User talk:ChildofMidnight

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

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

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

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

It was about time you had one of these

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For special merits in Dragon breeding.

Thanks

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

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

References

The Dutch don't need no stinking references!

For later

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

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

• AE statement

Possibly unfree File:Candy dots as art.jpg

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

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words CoM. I'll admit, I honestly hoped that you weren't too upset with me. I know that I can be "over the top" sometimes with the "Can't we all just get along" stuff. On a side note, I noticed your post to Jimbo's page - I realize that I must now bow down before you as our supreme commander. :P — Ched :  ?  06:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking Sultan. High Priest may violate the communalist push for total separation of church and state (is Wikipedia a de facto state?). But Supreme Commander would work okay, although I'm not sure if the pacifists would go for it. Maybe something more elegant like Supreme Purveyor of Truth would be good. Or Head Councilor of Fairness. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That would have to be Supreme Purveyor of Verifiability, wouldn't it? LadyofShalott 05:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Amended remedy

The Committee has amended several remedies of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles, at least one of which mentions your name. You may view the amended remedies at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Remedies.

On behalf of the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

This is great news and just in time. I have some outstanding sources on Obama's true birthplace (hint:he's Dutch) and verifiable proof that Joe Biden is a robot with a circuitboard malfunction. The truth must be known! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that Marvin the Paranoid Android is covered by ObamaArb now? Where will it end? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Per the restriction on AfD nominations of bilateral relations articles, since any article has a nexus with a country, and all countries have a non-deletable potential bilateral relationship with the United States, and Obama is the head of state of United States, all articles are Obama-related. QED. Bongomatic 04:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. The topic ban is still in effect. The truth will have to wait... Thanks for the good humor gents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hungry?

Harissa caught my attention, after the final episode of Food Network Star. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Assistance?

Hi CoM

Created an embarrasingly light stub that perhaps you might be willing to assist on.

Regards, Bongomatic 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Italian hotdish? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of it, but yep. Bongomatic 01:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I may need you help with Chinchilla rescue centres if the speedy is declined. I'm not sure it's notable... ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's in good hands, but I'll watchlist it. Please help bring Timballo up to DKY-eligibility. If we could only convince Drmies that Italian=Nevetherlandian we'd be set (we could even probably have the whole Timballo discography in time). Bongomatic 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman

Aren't you limited to one revert per week on BLP's? If so, you're over that limit. Scribner (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. But thanks for asking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right it's not just BLP's it's all articles, with a requirement to use the talk page on reverts, right? double check Scribner (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. Scribner (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He did not violate anything, because his restriction has been changed. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#Remedies. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Chinchilla rescue centres

Standard Gray Chinchilla

Look at it now...quick! before it gets deleted! Drmies (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you donate at Chinsatplay website?

Whoa, did you see that rabbit on the top left of that page? What's that doing there? Drmies (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a rabbit... Speaking of Chinchillas and Basic Income this new article on ProudNation seems right up your alley! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Is your tongue in your cheek, Dr. Mies, or are you thoroughly confused about what a chinchilla is? (It's neither a dog nor a rabbit.) LadyofShalott 03:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He's probably never seen one alive before. They look very different in Jambalaya or stir fried. Tastes a bit like chicken. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, seriously, what does it look like? Oops--I may have put the wrong category on that &^%$^ article. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I need to check the history. Thanks Lady. Yeah, I did for a moment think about dogs, I don't know why--I'll have you know that I have a friend who once had a friend who had a chinchilla, and I petted it. (The guy also had a diesel Norton, imported from India, much more impressive than that fuzzy rat.) A momentary lapse of reason. I probably need some sleep. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

<grin> You're certainly welcome. BTW, I'm guessing you've seen that the article is now at AfD? What's a diesel Norton? LadyofShalott 03:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably, one of these, fueled by diesel. Bongomatic 03:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, a motorcycle from Norton Motorcycle Company that ran on diesel--very unusual for a motorcycle. He had bought it somewhere in India at the end of a vacation, and then performed two impossible feats with it: he got it through customs (cost him his camera, as a bribe), and then got it up to the third floor of an Amsterdam apartment building--one of the early twentieth-century ones, no elevator, narrow staircase. Anyway, it was a weird thing, only produced 18HP if I remember correctly, but it looked really cool and old and it added a wonderful aroma to the apartment. I couldn't even smell the dog rat rabbit chinchilla! Drmies (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• The best news of all came when LoS declined the speedy nom! Seven joyous days of reprieve for that wonderful (and important!) article, assuming there's no snow closure (but a lot of editors push for the full-seven days so here's hoping!). Are y'all sure it isn't Christmas? The gifts just keep on coming! What wonderful humorists you are. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah the power of rhetoric/editing... I hope the page gets to stay--I'm teaching business writing in the fall, and this would be a useful example. There was a snarky edit comment by whoever declined that speedy...cats aren't pets? something strange. Well, if if gets deleted that will all be buried deeply. Hey CoM, it's kind of fun hanging out here again at your place--but can you turn the air down a bit? Remember--you can only change it once per week! Drmies (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

