User talk:ChildofMidnight: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)
Off2riorob (talk | contribs)
→‎Notification.: new section
Line 381: Line 381:
You're edit warring at [[Scientific opinion on climate change]]. Please don't; and please be aware of [[WP:3RR]] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You're edit warring at [[Scientific opinion on climate change]]. Please don't; and please be aware of [[WP:3RR]] [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:Since you were once an admin your lack of policy knowledge is very surprising. I added a POV tag and raised the issue on the article talk page. Feel free to continue the discussion there. It's highly inappropriate to remove the tag until the issue is resolved, because the tag notifies editors that there is a dispute. You have a habit of edit warring and pushing your personal point of view on the global warming debate. I suggest you consult the [[WP:NPOV]] guideline to better familiarize yourself with how we write articles. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight#top|talk]]) 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
:Since you were once an admin your lack of policy knowledge is very surprising. I added a POV tag and raised the issue on the article talk page. Feel free to continue the discussion there. It's highly inappropriate to remove the tag until the issue is resolved, because the tag notifies editors that there is a dispute. You have a habit of edit warring and pushing your personal point of view on the global warming debate. I suggest you consult the [[WP:NPOV]] guideline to better familiarize yourself with how we write articles. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight#top|talk]]) 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

== Notification. ==

CoM, have you seen this at Arbitration enforcement requests. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_ChildofMidnight] . [[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:56, 19 September 2009


For later

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

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

Question

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

I haven't heard of a place called Horseshoe, but I haven't been back in NYC in a while. :) If someone could try out Golden Krust for me, I would appreciate it. :) Yah mon.
(post ec) after you clarified your comment I looked into it some more. There does appear to be a person by that name and an area known as Horseshoe [1]. But I can't find anything connecting him tot he paper shredder. And one source, that can't be viewed, seems to suggest the first one "Discover‎ - Page 67 Education "The world's first shredder, built in the early 1930s, was modelled after a

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

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

This source discusses the Low fellow [2]. What does his article say about him? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. According to page 90 Horseshoe is a lake!--The LegendarySky Attacker 05:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found it. Horseshoe is here. Thanks for looking that up for me. ;)--The LegendarySky Attacker 05:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Another story this time by NPR, would be a good resource if we could get a couple pictures...--kelapstick (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always want to see the pack or helmet or whatever it is that makes them look like Ninja miners. We have it pretty good here all things considered! Thanks very much for the link. Interesting stuff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for them, here they are. Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who knew you had snuck the link in here! Thanks for sharing. I had a lot of fun checking them out. I commented on a few. My other thoughts are as follows:
  • I like that you got some Chix fried steak on your way out. This is a good sign that you're becoming a patriotic American. I've been to SLC several times. They have a pretty good brew pub there.
  • I like the lizard in camo (on the marble type orangey surface)
  • I liked the Mr. Potatohead omage to Amelie and the garden gnomes.
  • I was less impressed with the Corona and Eco Domani... IN HAWAII!!!
  • The cliff drive looked pretty awesome. I was also hoping for a helicopter ride with TC, but I assume you decided to save that for next time.
  • There weren't any photos of you or your family, which is going to make it difficult to initiate a snide discussion about the personal attributes of you and your family over on Wikipedia Review. Still, your wife must be a real humanitarian. hahahaha. Who needs photos???!!!
  • The sticky bun needed pecans, but looked good otherwise.
  • Gorgeous scenery. I would have liked some more shots of the native flora and fauna, especially flowers, fruit, and tropical plants. But it's good that you were relaxed and just taking it all in.
  • Next time get out of the aquarium and do some more snorkeling!
  • The water shots and viewpoints are so nice. Makes me very relaxed. Not a worry in the world! Are you an Israel Kamakawiwo'ole fan (examples: [3] and [4])? Thanks again for sharing.
I hope my comments and critique have been helpful to you. :) Take care bruddah. Coppah is rallying! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Corona was my wife's, I was on the Kona or something local.
We did hit the Maui Ocean Center, it was pretty awesome, there are some shots there, also we had a whole day snorkeling, I just don't think we had our underwater pictures developed yet.
The chicken fried steak was on the way out, our 3 hour layover turned into 7 hours :S That was what the extra four hours of my life are worth to Delta.
We picked up one of Israel's CDs while we were there, throughly enjoy it.--kelapstick (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've also gone a little light on the food reporting. Shave ice? Cold coconuts? Papaya? Fish (what kind)? Crustaceans (or are you allergic? all the better!). ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shave ice, for sure, cold coconuts and papaya no. Fish was ono and mahi-mahi, no shrimp or the like. Not because of allergies, but it just wasn't plentiful.

Excellent. Bongomatic 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. I hope you are well and staying out of trouble! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You made the article just this morning CoM? Very nice.--The LegendarySky Attacker 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really do have to applaud you for making this. I just made a few tweaks to the categories section by changing "Inventors" to "American Inventors" and I added the article to "1912 deaths". I'll say it again, very nice!--The LegendarySky Attacker 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those were good edits Sky, thanks. If you want to start something I have some possible subjects on my user page and I'll keep an eye out for something interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can you help . . .

