee and a writer doesn't always want to write out Nautical Exploration Committee each time the group is mentioned, can the group be written as "the Committee..."? Or would it have to be "the committee..."? I know committee is not a proper noun, but does it have to be lower-case even when it's standing in for a prior proper noun, or can it be made capital to indicate its standing in for a proper known? Is it ever a judgment call or is there a hard and fast rule?

If you literatti don't know the answers to these important questions, perhaps someone can point me to where I can get answers?

Also, when is the draft, who will be the top pick, and who will be the top three quarterbacks selected? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting here folks...
I slept on it, and according to my recollections of Mrs. Krebopple's 8th grade English class, both versions of the Bobby example are okay and the first construction slightly preferred. The "had been" construction is waning in popularity and usually reserved for past perfect(?) constructions where something occured over a period of time or on a regular basis. Example: I was a good boy, but in recent months I have been eating too much sugar.
And I think the substitution with Caps is also considered acceptable in select cases?
If no one responds to this post in the next 5 hours I will take it as a clear consensus that I am absolutely 100% correct and that you are all sorry for past transgressions against my good judgment on grammatical innovation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. The books were destroyed by the fire. The books were destroyed in the fire. The books had been destroyed by the fire. The books had been destroyed in the fire. Any of those sound wrong? The answer probably lies in that wrongness, 'cause it seems like an active/passive voice thing. Nightmote (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The had been construction seems unnecessarily wordy to me, and my understanding is that the general movement as far as grammar goes is to simplify things. This page explains the issues [20], but I would argue that the had/has constructions should be reserved for periodic or durational (is that a word?) occurences since the other uses just make the sentences wordier. Por ejemplo, in their first example "You had studied English before you moved to New York" isn't any clearer than "You studied English before you moved to New York", and is therefore unnecessarily wordy. And confirmation of that page using all kinds of bad exampels that should be discouraged is confirmed by their use of "We had had that car for ten years before it broke down" as an example. Yikes!
Any comments or thoughts on substituting "University" instead of "university" for the proper noun University of Dunceworth when it's repeated in a text and the acronym UD isn't commonly used or confusing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think both examples of what Bobby discovered are what the article on the pluperfect calls pluperfect of state. To my Midwestern-American ear, both are correct and idiomatic. There may be a shade of difference between the examples, depending on context. Jonathunder (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I suppose it's a greyish area in the English language? I think those flukey tenses are more popular in other tongues. Many of the examples seem arcane and dated to me. I think they might fly in literature, but I don't think they belong in an information source such as an encyclopedia where clear wording and readability is desirable.
He saw that the door had opened, and children were running through it.
He saw that the door was open and children were running through it.
He saw the door was open and children were running through it.
He saw the open door and children running through it.
Fun stuff. I know which version I prefer, and it's no wonder the English teachers are mostly hiding in seclusion.
If only I had had more discpline and had payed (or is it paid?) attention when Krebopple was explaining this stuff! (Which of course I would write as: If only I were more discipled and payed paid attention. But why simplify?) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which Krebopple would correct to "If only I were more disciplined and paid attention." Jonathunder (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.... because paid (oops) is in the past tense there has to be agreement? Makes sense I suppose. I'm learning. Slowly. It seems to me that someone could be talking generally and then mix in a reference to the past, If I was taller I would have eaten more bananas. Does it have to be if I were taller? I'm not allowed to mix tenses that way? But someone else is granted there had hads? So unfair. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A purist, such as dear old Krebopple, would put statements which are contrary to fact in the subjunctive mood: if I were taller. Among non-purists, the subjunctive is slowly dying in Modern English. Jonathunder (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to remember that. If only I were in possession of a stronger memory... How do I get subjunctive off the chopping block and more of this pluperfect had had nonsense under the guillotine? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're mentioned in my AN/I complaint against Tarc

Here it is WP:ANI#Tarc's ongoing abuse. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned? Heck you've put met out there as the scarecrow straw man, the clown at the bullfight, chum in the water. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. :)-- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminationism

Thank you for your reverts to the Scotus article. There is still a problem with the Greyfriars article [21] which has the birth date as 1264. No one really knows the exact date (it is an inference from the fact he was ordained in 1291) but the dates should at least be consistent, and the scholarly consensus is around1265/66 (see the SEP entry e.g. [22]).