<gasp> Who would dare make a snarky edit summary? ;-) As for a potentially good class example that is likely to be deleted... one could always request that an administrator entertain a polite request for userfication. I might know one whose userpage mentions being willing to listen to reasonable such requests. LadyofShalott 04:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting your vote

AFD On this AFD. LoveMonkey (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As a big supporter of meta pages (see for example User talk:ChildofMidnight/talk and User talk:ChildofMidnight/talk/talk), I think I would probably vote keep. I have no idea what Libertarian metaphysics involves, but it sounds fascinating! And I do prefer it over Totalitarian (metaphysics) :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I just reread your request. You are asking for an AfD on an AfD? I love it. A meta-AfD. Why hasn't this been done before. Clearly it is long overdue. Can you work up a template? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I guess that wouldn't be a Meta-AfD. Or would it? This stuff is way over my head. I like simple articles that are easy to understand, like those on Chinchilla rescue organizations and politicians. I suggest consulting Skomorokh or Peter D... ummm ooops. I guess he can't be consulted anymore. Anyway, I need to go see what Bill O'Reilly has to say about Amsterdam. Apparently it's very sinful over there, although they do have some nice architecture. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever Billo says about the goats--it's only for 'export', so to speak: for American tourists. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What is meant by "goats" in this context? I'm finding your relations to animals very confusing/ intriguing this evening. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright C.O.M., I saw your edits on other stuff with Skomorokh and thought you objective. Jeez I was just asking.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Not on your life, your work is good, so I was hoping for help on the AFD from you.No offense taken at all. Your not a puppet so if you get C.O.M. you get just that. I asked for help because you would be fair and objective. I began to doubt some of my edits since I used the term libertarian metaphysical and it was pointed out to me that's not something used in academia and when I could not find the term anywhere, well.. The rest is history literally, I lost.LoveMonkey (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been known to ramble. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Totalitarian (metaphysics) isn't that what We was about?LoveMonkey (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to go look. I think Me (novel) is a better title. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Deplorable

Well, obviously you have too many fans, so your ArbCom restriction has been used by disruptive editors to game the system or forum shopping. I think minority's voice is always be warranted without fear on Wikipedia, but unfortunately, that does not occur Although I and you seems to have politically different ideas, you have a right to defend your idea to the public as long as you abide by the Wikipedia rules--Caspian blue 04:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. However, I encourage you to use the article talk page on repeated reverts. Caspian understands this concept and defends it as well. Scribner (talk) 04:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that your edit would be immediately reverted since CoM only takes valid criticism or polite visit .--Caspian blue 04:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to use caution on personal attacks. Scribner (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not attack you, but said about the page owner's way of welcoming/unwelcoming. Besides, I noted your personal attacks not only here but also on ANI. Please be very careful of not doing personal attacks and harassment. Thanks.--Caspian blue 04:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You absolutely did, and I'm warning here just as I did on your talk page. Scribner (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And your forum shopping to harass me is not surprising.[1] I'm warning here you again for your repeated harassment. Please bear in mind that you should abide by the NPA rule.[2]--Caspian blue 04:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, you should probably take these serious concerns to ANI. Given Caspian's refusal to acknowledge the validity of your interpretaion, talk page warnings really aren't adequate. Bongomatic 04:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm okay to remove this whole thread here, but well, I don't think you can remove my comment on ANI because it is about his obvious misunderstanding.--Caspian blue 05:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

