User talk:ChildofMidnight: Difference between revisions

"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)

• 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

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For special merits in Dragon breeding.

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

user:ChildofMidnight/Wiel Arets translation

The Dutch don't need no stinking references!

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

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

• AE statement

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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Violation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=304772552) of topic ban (WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#ChildofMidnight_topic_banned) on Arrest of Henry Louis Gates; block per 12.4.1. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Aitias // discussion 23:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note In case this user requests to be unblocked the reviewing administrator should read this as well. — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe after your block ends, you can go back to making the great kinds of edits on food, animal, science, and technology articles that you are so good at doing! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was an indisputably marginal (and wrong, in my view) block, but given the quantum of news coverage about the event that involves Obama, you can (even if you disagree) see the rationale. Probably better to avoid this sort of thing. The (probably unintentionally) condescending notion that your capabilities are limited by topic category is wrong. Bongomatic 01:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking administrator ought to have been desysopped some time ago IMO, and may well have been had he not opted to take a short "retirement" rather than face the music at RfC a few months ago. Still, just the way it is here at wikipedia; administrators are always right, even when they're wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the kind and considerate comments gents. Much appreciated.

Yes, it's a very bad, abusive and disruptive block. I'm happy to avoid those two articles and perhaps I should have realized that they were connected (albeit indirectly) enough to Obama to raise eyebrows. I didn't. My interest was in the racial and policing issues, as my edits show, and I was trying to keep the articles somewhat clean and NPOV, as my edits show.

The name of the caller should be omitted as a BLP violation.

Regarding the smears and inaccuracies stated by the trolls and stalkers who have pushed for and enforced this block against me, it should be pointed out that the edit where I actually touched some Obama content simply moved it. So no, I didn't even consider whether it was appropriate in relation to any editing restrictions, only that it seemed to me like a very good idea to streamline the article.

I took the mass of Obama related mentions from the opening paragraphs of the article, where they don't belong, and moved them into the appropriate section. That's it. So allegations of POV pushing are greatly exagerated. :)

The incivility and personal attacks against me by Arcayne and Bugs speak for themselves, as does the incompetent, abusive and disruptive actions of Aitias.

The insinuation that I was distorting the bit about "two black men" was a mistake on my part that I didn't get a chance to fix. I was trying to take that bit out entirely from that part of the article, and actually thought I had, but I didn't get a chance to finish as it was reverted moments after I made the edit. The significance of race in that bit is unclear and it stands out to me as race baiting. So I was working to restate the sentence in a coherent fashion about the facts of the case. As is sometimes the case it takes me more than one edit to get the job done, and I didn't get a chance to finish as I was reverted by Arcayne moments after my initial edit, which only addressed the first part of the sentence where I was trying to avoid the neighbor/ witness/ old lady who asked another person to call intrigue (that I think is unhelpful and unencyclopedic). But I hadn't yet removed the irrelevant and complicated by dispute portion relating to the race of the persons seen at the house (and indeed the caller wasn't sure and the police report says they were black, all of which seems irrelevant and if it's included should be included as an inconsistency rather than in the historical section of the events as they happened).

So from the original: "According to the police report the caller notified police after observing "two black males with backpacks" on the front porch, one of whom was wedging his shoulder into the door as though to force entry."

I was trying to formulate would have read something along the lines of: "A caller to the police reported two males trying to enter the house." This seemed more neutral and didn't get into any of the disputed or unwarranted bits that should be dealt with in their own right if at all. I also like wording that is concise and to the point without all the intrigue and insinuation attempts promoted by the two sides of the dispute.

Anyway, the bottom line on all of this is that a simple courteous "Hey, I'm not sure if you realized it, but I think the Gates articles fall under the topic ban" would have sufficed. But civility, competence and courtesy mean different things to different people. :)

I edits lots of articles in a a given day, and I move about from things that interest me, to things that pop up on my watchlist, to things that are on the news or in magazines and periodicals I'm reading. So it's entirely possible that some day in the future I may edit an article that has some relation to Barack Obama. If someone has a concern it would be most helpful if they would just let me know with a nice note. (The trolling and stalking of the complainer in this case speaks for itself as far as their intentions and good will).