I saw that, but a year one way or the other didn't seem enormously significant to me and I haven't compared sources to establish which date is preferred. Another alternative would be to pick the average (or either one) and use "ca." I'm not a big date person. Does it mean something if he was born in 1264 instead of 1265?
Not really, but as I say the same article should not have different dates, it is sloppy. Pick one date and be consistent throughout. John Watkins LLD (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note the revert by Beeblebrox has destroyed the link to John Pecham which is now showing red again.

On Illuminationism, there is not really such a thing as illuminationism (European). The version discussed in Illuminationist philosophy is simply the Islamic version which comes from pretty much the same neo-Platonist sources as Augustine's. Again, see the relevant SEP entries [23], [24], [25]. There really should be a single article which discusses all the different varieties, and indeed Damian made a start on this but it has been deleted. [26]. An admin needs to restore it. It seems absurd it was deleted at all. Best John Watkins LLD (talk)

Thanks for the note. I'll try to have a look but I'm out of my depth on those subjects. I'm still trying to figure out what the question of the eternity of the world is.
Speaking of which, trying to find the name of that article (I forgot what it was called) I noticed there are several articles on the age of the world Universe (oops, I was thinking too narrowly), Dating Creation, and section such as Time (section Philosophy) and Creationism (section Day-age creationism). Very abstract stuff. I'm too busy establishing whether cheese dreams are independently notable cheese sandwiches deserving of a stand-alone article to wrestle with the more existential questions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I threw in [27] if it helps... And I restored the link to Peckham/Pecham. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you. John Watkins LLD (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now we do have a problem. John here has just been blocked as another sock of Peter. (12 apostles socking motif?) Anyway, it seems Mr. Damian is trying to turn you into his "good hand." I doubt I have to explain this to you, but you should proceed very carefully at this point, lest it appear you are indeed proxy editing on his behalf. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I will try not to mess with any philosophy stuff that might be related to his work going forward if it's a concern (although I might try to draft something on immediacy which came up in relation to a discussion unrelated to him). But it should be noted that I have no way of knowing who's who. I also don't have any stake in him being blocked or not. I just saw that the edits were beneficial and restored them. I'm not attempting to do anything on his behalf, or anyone elses. And I haven't had any offline contact with him. If someone has a good suggestion or points something out that needs fixing I'm usually receptive, and I usually just assume good faith on whoever I come across. I don't have any checkuser powers, so there's not much I can do about that kind of thing anyway. And I find our approach to blocking people pretty primeval anyway. If someone want to help build the encyclopedia in a collegial manner I don't much care who they are. In fact I've disagreed with Peter vehemently on several issues in the past. But I do I think a communication channel should be opened up with him so his interests can be assessed. If he wants to do article work then I support his being unblocked. If not then c'est la vie. Presumably he's at a university and can jump IPs at will. I'll try to more wary of unfamiliar accounts and philosophical subjects and discussions if that's helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't really occur to me at the time either, I don't recall having any direct contact with him before and wasn't even really looking for it from this guy, but in retrospect it seems likely. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prod of Can of whoop ass