template

Hey CoM, what do you think of this? (Serious question!) Drmies (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. You made that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, just some cutting and pasting from the peacock template. I think there's a use for it--in band articles, organizational and corporate articles (check out the 'history' section of Oxford Leadership Academy), etc. But I don't know if I got the wording right, I don't know what policy to link to (if I need to do that at all--I think it would make sense), and I don't know if I can simply 'add' a template, or how to do that. I'd appreciate any suggestions, edits, tweaks, etc. Thanks for your help! Drmies (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the actual formatting to add it to an article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would imagine it would be {{Namedropping}}... But since it's in user space I guess that doesn't work. As you can see, there's a "documentation" section at the bottom which I put in nowiki brackets--I have no doubt that that's where things need to happen before it can go anywhere. I'm going to find out. Oh, remember "Before My End," Selma's most prominent death metal band (Selma has less than 20,000 inhabitants)? I just got their EP in via email. Not bad! If you like that sort of stuff, which I'm still not sure I do, haha. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you make it to the concert? I'll keep a lookout for your camcorder work on youtube. I think the Village Pump might be the place to discuss the template. But that technical stuff is over my head. I mostly focus on trying to add political labels to pigeon hole people in their biographies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, right you are. But remember, you're lying through your conservative teeth. Our very first interaction was you setting me straight on how to perform a merge and keep the history. Ha! No, I didn't make it to the concert. But I did go and see Willie Nelson, John Mellencamp, and Bob Dylan last weekend. I tried to label them as 'liberal' while I was getting a beer and just got laughed at. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The laughter was probably because you have the labels all wrong. Willie Nelson is a libertarian. John Mellencamp is a Blue Dog. And Bob Dylan is an anarchist. I hope that helps. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See my talk page

I have to agree with Eagles247 about the cowboys.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You should weigh in on the discussion. But remember that your views will be recorded in the page's history and can be called up to add to your eventual humiliation when America's team stomps the Philthy scanvenger birds. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll see ;)--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 20:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman

In edit summary for this edit you said that you are tweaking. While most of your changes were tweaks you also reverted my last edit. Was that your intention or you just edited old version of the page by mistake? -- Vision Thing -- 11:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cordial note. Sorry about that, the edit summary reflects the changes I made. I hadn't intended to remove that content at all and would have used a different edit summary if I had. I'm not sure why that happens to me sometimes, but I guess I must have accidentally worked from a version of the article that wasn't current at the time and failed to notice. I tried to restore it to the right spot. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

? the source was irrelevant to the sentence it supported, which was about Krugman being "liberal" - a word which doesn't appear in the source. WP:AGF much? Rd232 ^talk 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The article's is subtitled "Paul Krugman has emerged as Obama's toughest liberal critic", notes his authorship of "The Conscience of a Liberal" and says he has "has all the credentials of a ranking member of the East Coast liberal establishment." Please don't remove sources from articles with misleading edit summaries. This kind of activity is very damaging to the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

This quite clearly violates your topic ban, as you should obviously know since your comment actually mentions Obama, and since you were specifically warned away from the AfD about this article. This is simply not acceptable. As a courtesy to you I agreed to not enforce the Obama ArbCom remedies against you, but another admin would be well within their rights to block you for that talk page edit. I do not think you can claim that you did not know that page was verboten, and it is your job to stay clear of Obama topics, and err on the side of caution—not to count on others to warn you after the fact.

If another admin happens by this you might well be blocked (indeed that's probably what should happen), but I'm just (again) warning you to stop editing in these areas. The next time it happens I'll ask another admin to administer a 24 hour block—you've already been given some leeway on this as you know. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban has been modified. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen one of the modifications (1RR being limited to Obama-related pages I think was the thing) but to what are you referring? Can you provide a link? I thought you were still topic banned from Obama articles, unless something has changed very recently. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