. . . with this important topic? Bongomatic 04:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to User:Drmies. kelapstick (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting because I was just going to point out that you are an expert. I added a popular culture section (unreferenced) so the article looks fine now. I think Doc shows up to work, just for a very very limited time. Office hours: Thursdays 3:15 to 3:45 p.m. But he will be away the next two Thursdays... grilling. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to include me in the "see also" section. kelapstick (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This biography may be up your alley, too. Bongomatic 08:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Armey

I wondered if you had ever taken a gander at the article?--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was his father affiliated with the mafia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. But that woman from msnbc is half the article.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look. But I'm no Dick Armey fan. :) How are things going Dix? You staying out of trouble? Who knew that Armey was still alive... I saw that Traficant was just let out of prison. It would be good to put them all in a cell together, no?ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's dig up the guest list for his brother's bar mitzvah. Bongomatic 05:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident he's not Jewish. He may be pagan. Or a Mason? Elk? Moose? I'm sure he calls himself Christian, but so do a lot of characters that would fit in on South Park or Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still chasing after mafia members CoM? You should know by now that even if you catch them with reliable sources, which can verify the facts (straight from the horses mouth no less) - that's still not going to be enough to submit to an article. You'll need photos, tape recordings, police reports, ... well you get the picture. As I'm sure you're also aware of by now: "one of the brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights issues" is not puffery, please consider the very NPOV Clinton - Gottheimer source. Of course I would have to assume that any quote from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or Hannity would simply not be allowed. All those guys have to backup their claims are "research" and "facts". By the way, you never followed up on which articles you wanted restored to your sandbox. Let me know. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  06:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody is a comedian (and a rapper). The AfD closer was slow in responding, but eventually came through.
There was actually more puffery than that about Frank being a bridge builder with conservatives, so maybe I should be thankful. Did you know that Frank is renowned as a moderate who frequently crosses party lines and only engages in partisan attacks with the utmost reluctance?
If people want to be silly and put ridiculous shit in articles there's not much I can do about it. I don't think it makes sense to play games and force readers to play interpreter in guessing what slanted abstractions signify. I would like to see fair and accurate article content. But even more than that I would really appreciate it if the POV pushing slime would refrain from launching false accusations, personal attacks, and time wasting smears against me here and on article discussion pages. That these fuckers then report my responses on noticeboards hoping some boob of an admin (and there are plenty to choose from) will block me, is par for the course at this point, but I have better things to do with my time then play the diff digging game and tit for tat with the animals at the zoo. And I've had enough of the arbs and admins who want to play wiki-cop and think this is some sort of model UN forum. If they can't grasp the basics of what goes on here then it's no wonder we have so much incivility and asinine time wasting drama. I prefer to write and edit articles and will continue to do so as long as I am able. So I'll keep hoping for the best. I do miss the Law. :( ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't supposed to be "fair and ..."—that's Fox News. Bongomatic 06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't they put all these talking head crazies on one or two channels and actually have news programs on a couple of other channels. I can't watch any of the main "news" programs because it's nothing but some schmuck in a jacket and tie (or a bleached blonde in a brightly colored dress) spouting off. And now they changed anchors on Worldfocus so I can't even get a proper dose of international news without having to endure a melodramatic British accented host who isn't comfortable or up to doing the job. Why is everyone trying to get me fired up. :) I do like Katty Kay though, although some of her viewpoints are bit simplistic. The whole media is just so echo chambery it's getting ridiculous. As nutty as Glenn Beck and O'Reilly are, at least they do some original research on occasion and every now and then have interesting nugget or something so over the top it's kind of funny. Those shows are just bad, the rest of the stuff is mind numbingly awful. How hard is it to replace the talking points and spin with the occasional journalistic offering of investigative reality or actual news? I've concluded that we're just getting more and more stupid in the U.S. of A. The situation on Wiki and in the media are just symptoms. But hopefully they're getting smarter elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
looks ever so much better now. I just didn´t know where to start. I´m doing well, and hope you are as well. --Die4Dixie (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It mostly looked okay content wise until I got to that one section. It does need better organization and some tweaking. You should have warned me about the photo. I almost pissed myself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm down, I was only trying to make you smile - not get you all riled up. I agree with you, and when I thought the badgering had gotten to be more that it should be, I asked for it to stop. You know that I don't really edit political areas, and if I ever do start - it's only going to be on a subject that I have a modicum of respect for, and frankly, there are a few of our "brightest and most energetic defenders of civil rights" that I can't find an ounce of respect for. Just keep your cool, and stick to the "content" - if I can help, I will. There is nothing here worth getting emotionally distraught over. It's a website. Do the work that you enjoy, be happy in what you do. When the payroll office opens up, then I'll be more than happy to join in on the political side of things, but until then - SMILE, enjoy life. You do some damn good work here, and I respect you a lot. Stay mellow, and "Don't worry, Be happy". ;-) — Ched :  ?  06:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calm is my middle name! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Child of Calm Midnight .. hmmm ... I'm likin that! by the way, I miss Law too. ;) — Ched :  ?  06:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Chedsky, I blame your buddy Pedro for my F-bomb dropping. He's a very bad influence! ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
F-Bombs huh, you may want to watch out on that. Some editors around here get upset when you say those, but then again maybe it has always just been me, since my sentences have always been "Fuck You". No that is nonsense, I don't think that is it. What is your opinion you?--WillC 08:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clean language and wholesome living are best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that depends on the person.--WillC 23:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undo

Hi CoM

I undid this contribution, thinking you may not have intended to leave it overnight. If you wish to re-add it, I won't undo it again.