Hey CoM, I just prodded your can of whoop ass for deletion. Feel free to open one up on me assuming you disagree. LadyofShalott 23:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at you causing trouble for me once again LoS. Tsk tsk tsk. I think it's probably borderline, but in my mind (warped though it may be) it's exactly the type of subject that's great to include because it provides useful and interesting insights on an arcane subject that is difficult to find good information on elsewhere. I think it's reliably sourced and I'm sure it will improve over time. I also think the notable iterations of the term are a good indication that it's worth covering. The article also serves as a useful and itneresting disambiguation page, as well as a primer on the subject. But certainly there will be those who will holler "dicdef" at the top of their lungs.
I see it as useful whimsy. A frolick in a paperless encyclopedia's cheese dreamy pop cultural goodness.
Where will those wanting to know more about whoop ass go once it's gone? Are you prepared to condemn them to the Urban Encyclopedia and other less wholesome and more unsavory environs? I'd rather have more articles on notable and interesting slang than blurbs on all the olympic athletes who finished 57th in their respective sport. TEAR DOWN THE WALL LoS. Freedom of information! That's what we're all about.
Happier times when cans of whoop ass delivered silly string to joyful children
If you're intent on giving it a trial by fire, how about taking it to AfD and leaving it up to the unwashed masses? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was once given a can of whoop ass for my birthday. It was really Silly String...--kelapstick (talk)
Kelapstick, I'm very sorry that Shallots wants to make you cry by threatening to delete content related to a very special and meaningful birthday present you received, even after reading your touching anecdote. You need to stay strong and hold it together. Remember that no one can crush your dreams. Not even a meanie Wikipedia disciplinarian can take away that magical can of whoop ass/ silly string that you got for your birthday. Those happy memories are yours forever. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)If you de-prod it, I'll do just that. FWIW, I did list it at the Language delsort page to try to get someone else to take a look. LadyofShalott 00:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that this article may change your mind [28]. There's also this song [29] and this Ode to a Can of Whoop-Ass: [30]
(excerpt)
"The anticipation mounts
For if the can is finally whipped open
The pressure will be released; all Hell will break loose,
And fate will take the reins" ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how an entry on cans of whoop ass can be complete without a reference to There's Something About Mary. Bongomatic 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shockingly Bongo, some editors don't want that crucial information to ever make it into the encyclopedia. And as a result, many of us will remain ignorant. For example I am allergic to the combination of Ben Still and Cameron Diaz, so I haven't seen the movie. I guess now I may never know what that film classic has to do with cans of whoops ass. The ignorant shame I feel is a terrible darkness. Please someone let in a ray of light. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Stiller has explicitly requested that you refrain from using some modes of address and refer to him only as "Still-o-rama" or "Herr Doktor Love". Thank you. Bongomatic 02:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see I made a couple of typos there. Ben Still? Well, there's no question that alcohol helps when you're going to be watching his movies, so that may well have been my subconscious speaking. And whoops ass is what you open up after one too many. So at least I was thematically consistent. Have you and 2^0, who I'm actually quite fond of, opened up a Village Pump discussion on user name abbreviation protocols? It's an important subject and we need more policies to address it. Maybe a userspace essay would be a good place to start? Nervermind, it's probably been done. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can of whoop ass. Oh my. What a concept. What a useful link that could be in so many situations on Wikipedia. Where do you get these article ideas, CoM? Hmmmmm. Maybe one of these days I'll consider the possibility of opening up one of those cans myself. And how's your day been? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have friends in the deep south and lunatic Canadian amigos who inspire these wacky creations with their cheese dream rubbernecking and pissing contests. I'm always encouraged when I search for something like delusions of grandeur and there's a link. But there are still a lot of gaps, and when I find them I try to fix the situation posthaste. But social amnesia, religious values and fuddy duddy are all redlinks. Why? Thankfully, I was able to put something up on Grape pie and cow cod soup, so there's hope that before too long we can cover all the important stuff! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Post haste was deleted, maybe LoS or another Wikipedia admin can tell us what was there? It seems it should be spelled posthaste? I'm thinking a redirect to immediacy makes sense. Unfortunately immediacy (philosophy) is still a redlink. And so it begins... Unless people think immediate is a viable subject? Everyone always rants and raves about dicdefs, well I think the least we can do is to have soft redirects there if we aren't going to include the words here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For post haste's deletion, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 4#Post haste → Post Haste: The Letter Carrier Game. LadyofShalott 03:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. This related deletion discussion is also rich [31]. And here's the game itself [32], Johnny B will be happy to know it's made in Massachusetts at a union shop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to soft redirects to Wiktionary. LadyofShalott 03:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That might not be a bad idea. There's "open a can of whoop ass" there, but I think you could improve it, and I'm not sure whether or not "open a" should be in it or not. Here at Wikipedia, It'd be a hard sell to get beyond WP:DICDEF objections at AfD, and rather than go through the trouble, why not beef up the coverage over there? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. The article woefully ignored the "open up a" configuration of speech (is that an idiom?). I have attempted to correct this oversight. Perhaps that mistake was what led to the good faith prodding of the article. Thank goodness it's getting the attention and clean up such an important subject deserves. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuddy-duddy