At ChildofMidnight, I guess you misread the modified ArbCom remedy. You can not edit nor comment to anything related to Obama during the 6 months, but after that is expired, you can edit such articles and revert 1RR per week. The modified remedy statement is clumsy in writing that could give misimpression that CoM and others can edit Obama related articles. You really need to stay away from US politics topics which would be generally likely related to the president. --Caspian blue 19:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not how I read the remedy. Can you point me to where you see that? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah nevermind. I see the remedy above is still in place. You are correct Caspian blue. Thank you for pointing that out. Indeed I had focused on the new remedy statement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, can either of you point me directly to what you are referring? I think it highly unlikely that the revised remedy is written so clumsily that it could have been misconstrued as ArbCom vacating their remedy against C of M—C of M was just blocked (and unblocked by me) one week ago for violating his topic ban, so he was well aware of it then. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The new remedies are here [3] and they came into play (if I recall correctly) after the issue a week ago. But it appears to me now that as Tarc and Caspian blue indicate the 6 month topic ban is in fact still in place. So it was my mistake per reading the wording of the new remedy and missing the bit above it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)The remedy 9 is not modified since June 21 so still CoM and others are topic banned. However,
• The remedy 9. 2 was amended on August 2 after Sceptre's requested. The writing could give a misimpression, but well, that could be modified to reflect the topic-ban by clerks. --Caspian blue 19:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are referring to, but the topic ban is quite clearly still in place as you say. Probably the Arbs should not have worded the revised remedy the way they did (I'll try to get them to clarify that), but really you still should have known better—you knew very well you were under a topic ban in addition to a 1RR restriction, and it was quite obvious that the Arbs changed the 1RR restriction but not the topic ban. In any case, please be more careful in the future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clear now. I don't think it's hard to understand how reading the new remedy I thought that 1RR on Obama subjects was in effect. I simply missed the ban statement above it. In fact, I hadn't realized Scjessey and I were the only ones subject to that particular remedy. Anyway, no need for a clarification. Mistakes happen. But I think we're all clear now. If you look at my page history and read my comments posted above and at the top of the page it's quite clear I thought the new remedy was 1RR on Obama articles. That would have been more appropriate and helpful, but I see that isn't the case. c'est la vie. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, just for the sake of getting this straight for the future (for other editors who might enforce the remedies if not for yourself) I've asked the Arbs to clarify this here. No need for you to do anything since I told them you understand the situation, but probably their language should be more precise, or they should just make a formal statement saying "this is what we meant." Not a big deal but they may as well get it right for future reference. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Chili Bowl

I started the midget car racing article. There had been no other use before early this year. I think the racing article should be renamed to Chili Bowl (race) and Chili Bowl should become a redirect to the disambiguation page. Do you object? If you don't, I doubt it would be controversial. I'm willing to do the work. Please respond here on your talk page with your opinion. Royalbroil 21:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No that would be great if you're okay with it. I wasn't sure whether to name the Chili Bowl restaurant article after the guy or the restaurant especially with Chili Bowl already taken. I try not to rock the boat and didn't want to step on any toes. But I do think it woiuld be nice if people could find the restaurant article and the link to the disambig. page is a step too many. The other way would be to leave the race as is and change the disambig at the top to point to the Chili Bowl restaurant article. I couldn't figure out how to do that. The restaurant seems kind of fun, especially if someone could get a photo. Isn't use of "midget" a BLP violation? For shame. Have a good one RB. Nice to see you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All along, I've thought that the midget car article should be moved if something else came along. I'll move it when I have a little time in a few hours.

I actually did a nice play on words with the Chili Bowl article. It was part of this past April's April Fool's Day in DYK - (link). The hook was Did You Know... that HBO television network broadcast midgets racing for prizes in a chili bowl ? Teh he! That might be a bigger BLP. Except racing cars are not living while the motor is off. Have a good one! Royalbroil 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that everybody knew that "race cars" were "our friends". Living, breathing friends. :P — Ched :  ?  22:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried about you Ched. By the way my request for you to mentor a difficult user is a reflection of the high esteem I hold you in and recognition of you consideration for your fellow editors. Having said that, I hope I can now get back to giving you a hard time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove

You should see the activity! Drmies (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama might have mentioned his name once so I'm not sure I'm allowed to edit that. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a rather aggressive trim. I was about to revert all the edits, but the way they're gunning for me I don't need a Karl Rove edit showing up in my history. The Wiki-Nazis are already after me. You have to admit the bit about him distributing an opponent's campaign flyers with notice about free beer at shelters and rock concerts was fairly awesome... I mean totally inappropriate. Some of the section retitling look okay. :) I'm trying to focus on the positive.