Bongomatic 10:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guy has always seemed somewhat notable to me (although after this most recent look-see I was inclined to vote delete). Is a somewhat well established translator of major works notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think so. Are established pit crews of notable car racing teams notable? Choose a better analogy, but the result is the same. Doing something vital on notable works doesn't necessarily make one notable unless one's work has been noted. Bongomatic 17:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right on this one. I do respect the editor's earnest efforts to meet the notability guidelines though, even as there is probably a COI issue. Oh well. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started Chick magnet

I have started one of the articles that you were going to work on but I might not be able to get it to the pass on my own. Are you available?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help with this ... but it would be a BLP / COI conflict. ;P — Ched :  ?  12:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I would help but have no knowledge of the subject. kelapstick (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CoM, a picture to visually demonstrate what a chick magnet is would really be good for the article. I asked J.delanoy earlier because I had seen a picture of him on his userpage, but he'd rather not have a picture of himself in the article. I've never seen a picture of you CoM, but do you believe that you are sexy? If so, would you mind posing with a small group of ladies and uploading the picture to use in the article? Again, it's okay if you won't do it but it would improve the article and who know's...it might be a good opportunity for you (if you know what I mean) ;)--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about these shots [5], [6], [7] and [8]. All freely licensed. In fact here's a whole page of returns [9]. I would put up a photo, but jealousy is a big enough problem on here as it is. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This shot is rather good also [10]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'll look into it a bit later.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made several changes to Chick magnet. Do you think you could look it over? Cheers.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CoM. You too.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did You Know

... that the top four articles in the Bacon Challenge 2009 received over 37,000 page views? Wow I hadn't checked, 17,000 for peanut butter, banana and bacon sandwich, 11,000 for Mitch Morgan , 9,200 for maple bacon donut, 9,800 for bacon vodka? Check it out at Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#June_2009. It's no bacon explosion but i'll take it!--kelapstick (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you craving bacon K-stick? Did you not get enough pig at the Luaus? How's the fam, the job and the new place? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you recovered from your vacation? Where are the encyclopedic photos that you took to enhance our coverage of related subjects??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your brain, please

CoM, who was that college football player we messed around with some last year or so? Refresh my memory if you can... Drmies (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerraud Powers? Why isn't Vince Young the starter for the Titans? Silliness. The Broncos were 7-4 when they pulled Jake Plummer. They missed the play-offs that year, haven't done squat since, fired their coach, and traded Cutler. When a guy is winning you stick with him. Period. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was one who both you and I claimed was notable and got deleted nonetheless. Am I misremembering? I obviously haven't kept up with the NFL like you have. I never followed the Titans anyway--their uniforms are too ugly. The Broncos pulled Plummer for Cutler? I used to enjoy watching both. Note the similarities in their names (first names as well). Coincidence? Drmies (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it was Powers--strange history (of the article, I mean). Look at this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jerraud Powers. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with everything you stated before the comma. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

HaHa. ... I'm pretty sure you know that I was referring to the person who accused you of "GROSS BLP violations". If not, then you are hereby sentenced to self-inflict a punishment of 10 lashes with a Wet noodle ... OH MY! ... a redlink. As further punishment ... turn that link blue. Until then please use watered down generic, run of the mill, plain old - Noodle. ;) — Ched :  ?  20:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...I don't think we're agreeing on this one man. I mean, do you think there is plenty of information out there that would qualify it for its own article. Wouldn't it be all right as a section of Snow?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow pack is a critical subject related to water supplies, avalanches, winter habitats, and glacier building. A section in snow would be a good start, but I think it's an important and interesting subject that should have its own article. I was actually a little disappointed with the sourcing on chick magnet once I dug into what was available, but I still think it's a decent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowpack is incredibly important here, most of our water comes from snowpack in the Sierra Nevadas (there are two large reservoirs that feed the agriculture here). Quite surprised that it redirects. --kelapstick (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll let you two handle that one. I think I like the idea of Fuddy duddy though. Maybe I could do that.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just launched wet noodle. Will it last? Fuddy duddy is a good one. I don't know what I means. But there are those who will delete that type of article saying we are not a dictionary. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about Fuddy Duddy's fudge? See [11].--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 22:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the speedy template (inappropriate criteria), you should probably come up with some sources of it's use as an idiom (it is isn't it?) or figure out what to redirect it. --kelapstick (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's figurative, I think it's literal. So I don't think idiom is the right terminology. We could ask Doc, but I don't know if I can handle all those commas and semicolons. Plus he's known to be very discriminatory when it comes to that and which. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Literal use in a figurative statement? I know of nobody whom has been lashed with a wet noodle, albeit I have been threatened.--kelapstick (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think the wet noodle is meant to refer to then? The idea of trying to whip someone with wet linguini seems to me to make sense quite literally as an example of a punishment that would not be injurious. I am researching the subject now, and it's also very significant as something that can be pushed on one end without success in moving the other end. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe figurative was wrong, I meant that there is no real intent to actually lash. I have to think back to all the context in which I have heard it used.--kelapstick (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that practically, and I speak from experience, attempting to lash someone with a wet noodle is no easy task. So while the intent may be there, it's not effective. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the opening line. Much better. Snowpack is now up and running as well. I used the most reliable and expert source available. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think metaphor was the word I was looking for. Still not sure if it is right though.--kelapstick (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Wet noodle, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ched Davis encouraged me to create the article. I hold him personally responsible. An RfC might be in order or some type of appropriate punishment if anyone can come up with something fitting... ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy was rightfully declined. As far as my punishment ... I guess you'll just have to flog me with a ... <*cough, cough*> ... — Ched :  ?  01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The real reason I removes the tag was because anything Ched suggests is noatble by default. :) kelapstick (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kelapstick, I really needed a smile right now. This has been an absolutely horrible week, and the last few hours may have made it one of the worst in my life (R/L). — Ched :  ?  01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rehi