Can someone tell me what this source say: [33]? I've hit my limit on reading it apparently. Or is it unavailable to everyone? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it either and I know it's not because my views have been exceeded. Looks like it's set now for limited preview and that page won't display. It may have been changed from the time the reference was added to the article as Google books has been restricting access to some of the books it has posted. Perhaps the copyright holder contacted Google with a request to limit views. And so on. Geoff Who, me? 22:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's too bad, it discusses a use of the term in Maine but I can't make out all of what it says on the subject. Is there a way to figure out what this source [34] has in it on the subject? All I can see is:
THOUGHTS OF AN OLD FUDDY-DUDDY WHILE SITTING (Or, Anybody Can Do This Sort of Thing) GEORGE BELLOWS, just before his death, patiently expounding his defense...
from the Googe Books search, but it looks interesting. Isn't George Bellows quite famous? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the Google books reference is in error, as it leads to one of former President Kennedy's books. I find the phrase referred to here, in a book titled "The Night Club Era," by Stanley Walker. (The TOC is visible on the link page and it shows the "fuddy-duddy" phrase for page 298, matching the Google snippet from the other reference.) A long way to answer your question, by saying: try the public library? Geoff Who, me? 01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And have to get up from my chair? The indignity!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must walk off all that bacon, not to mention the other goodies.Geoff Who, me? 02:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<meant to be posted to another user's talk page but it got locked down. :(> What about my question regarding whether you use the term fuddy-duddy in Britain? That was a serious question related to a new article I'm working up. This archiving is an outrage! Who made you King of this talk page? I would ask Iridescent, but I don't think she cares for my brand of humor. Ah well. I suppose I best shower off. Chlorine is no good for my skin. Do we get to eat ice cream soon? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of crucial information... If it's on at 10, wouldn't that be 11 central?--kelapstick (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm outraged that someone would vandalize Leave it to Beaver star Marty Van Buren's page. What is the world coming to? Did you see the Glenn Beck spoof on South Park last evening? It's so rare they show new ones on Comedy Central, so I was happy to catch an episode I hadn't seen already. It was mostly about Cartman standing up to Smurf killing politicians. Sort of an Aesop's fable for the modern age without the animals. I thought it was smurfy, and wondered whether Doc had seen it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fuddy-duddy

The article Fuddy-duddy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

dic def

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ridernyc (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"See her daddy
Fuddy-duddy, fuddy-duddy, fuddy-duddy.
'Don't get all muddy,
Muddy, muddy, muddy, muddy.
You are much too plump and little
To be in the muddy middle.
Mud is squishy, mud is squashy,
Mud is oh so squishy-squashy.
What you need is lots of soap'
But the piggy answered,
'Squishy-squashy, squishy-squashy --NOPE!' " [35] ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or do you mean fuddle duddle?--kelapstick (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Canadian phrase? Where are the freaking speedy taggers when we need them? What an outrage. And can we merge poutine, pizzaghetti and Labatts already? It's all the same slop. ;) Where's underdog or whatever his name is when I need him? Wait is Conan Canadian? One of those comedians is, I think. He or she should be cancelled! Yesterday! Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hip hip, my dear, hurray!

No speedy deletion today.

(Said S-man, "Up up and away. :-) Proofreader77 (interact) 17:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting on climate articles.