Meanwhile I tried to clean up some of the smears and BLP violations on Matt Drudge, but user:Ratel is very focused on including every possible tabloid smear and innuendo to out Drudge as being gay. I don't have any idea whether the guy is gay or not, but what kind of person spends that much time trying to attack another human being? I guess anything goes if it's a conservative? Yikes. Seems kind of sick to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't look at the Rove edits so closely--some of them seemed fine, some not so. I do like my politics a bit cleaner than the average American campaign allows. But let's not go name calling--saying that only conservatives can get attacked with impunity is not verifiable, and you know it. I'm staying far, far away from all of those articles--they suffer heavily from recentism and from the bipolar political climate. And the very existence of the blogosphere is not helping anything or anyone. Ha, I'm a total luddite (he said, while typing away wirelessly on his laptop). Drmies (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You missed an amusing discussion on Paul Krugman where a couple of editors were outraged by the idea that he should be identified as liberal or partisan, despite the guy's latest book and his NYTimes blog being titled The Conscience of a Liberal. I was told that trying to identify him as such was like calling him a communist. Which is probably true. :) But I have a tough time arguing with him and all the reliable sources discussing his partisanship and attacks on the Bush administration when the rest of the article is sourced to his opinion pieces. C'est la vie. Jerraud Powers got signed to a four-year contract. Did I tell you about that? How's John Parker Wilson holding up? Don't put any more of these Conservative thread titles on my page by the way. I only want thread titles that are NPOV. Yes we can. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I'm sorry I missed that. I'm pleased to hear about Jerraud Powers, and don't know a thing about Wilson. The more I follow football players after their college careers, the more I am convinced that college athletics is great for lots of people, but not for the vast majority of the players. I do apologize for the title--but then, I just mentioned his name, dude. Oh, I took the opportunity to proofread your post. Report me at ANI if you like. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

almost six months late...

Happy Andy Warhol's 81st Birthday!

...but better late than never--congratulations to you too! Drmies (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I've tried to correct. Now I have to write an article for the Dutch player's birthday I used for your cake. I should have used Leopold de Beers. Oh I found another one I can use. Thank goodness. Imagine my having to write about Dutch soccer players... Ugh. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I sure hope Malik saw the message/apology before this bold refactoring. You know what, I'm going to put Obama's name on my talk page, and your first edit there will be your last. Oh! He's on yours now! Does that mean you can't edit your own talk page anymore? Well, there's always the talk page for your talk page... (I liked WP much better when K-stick was around.) Drmies (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but honestly I think it's too messed up here for him. I kind of pull for people to get out of here. That's why I haven't posted anything to Tru. I'm really hoping he made out into the light. When it's you and me I know I don't have to worry. We're already messed up beyond repair. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm messed up...I sometimes barely recognize myself... Drmies (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict. I was just commenting on that actually...) You're up awfully late by the way! And the USDA reference was to a USDA website that has plant images. I was very impressed with it when we were able to use some great photos and illustrations on a couple of LoS's new articles. So I was noting my dismay that for other plants there were either no photos or, in another case, they were copy-righted. That admin like to ABF, what can you do? Even when they're proved wrong they stick to their guns. Speaking of which, remember when congress extended copy-rights for their media buddies so Winnie the Pooh wouldn't go public domain? Those sleazy slime, and you better believe the liberal media didn't have much to say about that atrocity. Keep those profits flowing. Kind of reminds me of your environmental and taxation "principles". :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of topic ban at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=306509251&oldid=306508564. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As was discussed in the thread on ANI, my topic ban applies to article and talk pages. That is not an article or a talk page. This is more disgusting abuse against consensus by an admin. No surprise. You also failed to issue a warning or to discuss the issue first. You've made clear in previous discussions your disdain for me Sarek, so it's no surprise you're coming after me. This is a disgrace. Right up there with Aitias, Connolley and others who abuse policies and disregard our rules to go after editors they don't like and to support their friends. I don't hold grudges so I hope you'll take action to recognize your series of mistakes soon. I've become friends with editors who I've had disagreements with, but some recognition of your part in the problem will be needed. (refactored somewhat) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• ChildOfMidnight, please refrain from personal attacks. I agree; I believe SarekOfVulcan is at least partially mistaken - however, your conduct has not been satisfactory either. Please also see why I believe so at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_uninvolved_Ncmvocalist. Come back after a very short breather and take a look - nobody likes to see anyone blocked, particularly given the effect it can have on people. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind consideration and suggestions. These abusive admins and a pack of POV pushing editors (many of them non-content contributors) are coming after me and trying to build up my block log to make me out to be disruptive. It worked for Arbcom (barely) after they finally got a single bogus and improper "edit warring" block against me. If you expect me to sit by quietly while I'm maligned by these worms you are mistaken. There's nothing I can do to stop abusive characters from blocking or banning me, and you better believe they will happily use my block log in the future as another weapon against me and continue these attacks until soemthing is done about them or I'm banned permanently, which is what they really want. But I will not remain silent as long as their abusive behavior continues and they so brazenly violate Wikipedia's core policies. Thuggery should not be aided or abetted in any way shape or form. We must all be willing to stand up to Wiki-Nazis. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, I'm fully aware you're very angry because of the nature of the block. You are entitled (and welcome) to ask a number of the questions you have posed on this page, but you are expected to do so in a calm, civil and respectful manner. You currently are not doing so, and continuing along this approach will result in a block that is completely justified. Now that your editing privilleges are restored, hereafter, please work on remedying this, no matter where you contribute. Take care. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