I'm back, raring to go after nearly a year's Wikibreak :-) I don't have as much time for WP as I used to, so I'm going to be putting some long-overdue effort into improving and expanding WP's micronation articles, as my main focus. Given that this subject seems to be a source of profound misunderstanding and perpetual annoyance for some editors, I think it would be great if experienced, un-involved editors like yourself could offer guidance, and help mediate disagreements, where necessary. Is this something you might be willing to consider? If so, please think about registering at the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Micronations. --Gene_poole (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New definition

Picked this up when I was on recent changes. Check out the new meaning of the word Hardware.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 09:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up

Hi there. I'm shortly going to propose that this site be added as an WP:EL to both List of micronations and Micronations.

As the site includes the most extensive, up-to-date listing of micronations currently available from any source, I believe that it is directly relevant to the subject of those articles, and that its inclusion within them would significantly complement the existing content, and enhance their usefulness and the level of informativeness they communicate to the general reader.

However, before I iniate that discussion I firstly wanted to disclose that I'm the owner and primary author of www.listofmicronations.com. Secondly, in order to avoid any suggestion of WP:COI I intend to refrain from adding the link myself, should the eventual consensus support my proposal. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website looks very good! Thanks for the link. I don't have any problem with including it and I think it's helpful and I appreciate the full disclosure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Timelines.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Cybercobra (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion of "Heath Ceramics"

A page you created, Heath Ceramics, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how it is important or significant, and thus why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for companies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thx and other stuff

Hey CoM, just wanted to say thanks for the kind words. I prolly won't get back up to full speed here at WP til middle or end of this week, but I'll try to get caught up asap. re: Jets. Actually, I'm a Steeler fan. Born and breed here in "da Burg". I saw that the Jets did win, but the only game I really paid attention to on Sun. was the Ravens game. (Steelers played on Thurs. night). Anyway, hope all is well, I'll get back to you soon as I get caught up. Cheers.

Oh ... by the way, I think you've come a long way. I think you do some damn fine work here, and I've noticed that it appears that you've been able to tone down some of the more controversial things. Congrats on that, I'm glad to see it. Keep up the good work. ;) — Ched :  ?  11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that merging the article to the series would be a better choice? Joe Chill (talk)

Never mind. I have found out that it is independently notable (which isn't surprising since the series is awesome and by a popular author). Joe Chill (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'm glad notability has been established. I have changed my vote accordingly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very slow reply...

I only just now saw your reply: [12]. It makes me sad to read it, because it seems that you believe me to be the opposite of what I am. You said, "I often find myself disagreeing with your approach. I like to keep the focus on article content. I don't like a lot of discussion that isn't directly focused on how to improve content and I'm not big on process."

I, like you, like to focus on article content. That's all I was supporting in my post to you, and it's all that my approach is directed to. Apparently, you think I don't like to focus on article content, and that makes me sad. I wonder what you consider "my approach" to be.

For the last week or so, I've been working hard on setting up WP:INCUBATE, which has nothing to do with anything but improving article content. I'm mystified as to what you think I'm about. I'm glad you recognize my good faith, but I think you believe some strange fictions about my approach. My only point in that Jedi AFD was to save you the trouble of arguing, so that you can focus on content.

I am 100% in agreement with your priorities. My priorities are identical to yours. You said, "I often find that once positions are staked out there's not much that can be done." That's all I was trying to say to you. No more, no less. Same words, just about. Stubborn deletionists can not be convinced. Arguing with them is a waste of time. Let's find ways to waste less time on them, so you can spend more on content. That's what I'm all about.

I am entirely mystified regarding what you refer to as my "approach". Everything you say about it is alien to me, and everything you say you prefer to "my approach" is nothing more nor less than what my approach actually is. Maybe you can explain to me, but I don't want you to waste your time doing that. I want you to work on content. I'm not so good at it - I'm support staff. All I offer is support, of the kind that means you don't have to argue in AFD.