Take this as a friendly warning - I've noticed that you are frequently reverting climate articles, only to later find out that you are reverting items that were specifically discussed and agreed on on the talk page. Please be certain to carefully read the talk pages of contentious articles before editing them, especially before reverting them. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the talk page (did you fail to read it?) editors should consider including "per talk" or even a link to a talk page discussion in their edit summaries when a change is based on discussion so people seeing the diff on their watchlist know to look there for an explanation. This helps assist other editors and is what edit summaries are for: explaining why changes are being made.
If you're referring to this edit [36] then of course I support including that link. We need to at the very least link to an article on the history of global warming when the global warming article itself has been so distorted by flat earth propagandists that it contains the absurdly misleading claim that global warming is the "increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century", without mentioning that the earth has had numerous periods of global warming and cooling throughout its history. Are you perhaps unaware that there have been ice ages and warming periods? We shouldn't be misrepresenting facts or misleading our readers with distorted content. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is, of course, best practice to both right "per talk" and to assume "per talk." In the future, let's try for both! Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be terrific if I had the time to check the talk page for every edit I review on my watchlist. I don't, so that's not going to happen, which is why people need to use edit summaries to communicate the reasoning for their changes.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DBH?

Ingredients of a god-like DBH

What's a DBH [[37]]? I assume you're not a 1800 yr old king or enzyme? Gerardw (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created in God's image with quite a bit of protein, I will tell you that I meant Doctor by Heredity. :) I don't like acronyms or titles much except for arbitrary and invented ones, especially when we're dealing with an encyclopedia building project on the internet where anyone can edit, anonymously. I think people are nuts to use their real names here, but I suspect many of them may be of dubious authenticity anyway. TCB. (take care buddy). ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I often think people are nuts to be here under any name. FWWPSKEATTPM (Fool who will probably keep editing and trying to make peace). Gerardw (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "and" and "to" get capital letters. And I try to exclude verbiage. So I think what you're looking for is FWWMP, fool who wants more peace, or FAWWP, fool addicted to wikipedia wanting peace. Acronyms get confusing if they're too long. Maybe it should be PFAW, peacemaking fool addicted to wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And PFAW is somewhat similar to guffaw, which is often the reaction to peace making fools! Gerardw (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or someone exhaling after drawing on a pipe dream. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought TCB was commonly understood to mean "Takin' Care of Business (or 'Bidness')" from a number of sources, particularly Elvis. Geoff Who, me? 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's use is comprehensive and also refers to Task Control Blocks, a data structure in the operating system kernel. TCB. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wacky, you know there's nothing on Wikipedia about kernals? It's just a redirect to KERNAL, Commodore's 8-bit OS software. Not popcorn eater amongst us! I'm awed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kernel, pronounced like "colonel," of course. Geoff Who, me? 21:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You missed the fine print near the top of the Commodore 64? How much would I be outing myself if I said I used to own one? Anyway, it's here Kernel. Gerardw (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So kernel is an alternative spelling of kernal, which is pronounced the same as colonel? It's a very confusing world for me. I thought it was kernal of truth? But it's a kernel of truth (as least more commonly)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information