pods

Here's Sarek's idea of civility [4]. Here's Sarek refactoring another user's comments [5]. The other editor changes it back [6]. Sarek refactors again [7]. Then protects his page [8]. Receives a warning [9]. Argues 3 reverts in 24 hours is appropriate and okay. This is the kind of abusive admin we need to get rid of. They make the rules up as they go along, impose them arbitrarily and don't abide by them at all. Sarek should be desysoped along with Connolley. I don't know about Protonk, maybe he's just having a bad week and can't be bothered respecting his fellow editors and assuming good faith. That he sticks to his false and abusive assumptions even when they are proved wrong is pretty distrubing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've run out of time a bit this eve/morn, and must hit the sack.

In regards to Sarek, he has apologised for that, and Sarah777 appears to have accepted that.

It's too late/early for me to look at Protonk, and I am guessing that is best left as-is. Let me know if there is a long standing feud here.

And WMC/Mathsci is on my todo list anyway. I'll look into it. Feel free to find and add the link you mentioned on my talk, but please dont add more detail as I want to have a quiet day tomorrow if possible.

Please avoid commenting about any of these contributors for a few days at least, except on arbitration pages where necessary, and preferably review your comments on arbitration pages before posting, removing any personal attacks that are not well supported by diffs. Personal attacks result in more bitterness; they may draw attention, and inflict pain, but they dont fix the problem. If anything, personal attacks draw resources away from fixing the problems.

Feel free to remove this comment if you want to remove this section.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I agree with everything you've stated. I noticed that Sarek apologized. I would have let those incidents go (I saw them because Sarah had posted on Giano's page about something related and I was investigating). For an admin engaged in that kind of inapporiate conduct to come after me with this abusive block is more than I can stomach.

I try to avoid disputes and I don't want to play policeman or spend my time dealing diffs and reporting abuse, but like Giano and Malleus I'm tired of these hassles with abusive admins. I know we're all human here, and I'm certainly not perfect (don't tell anyone), but these attacks and disruptions are interfering with the ability of content contributors to work collegially and constructively. The harassment and stalking by aggressive POV pushers needs to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI

You have been mentioned in an incident report at AN/I. Bongomatic 06:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha. The usual stalkers and trolls are showing up to go after me. It's open season. Neutral Homer and WMC's (Connolley) partner in crime Mathsci. Have you seen that nightmare arbcom proceeding they are involved in? Actually there are a couple I think. What are the chances arbcom actually does something about these abusers?

Anyway, thanks Bongo, but really I think the good people should stay away from these pigs in the mud. I like y'all too much to have you deal with these swamp creatures. And it's already been demonstrated that it only takes one abusive admin with no warning or discussion to block, but it's almost impossible to get abuse undone. Thanks for thinking of me though. :) If you read the thread above, it was pretty clear what was coming from the abusive harassers that are after me. Arbcom has encouraged their behavior and they will continue to go after those they disagree with and I'm target numero uno.

Cheers bro. Have a good one. Maybe Doc will share some of the cake with you if the rodents on his talk page don't get to it first. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Get a load out of Bigtimepeace who admits that the Arbcom "remedies" didn't apply. He doesn't even acknowledge his repeatedly trying to impose false restrictions on me at AfD, my own talk page, and other places. Never mind that I went along with it all up to a point to avoid additional disruption and drama.

These people will not be satisfied until I'm banned and they don't care how much they have to lie and distort things to make it happen. Their grotesque censorship and abuse of policy has been exposed. Even when something is clearly stated by the lead Arb handling the case, the thugs involved in attacking me still support the block.