It truly makes me sad that you seem to think I care about anything more than content here. I do not know how I came across that way to you. I hope you'll check out what we're doing at WP:INCUBATE. It's not being created to add process or bureaucracy, but rather to solve the problem that you and others have complained about. I can't change the way AFD nominators think, and neither can you. All I want is a way to improve articles without having to argue with them one bit. When I suggested that there are ways you could spend less time arguing with them, you seemed to think that I was asking you to spend more time, and in your post on the 8th, you still seemed to think that. That makes me quite sad.

  • "My feeling remains that editors who are willing to work on improving articles should be given as much assistance as possible in the AfD process". Me too.
  • "nominators who treat AfDs in a way that doesn't seek to improve the encyclopedia or to find the best outcome, but to be vindicated and "win" is unfortunate." 100%
  • "Any time someone is willing to come to a subject, determine in good faith that it's worth fixing, and to try to do so they should be given the benefit of the doubt and as much assistance as possible." That's the assistance I've always been offering.
  • "I like the focus on what needs to be done to improve the encyclopedia, I think that's the whole idea behind the Ignore All the Rules guideline." I wrote WP:WIARM because I agree with this so much.
  • "If there's disagreement then that has to be sorted out, but it should be done in good faith with a focus on how best to improve the encyclopedia." Yep.
  • "I'm almost always willing to compromise and try to work things out in an agreeable way, but the time spent in trying to get rid of things that are useful and interesting when they can be merged or are fairly notable doesn't seem useful to me. There's plenty of room, so if things are reliably sourced, it's a matter of how best to include content." Abso-freakin'-lutely.

Every statement you made in your reply, I'm behind 100%. I wish you realized that I'm entirely your ally, in total agreement with you. All I said that seemed to be a problem was that you already are free from having to waste time in AFD. I'm more on your side than you are when it comes to that. You never have to argue with a deletionist. I've got your back. You arguing in AFDs is less efficient than you ignoring AFDs, and there is no threat of deletion, because I'm ready to undelete. I want you to know that you are free and empowered to stay out of those stupid discussions with those people who will not be convinced. It pains me that you thought I was saying anything else.

I don't really care if you reply to this. I'm kind of curious what planet you think I've been coming from - don't say Dagobah - but that's not important to me. You knowing that you don't have to waste your time on dumb debates is important to me, because you are much more valuable as a writer than as a deletionist-persuader. I've got your back, CoM. Whatever you think I believe that you disagree with - I don't actually believe it. Throw all of those bizarre conceptions away - I'm just your servant, here to make sure you have time to write. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for GTBacchus, I am still interested in his motives, (the most influential and successful editors are able to find common ground in any disagreement) but he is doing wonderful work at WP:INCUBATE. Maybe you know something I don't, but from the brief time I have worked with Bacchus, he seems like a very helpful, intelligent, hard working individual, who believes in the goals of wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed the incubator development a bit. I'll be interested to see how it progresses. I don't have any complaints about GTB except that he really really seems to like discussing things. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just type fast. All the discussing I do is so that you won't have to. Some might be grateful... -GTBacchus(talk) 05:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Childofmidnight. We have talked briefly in the past. But lord, I seem to see your name everywhere. Quite a controversial figure.

The reason I am here is the Lord Loss AFD. I have asked the nominator to close the AFD[13] because of the new information establishing minimal notability provided by Mr. Chill. But I just realized that you may have to change your !vote also for me to close this. Please consider the new information and decide what you feel.

Thank you for your time, and I hope things have calmed down for you. Ikip (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofMidnight, hi fellow controversial figure. Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Glad you liked that. You need to work harder making waves Joe, because you don't seem to have the notoriety that Child has yet. Ikip (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Ikip is telling me I'm controversial... gulp. :) It seemed a case where deletion wasn't a good option so merging was a fair compromise. I did say if it wasn't independently notable. For what it's worth, most of my troubles have been caused by Drmies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rrrrright. I'd give a you barnstar with one point missing, if such a thing existed. Has all that bacon grease finally clogged the arteries to your brain? Which reminds me: I told my lit class the other day about this great new invention of mine, a 5-second snack: a strip of bacon with hot sauce. Of course, if you don't have pre-cooked strips of bacon sitting on the counter you're not a good American. Oddly enough, they were not impressed! Drmies (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listen all of y'all it's a sabotage! Funny. I hope things are going well down there. Cooling off is it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Did you see the latest vandalism to Bacon mania? Shocking. Bongomatic 14:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm innocent! What is vanalism? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the link? Bongomatic 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was wonderful. I left it up. There is some brouhaha on ANI (in the Russavia thread) about a secret mailing list. So I'm trying to get caught up with that. :) What's new with you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, doesn't seem to be much there. Just the usual off-wiki collaboration and discussion by admins who are busy shrieking about being "outted" should their lack of transparency and cabalism get exposed to the light of day. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you tagging the Philippe Torreton article for deletion etc, notability etc.. He has won a César Award for Best Actor and has appeared in several notable French films. I created the page because its on the list of things to do at the French cinema 'task force' page. And references, well it's from the french wikipedia article so its o.k. and if its allowed to stay long enough I'll add references.Sayerslle (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super. References would be very good. I will update the article according to your comment. Verifiability is very important on the English speaking Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the talk page. Are you an admin? Do you have any background with horses? Montanabw(talk) 23:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some of your comments on the talk page, but none about the bit you keep removing without proper discussion. I am not an admin, but I am very very powerful so it's usually best to just go along with whatever I say. What does my background with horses have to do with anything? You agree that miniature horses bite, so it doesn't seem to be an issue of fact (and I cited the assertion which I hadn't added in the first place and was considerate enough to modify TWICE per your edit summaries). Yet you continue to edit war, so I'd say it's up to you at this piont to explain why it makes sense to state how friendly and lovely the animals are without mentioning that they kick and nip. Are you trying to endanger our children and to keep thsoe reading Wikipedia's miniature horse article in oblivious ignorance of the very real dangers that can suffered at the mouth and hoofs of these dwarfs? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you thinking when you revert sensible changes to absurd wording like "miniature horses are found all over the world" and "they are still real horses"? Are you serious? You've edit warred to exclude note that they kick and nip, but readded a statement that they are real animals? I need a drink. Where's GTB when I need him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What did you think of this? Maybe you'll see me at ANI... Drmies (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A big mega hit at WP:ACN