Thanks for your sensible and calming comments Re Mattisse. I just wanted to advise you that she is on conduct probation, and may be subject to discretionary sanctions at any time. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Clarification_motions, in particular motion 7.1. Geometry guy 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People respond well to polite communications. Warning templates (really any templates, but we make some allowances for practicality) and blocks without warning are highly uncivil and inappropriate unless the circumstances are exceptional. There was no need for a punitive block against that editor and it has only served to inflame and disrupt the situation. There's no need for an atmosphere of threats and bullying here if only admins would start leading by example. If blocks are preventative I support a block on the admin(s) who thought that such a bone-headed move would be helpful. Perhaps it will teach them to be more thoughtful and considerate in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"If blocks are preventative I support a block on the admin(s) who thought that such a bone-headed move would be helpful? How is that a helpful comment? How would you justify such a block? Or have you just missed out a "not"? You have to understand the background and not rush to conclusions to appreciate why the block of Mattisse was preventative (as it has been). If you want to "teach" admins "how to be more thoughtful and considerate in the future", I suggest you apply for bureaucratship. Geometry guy 23:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how helpful the comment is, but I think a block of you and your fellow admins who lack the basic courtesy and decency to communicate with your fellow editors would go a long way in putting a stop to abusive and policy violating tool use. It's called civility. You know, courtesy? Like saying hey, I think you might have made a mistake here, can you back off, instead of busting in like shock troops to "teach" people a lesson. You guys are acting like bullies and it's not okay. Wise up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am a champion of courtesy, and am well known as a courteous editor on Wikipedia. I apologize if my posts to your talk page caused you distress and I encourage you to research background information to ensure you keep to the high standards of courtesy that you espouse. Many thanks, Geometry guy 00:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking should be used only as a last resort. It's a very negative and punishing action that should be reserved for instances where it is absolutely necessary. Please don't fail to communicate your concerns to fellow editors first in future, before blocking. At the very least you are expected to issue warnings. It is also not appropriate to use blocks in a punitive manner. You're not dealing with dogs wearing shock collars, we're human beings who respond to respectful engagement. Please be more careful, considerate, and civil in the future. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I have not made any blocks recently and am very careful, considerate and civil. Geometry guy 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic. Then please make sure to share your wisdom with other admins, call out those disrupting collegial editing and cease defending indefensible and abusive blocks that violate our policies. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will edit in whatever way I can to improve the encyclopedia. I hope you do likewise, otherwise this will become just another MMORPG. Geometry guy 00:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive, harassing, and threatening behavior is a big problem on Wikipedia. If you want to make it less like an MMPORG you should try get editors, especially admins, to treat one another with respect, instead of running about with billyclubs playing "gotcha". It's the law of the jungle and the cabalism that are so damaging to collegiality and civil interactions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus more attentively on productive discussion at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

(User:2over0 coming to my talkpage to make absurd and ironic comments)

The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [38], [39], [40]. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO. Right. I'll pay REALLY close attention since you've been so attentive to addressing the relentless incivility engaged in by William Connolley that's been documented in half a dozen or so filings that have all been ignored. Please don't post unfunny jokes like this on my talkpage. Your biased involvement in the AGW articles has been enormously disruptive and unhelpful, you've been called out by lots of editors, and you should slink away with what's left of your severely damaged reputation. Have you no shame? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those diffs were all relevant to the discussion. The problems with your abusive and biased enforcement is that it has encouraged the disruptive behaviors we've seen from William Connolley and others in the AGW cabal. And the final post was only made in response to the many disruptive comments regarding the content issue which had absolutely nothing to do with the Connolley's grotesque incivility cited in the report. Sidetracking discussion with irrelevancies and your improper collapsing of threads about Connolley's COI and abusive behavior has been enormously damaging to get the problem addressed and solved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Geni did block WMC for 24 hrs today for that activity. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George. I hope you are well and that 2010 is going well for you so far. I don't like to see anyone blocked, as I think you know. But like many editors I am frustrated and fed up with the abuse that's going on at those articles and the relentless incivility, baiting and disruption that's tolerated from some of the AGW advocates. The biased enforcement actions and one-sided interventions that 2over0 has carried out have contributed greatly to the problem. Those articles are a very toxic environment and efforts to get problematic behaviors addressed have been largely stymied by 2over0. Meanwhile blocks and bans have been tossed around willy nilly to editors with other points of view than the AGW's strongest adherents. In my experience you're something of an expert at going after one side of a dispute, but it's not right and it's damaging to the encyclopedia and makes the editing environment highly toxic, frustrating and partisan. The rules should apply equally to all parties, not just those we happen to agree or disagree with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had not meant to refactor the thread header. I had added my own, and then changed my mind, but apparently deleted the wrong one. It's late here and I'm trying to work on Lake Onota and a new article I've been researching on Wirt Dexter Walker. Maybe the problem has gotten enough attention now that something will be done about the nastiness? Or is 2over0 going to be allowed to continue blocking editors he disagrees with in favor of the AGW crowd, no matter how abusive and disruptive their behaviors and uncivil their comments? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChildofMidnight&oldid=343490429"