No contortion of logic is too great in support of an abusive administrator going after someone on their hitlist. Never mind the consensus in the original discussion. Never mind the clear statements of the lead Arbcom handling this case. Never mind the active request for clarification (from an editor who continues to stalk me despite his being banned from contact), these people are after me and they don't care how they have to distort the rules and lie to accomplish their mission. I WILL NOT NOW OR EVER REMAIN SILENT IN THE FACE OF ABUSIVE ADMINS OR ATTEMPTS AT HARASSMENT AND INTIMIDATION OF GOOD FAITH CONTRIBUTORS. My article contributions and article creation work speaks for itself. There are no outrageous edits they can produce. Only attacks and smears that expose their own dishonesty and ignorance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you dragging my name into this? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your abusive behavior and block acted to encourage more attacks and abusive admin behavior. Because you got away with your actions and supported your cohort Mathsci's personal attacks and disruption, those behaviors and malicious actions continue to take place. Even after you were shown I did nothing more than make a simple copy-edit on new page patrol and that I received vicious attacks and accusations on my talk page from your buddy, you never made any effort to apologize or fix your mistake. And your disruption has encouraged Mathsci to continue his attempts to bait me and other editors with impunity. When abuse goes unchecked it builds on itself.

I steered clear of your arbcom hearing and didn't make an enormous deal out of your involvement in the Ancient Egyptian fiasco, where you reverted to your preferred version and then protected the page (a disgraceful piece of business that was part of a pattern of admin abuse towards editors working in good faith on that article). I've also looked for signs of change and tried to reach out to you. I posted a question on your talk page and you didn't even have the courtesy to respond. I don't see any indication that you recognize your mistakes or that you are willing to treat editors respectfully and to do better. I've been hoping to ask your opinion on the ocean chemistry and climatic variability articles I created, I know they need work and that the subjects are in areas you have expertise, but your hostility and abusive behavior acted to discourage me from asking or wanting to work further on those articles. I don't mind standing up to abuse, but I don't seek it out, and I much prefer to edit collegially with good faith contributors and collaborators.

You seem quite happy to be sanctimonious with your little clique of friends, and you don't seem to mind trampling on anyone who you or your friends find to be a bother. That type of mentality from an admin is cancerous, which is why I've avoided you. But I'm not surprised when I see you involved in disruption after disruption. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're lost. Best wishes with finding your way back. I'm unwatching here; there is nothing to see William M. Connolley (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

unblocked

I have unblocked you, however I will reblock you if you don't tone down your language. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JV. I'm off to sleep now. This has kept me up way past my bedtime. Take care and have fun.

Also, would you mind reviewing the diffs above of Sarek's edit warring and refactoring of another editor's talk page comment and his statements on the appropriateness of his doing 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. I'd like to know if you think this abusive block without warning, without discussion, and against consensus, even after it's pointed out that it was WRONG, taken together with his other behavior, is the type of conduct we should expect from civil and helpful admins? What should be done about it? See you tomorrow. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I'll take a look. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please disengage from this entirely. Your recent comments have been heated and harmful, to yourself and others. I will block you for the next comment you make about this dispute if it is all sweetness and roses. If you cant be sweetness and roses about this, step away from the keyboard or work on a different topical area. I dont want to have to reblock you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I will follow your instructions. But please keep in mind that while I was blocked these editors were allowed to smear me and I was unable to respond. And Sarek and Protonk and Mathsci are continuing to do so. It was a bad block, yet I'll be stuck with it on my record, and on top of it these attacks on me at public noticeboards are very damaging. Clearly these editors want me banned. That's what I've been trying to explain to Arbcom all along and why your "remedies" were so harmful. The decision encouraged the type of stalking and harassment done by the editor I'm not allowed to mention, and others have followed his lead against me and others with whom they disagree. I'm happy to give you details if it's helpful. Good night. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have your comment, which was unnecessary, as I said earlier I would take a look at this. Please stop commenting on it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there no stopping the insanity???

Lead arbcom handling case states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving forward

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

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

And now for something completely different...

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

Interaction restricted

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

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

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

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

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

NCOTI

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

How a 1RR is defined

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

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

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

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

Articles for deletion nomination of Cocktail hat

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC) 06:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Block?

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

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for commenting about Baseball Bugs despite a topic ban restricting you from doing so. Sanction: [10] Violations (multiple, but I can only find the diff for one of them): [11]. I realise this was several hours ago, but to have reached the seriousness of a topic ban, you have shown an inability to withdraw from the situation, so warranting a block beyond when other peoples bad behaviour might have been regarded as too old to be bothered with. Viridae^Talk 08:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perforated underwear was all the rage at the turn of the century [12] and (though most of what they print isn't meant to be taken seriously) the New York Times reported that the "theory of a circulation of air next the skin and ventilation which the apostles of perforated underwear preach is one in the American Indians believe" in their Feb 2, 1902 edition [13] (teakwood was also all the rage!).