Hey, have you seen this big mega hit incident regarding secrete cabal to systematically harass some user and to meatpuppet for content dispute for a long time Wikipedia_talk:AC/N#Eastern_European_mailing_list? --Caspian blue 01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mentioned it above. ;) I'm way ahead of you Caspian blue.
Russavia is a difficult editor with a strong POV, but I haven't followed the situation closely enough to know if they've been treated fairly. That admins communicate off-wiki and think it's okay to to do so without transparency or the involvement of the parties they judge is pretty standard. Still it is amusing when they get all outraged and yell about OUTING, when flashlights and daylight are cast upon their dark coreners and spidey holes. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, Russavia has been treated unfairly for a long time.[14] I have no idea what content they are disputing, but all edit warring by the whole team look same to me, but Biophys has been weirdly saved by the involved admins including the temp.desysoped admin many times while Russavia has been straightly blocked or baited or wrongly accused of sockpupetry. Well, I have been also harassed by Japanese off-wiki site, blogs, but those are written in Japanese, so not much attentions were given to. So this case reminds me of them as well.--Caspian blue 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I'm hoping that the logs and such will be posted (with real names redacted). Nothing like the light of day to impart a little justice on those lurking in the shadows. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CCD

I've moved your question and my response to the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A link would have been good. I don't really remember the specific issue, but I do recall it was one of your usual wholesale reversions towards smearing global warming skeptics. Doing so against common sense and basic etiquette isn't very constructive. GBD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that the talk pages of articles are to discuss improving the articles, not for soapboxing, per WP:SOAP William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from moving my comments around without my permission and refactoring them to your liking. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not refactored your comments, as I've said. I've deleted them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have also refactored my comments, repeatedly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attention to detail

(Discussion moved here by William Connelly from his talk page)

If you read the text carefully in this edit [15] you may find that it's a strange assertion to make that those who dispute global warming are misrepresenting the consensus. More often they are disputing and, perhaps in some cases, misrepresenting the science. Can you understand the difference? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a strange assertion at all. The septic literature is full of misrepresentation. You must have read some of it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very enamored with a set of beliefs advocated by many of the same scientific "experts" that pushed the "investment" of billions of dollars into in the "promise" of hydrogen fuel. Needless to say this technology has been thoroughly debunked. Meanwhile, I'm sure many labs and snake oil salesmen profited from the funding while the getting was good. It's unfortunate that fables propagated by Al Gore (a polluter and hypocrite of the worst kind whose adoption of the pay for penance model of environmental destruction is disgusting to behold) and his many acolytes have resulted in the misdirection of so much money and effort. Instead of pragmatic and sensible proposals and reforms that would improve environmental conditions, increase security, promote prosperity, and encourage the development of useful technologies, we get pie-in-the-sky nonsense pushed by corrupt ideologues and their political allies. I would call those promoting this sort of bunkum half wits, but I think they are much worse characters than that and shouldn't be let off so easily as simply being naive and stupid. Those who exploit the dopey fad-followers who lack the critical thinking and good sense to look into the facts and find out that the fairy dust peddlers and fear mongers are just the latest in a long line of con artists exploiting half-truths and media campaigns for personal profit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we are again. What was it that you wanted to talk about? You long comment just above? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just suggest that you try to do a bit of critical thinking outside of your closely held assumptions and consider the facts and evidence from a scientific point of view. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting suggestion but a touch vague. I haven't noticed you editing any science related to GW (I presume that is what we're talking about), you seem to mostly stick to opinion pieces. But OK, I'll bite: which facts or evidence about the science of GW would you like me to reconsider? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is ignorance bliss? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Now, I *thought* that all these posting were an attempt to discuss something. If not, then fine, but it all seems a b it pointless in that case. So, consider my question above to be repeated William M. Connolley (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were willing or interested in discussing the issues I've raised you wouldn't keep removing my comments, refactoring and misrepresenting my statements, and would refrain from making pointed and snarky comments. Cheerios old boy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, I'm quite willing to discuss aspects of the science of GW, or for you to point out some aspects that would "open my eyes". If you are refusing to do that, then fine, I'll be off. But in that case, please don't re-post the same questions on my talk page please William M. Connolley (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea which questions you are referring to. I have asked you to abide by policy, to cease efforts to smear those you disagree with and to work collaboratively and collegially. I also suggested that your fanatacism may be preventing you from taking a balanced and scientific approach to the issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughter is good for you.