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

Ice shaved dessert

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

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

That looks delicious. Greetings Caspian blue, I was meaning to tell you yesterday that I came across a discussion of hanji in this source [14] I was using for the cocktail hat article. It seems interesting.

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

sigh ...

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

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

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

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

Hats

The mad tea party

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

Here is a picture, taken some time ago, of me in a rather unusual cocktail hat [15], or maybe it wasn't me but someone else altogether. I have a beard. But it clearly belongs in the article. How do we get it past the wikimedia police? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

That would be offensive. A Kippah or Kipper hat would be materially different. Neither is commonly featured in Vogue, although Vogue is presumably a reliable independent source for the article.[16]. After researching this subject in some depth, it is becoming clear that although some cocktail hats are feathers hats, some feather hats are not exactly cocktail hats[17].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

I must have missed that AfD...

No sources? [18] and [19] kinds show differently. Strange. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

This might make you laugh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nerd terminology

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

Accusation

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_S._Saturn&diff=307254764&oldid=307228762

Unbelievable. What is my history? What are my political leanings? How have I been one sided? Protonk (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a history of assuming bad faith against me related to that subject area (as I've pointed out to you in the past) and I've seen your actions discussed by others as well. You suggested that this harmless comment with jokes in it, that wasn't part of any kind of dispute and that was just collegial banter, was "borderline" [20]. You made a statement that: "Well, I don't really care to hear your opinion about why you were sanctioned." Also "I love ya <name redacted> but something tells me that I'll never hear the end of it if I step in to enforce an arb restriction on CoM." That comment in particular suggests there was cause to enforce any Arb restriction on me when that was clearly not the case. You've been antagonistic to me, and now on a simple and clear cut instance of sanction reporting you're giving another editor a hard time. If you aren't going to be fair and impartial then don't get involved in those article subjects. You apparently think it's appropriate to make off-the-wall insinuations suggesting harmless comments are "borderline" and suggest that you'd like to take action against me, but can't, yet you refuse to follow clear-cut procedure for reporting a sanction when there's no ambiguity involved. Seems clear to me. And if you think I'm editing an article that I shouldn't be or that my any of my edits aren't helpful or appropriate I'd appreciate it if you'd point them out to me and explain why. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore Protonk, you've stood by and allowed (and in some ways encouraged) the ongoing harassment and attempted intimidation and censoring of editors who's content interests and perspectives some here don't agree with. So that is also a serious problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you pointed those things out to me. however none of them have anything to do with your accusation that I have a history of bias surrounding Obama articles. Please offer some evidence to substantiate that rather over the top accusation. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the evidence I've provided that relates to those articles and their arbcom sanctions there's also your obstruction of a good faith editor attempting to properly note a sanction enforcement. I followed that dispute from afar and one editor tried very collegially to end it by requesting the other party revert themselves when they were in violation. Then the editor patiently expained the rules when they received one snarky and rude reply after another. If only every editor and admins were so collegial and considerate in their interactions Wikipedia would be a much more pleasant place. There's no ambiguity about the violation or the sanction (as opposed to some of the others) so it's clear it should be included on the list. You're refusal to do so and obstruction of another editor trying to add it is problematic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom ban

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

Here's a link if you want to read any of it for yourself [21]. It's been a rough several days, so I don't want to get into it too much, but basically I've tried to improve the balance and scopre of our coverage and to abide by Wikipedia's core neutral point of view policy by including content related to the notable criticisms and controversies regarding the president.

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

When there was an outside report (from a conservative website) describing the problems with the article and how editors trying to add content that isn't positive I looked into it. Indeed, mention of Rev. Jeremiah Wright had been scrubbed out by POV pushers and there were innaccuracies and promotional fluff that wasn't appropriate, while notable viewpoints that weren't positive were wholly excluded, minimized, and not even linked.

Arbcom proceeding started, it didn't really invovle me, but I was asked by Wizardman to participate. I don't like bureaucracy and try to avoid those kind of involved proceedings and the time consuming diff digging that's involved, but I stepped up because I saw that admins were reluctant to enforce our no personal attack and other editing and civility policies when there was an outspoken pack of editors aggressively "defending" and "patrolling" the article against anyone who treaded on their turf. It was a very long proceeding and wasn't helpful. For example a wikialert filed against an editor attacking me by a third party who I've never interacted with, but it was rejected on the grounds that "Arbcom is handling it."

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

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

FYI

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

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