...it was just a comma splice...

Thanks for the laugh regarding the spelling (mine). I agree with you, it is not good enough and disturbs other more fixated editors, I will attempt to raise my game in regard to spelling. I usually get back round and correct my mistakes, but please feel free to correct at will. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My spelling is horrible, and I type too fast. If only people were allowed to fix the mash I produce... I'm glad you got a laugh out of my frivolous ANI statement. Many of my recent attempts at humor have been missing the mark entirely. I trust that practice makes perfect! Take care and stay out of trouble. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your spelling isn't so bad--it's the crimes you commit against established rules of punctuation (which are akin to the Ten Commandments) that will get you where you're going. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My biggest laugh of the day for your post Drmies, very good, its a double whammy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified (refactored) my statement and both of yours. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply

...and then stay off of my talk page, unless you want to accept my offer to userfy or undelete an article for you. If you do, don't try to make jokes. You're bad at it, and I'm not inclined to find you funny. I'm not your buddy or your friend, so just keep it businesslike, or don't talk to me. You're bugging the hell out of me, and I'm asking you to stop. I'd also like it if you quit repeating falsehoods (knowingly or unknowingly, I don't care) about how much I think you should discuss. I think you should cease and desist from it entirely. You suck at it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thanks for ruining my morning. Your attempt at a "lighthearted" remark was hurtful. Ouch. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I referred you to an article I found on new page patrol that I thought might be of interest to you and pointed out an opportunity to follow up on mentoring out of respect. I apologize that my phrasing was offensive and I will certainly avoid commenting any further on your talk page. It wasn't my intention to bug the hell out of you, but now that I know that I have that effect I will do my best to avoid further contact. I'm not going to keep it businesslike, I'm just going to avoid interacting. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I'm sorry we weren't able to get along. I'm de-watchlisting your page now. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. No hard feelings on my part. I disagree with lots of people but still respect them. I don't have any problems with your, or anyone elses, article work as long as it's done in good faith. This is supposed to be a collaborative encyclopedia so there's always an opportunity to fix each others oversights. I do find that discussion without resolution can become disruptive after a certain point. I've tried to note that in a lighthearted way, but obviously I did a poor job of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Man, that makes it hard to not reply. "Discussion without resolution." You still think I favor discussion. If you don't want more, don't leave crap like that lying out. A clean break looks like this: Goodbye. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been adept at goodbyes. I'm never quite sure what to say. And then there are the awkward silences. The farewells that go on too long. It's a rough business all around. I'm much better with bad jokes and tweaking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Side?

I am always willing to revisit a discussion and reconsider an opinion... whether to keep or to delete. Harumph. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

dePRODing of articles

Hello ChildofMidnight, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

  • PROD removed from Canyon Productions, by User:216.15.127.176, with summary '(no edit summary)'
  • PROD removed from Bertram Wallace, by User:Struway2, with summary '(remove prod: subject passes WP:ATHLETE by having played in a fully-pro league, as the book reference presumably verifies. The stub tag suggests we can help Wikipedia by expanding, not deleting, it)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Neither of those article subjects are notable (although Wallace might be worth mentioning in a roster list of some sort). But I won't dispute that I have very high standards. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You surely must know about this editor. It seems that there are admins out there that will not only push with their accounts to control the outcomes of AfD and RfA amongst other discussions but will also use sockpuppeteering to create their own majorities.

Is Wikipedia really still about building an encyclopedia or is it turning into some (and I quote another account's comment at a recent RfA nomination) "massive multiplayer role playing game". Because it's like another editor (can't remember who) said: "on it's own Pastor Theo was a very constructive and useful account" but operating sockpuppet accounts to get that extra vote is immoral, ESPECIALLY for an admin. I want to be able to WP:AGF on administrators but it is just too hard to trust people on here anymore. A few hours ago, after reading about Pastor Theo's incident with interest, going from one page to the next, I found a list somewhere displaying every time an account has been de-sysoppped since 2003 and, if I'm being honest, it was much bigger than I thought. Just think. If PASTOR THEO of all admin/ex-admin accounts was found to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, how many sockpuppeteers out there do you think could have used a "constructive" account to pass RfA? As a great contributor, I had trusted Pastor Theo since my very earliest days here. What a joke! So yes, I do believe that there are "secret admin-only areas", even if the admins themselves do not admit to it. How could there not be? Also, think of all the conspiracies that exist on Wikipedia. A lot of the drama on Wikipedia is a load of nonsense. I saw your admin "come clean" thread has been closed.

I'm going to take a few months absense from Wikipedia and hope that editors will see 2010 as the start of a fresh decade and a great chance to start new and refrain from any bad intent. From January 1 2010, all editors and especially admins edit using ONE account, do not keep any information behind closed doors, and go looking for articles to create instead of looking for drama. When I come back (which might not be until around Christmas time), hopefully when, and if, I return I will be pleasently surprised to see that everything is healthy and promising, like it was for me in March, before I knew much about the darker realms of this website.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 00:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duplicity is a serious problem and it's one of the trade-offs of allowing anonymity. I for one don't want everyone in this cuckoos nest to know who you I am in real life. But it's definitely frustrating that there isn't more transparency. The chat rooms and e-mails also create opportunities for canvasing and coordination that's unfair and improper. But I see Wikipedia as a part of the real world and composed of humanoids with all of our flaws and imperfections. So even as we strive to make it better and to fix the problems there will always be issues that are unresolved.
As far as Ecoleetage/ Pastor Theo, I liked him and still do. I've followed the events to some extent, but I haven't seen any good examples of socking where they abused a second account to sway an outcome. The socking seems almost to have been playful, albeit inappropriate. The incident where that individual called another editor's work is more problematic. But I don't buy into the absolute and total separation of real life and Wikipedia argument. Wikipedia is real life, it's just online. So harassing people and being a dick on here is a problem, just as contacting someone offline and being a dick is a problem. Obviously extending contact off-line can have far more serious issues, and contacting someone's employer seems especially nasty, but I don't know exactly how it all happened or why that was done, other than assuming that they must have been pissed. Sometimes people do stupid things.
I've seen some efforts to increase accountability and to desysop troublemakers which I think is a good thing. I also think the second chances and opportunities to work through problematic behaviors are encouraging. As far as I'm concerned, the remaining obstacle to a more collegial editing environment is the lack of an effective dispute resolution process. Without suitable mediation, disputes escalate quickly and have no proper venue to be worked out.
I'm generally happy when people take a break or leave off editing. I find contributing to Wikipedia is a very stressful experience and that I'm often playing defense despite making every effort to edit in good faith and to abide by our policies. There's quite a lot of gaming that goes on and there's generally a lack of respect and collaboration. But again, it's not really that different than the "real world", and I try to keep a sense of humor about it all and to appreciate the good parts.
It's pretty amazing to be able to help write up and improve an encyclopedia that's avaible for free to hundreds of millions of people. So that part of the experience is fairly awesome and inspiring. Just think, thanks to me, people do not have to ignorant about bacon mania and fruit hats any longer! I also like doing articles on subjects that are interesting, learning new things, and sharing my findings with our readers, whoever they may be. And there are lots of interesting, generous, and surprising personalities on here, so I enjoy some of the social dynamics, the friendships and collaborations, and the theatrics as well. Take care and good luck with all your pursuits! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to be back in 2010 if I feel the air is clearer, like I said. But you are right, some things will NEVER change, although I still believe there are answers to some of the flaws on here. And just for the record Pastor Theo was my 2nd favorite admin (after User:Bongwarrior whom as of August 23rd seems to have mysteriously disappeared) and I really enjoyed collaborating with that particular account (he has actually done a lot for some of the music-related articles that I have created). As far as theatrics, I can't lie. AN/I is a very addictive page and some of the drama that occurs on here is actually quite hilarious. But we all need to draw the line somewhere, don't we?
Lastly, as far as friendships, while I do prefer to keep my "Internet/Wikipedia life" and my "Off The Computer/Real life" seperate, I must admit that I have felt a good spirit between myself and other editors on here over this seventh-month long journey such as User:Bongwarrior, User:Tide rolls, User:Drmies...the list could go on! But mostly with you CoM, I have felt a close Wikipedia friendship and it has been an honor to work with alongside side you on this project.
I have to also admit that some of my edits of late might be seen as "strange" or "insane". It might have just been me leading up to this day on here, although I do recall a conversation that we had where you said you knew a Dr./Professor who was fairly sane until he started hanging out with you on here ;). I don't know if you worked your magic on me, but I don't regret hanging out with you on here and having the chance to work alongside an editor such as yourself on a few articles was a rewarding experience to me. As I say, I plan to be back. As for now, peace out.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 03:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your kind words Sky Attacker. I appreciate it. There's definitely a lot of craziness here, and it may be spreading. Still, you're always welcome to drop in any time. Wikipedia will still be here, and I always have bad jokes, sarcastic comments, criticisms and all the "right" answers at the ready. Thanks for your thoughtful contributions and for helping to make Wikipedia the fun and collaborative experience that God intended. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You're edit warring at Scientific opinion on climate change. Please don't; and please be aware of WP:3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were once an admin your lack of policy knowledge is very surprising. I added a POV tag and raised the issue on the article talk page. Feel free to continue the discussion there. It's highly inappropriate to remove the tag until the issue is resolved, because the tag notifies editors that there is a dispute. You have a habit of edit warring and pushing your personal point of view on the global warming debate. I suggest you consult the WP:NPOV guideline to better familiarize yourself with how we write articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification.

CoM, have you seen this at Arbitration enforcement requests. [16] . Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]