• Kudos to those who actually respected our assume good faith and civility guidelines in this case and who had the wisdom, common sense, and decency to suggest restraint and discussion as a first option. How amazing that not once did those involved in blocking me ask for or give me a chance to offer my input. Cheerios! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your above comment, I have unblocked you. Given that you have said you will avoid Arrest of Henry Louis Gates and similar articles I see no reason to keep this block in effect, particularly since objections to it were raised on ANI. Two other points though: 1) Parts of your comments do not do you credit, as you cast aspersions on other editors unnecessarily using words like "abusive," "trolling," and "stalking." It's understandable that you're upset and annoyed by the situation, but those kind of comments obviously don't help your case. 2) In the future, you should very much err heavily on the side of caution with respect to topics that might fall under the ban restriction. If it even seems remotely related to Obama don't get involved, or at least ask first. Obviously some things might be up for interpretation, but the Gates thing was actually fairly clear cut (for example when you moved text that actually discussed Obama, though you did not write it). As I said on ANI I have no doubt that you were editing there in good faith, but it is basically up to you to hold to your ArbCom restrictions, and if you cross the line you risk a block. If you edit something and then realize it probably falls under the topic ban, just undo yourself and I doubt anyone will make a thing of it.

I think we should try to put this past us now and move on. Happy editing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you BTP. I thought your comments and those of a few other editors/admins were quite well reasoned and appropriate in the ANI discussion, which was interesting to follow. Those who offered encouragement here on my talk page were also very kind and generous to do so. An unexpected block out of right field when someone has been editing in good faith with only good intentions can be quite demoralizing.

I would like to clarify some things.

1) As far as your "not being one of my favorite admins", nothing could be further from the truth. I like all well meaning and good faith editors of which you are certainly one. My point, which I've tried to be consistent on, is that you have a strong point of view politically and that from what I've seen you would do well to restrain from administrative actions towards editors who are editing from a point of view at odds with your own, because from what I've seen I think you have difficulty seeing good faith and the reasoning behind their editing, just as they have difficulty seeing and relating to some of the liberal positions advanced (more commonly) by many editors here. I've disagreed with many of those who are my closest friends on Wikipedia, and I think it's important to be able to be open and honest in disagreement, while maintaining respect for one another. I apologize if I haven't done a good job of expressing that to you in the past, I thought I had.

2) You are always welcome on my talk page and I encourage courteous comments and suggestions offered in good faith. What I've objected to are threats and intimidation. If you treat me respectfully as a fellow editor, I know we won't have any problem. And as my edits are generally straight down the middle I don't anticipate any problems on political subjects either. But where I've tried to abide by our NPOV guidelines and to include perspectives that are notable and critical of Obama and his policies I have found you to be influenced by your personal beliefs, which is understandable, but I don't think makes you the best editors to play the role of enforcer.

3) The actions of trolls and stalkers speak for themselves. When I've made it clear to an individual that I don't find their comments helpful or informative and they continue to post incessantly on my talk page, to involve themselves in my discussions on other editors' talk pages, to engage in discussion about me on other editors pages, and to pursue administrative actions against me at every opportunity, I think pointing out their pond scum like qualities is not only fair, but appropriate. Those descriptive terms are also accurate in describing characters that don't appear to make any useful or helpful contributions to Wikipedia's content. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm following BTP around here like a little puppy dog - but, yep ... what he said. ;) — Ched :  ?  04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm following you Ched! Seems wrong somehow.  :-)

I don't want to rehash our past disagreements C of M so I'll let your first point go, but obviously we know where the disagreement lies. As to the "trolls" type comments, I'm just telling you they don't do you any favors in a situation like this, and there's simply no need for them, but ultimately you will say what you want to say, of course. Also I would not hesitate to contact you on your talk page if I needed to, the only reason I commented on ANI that it would be better for another admin to ask you to not edit the articles in question was that I had specifically told you I would avoid enforcing ArbCom remedies against you, since you were uncomfortable with me doing that. Dropping a note on your talk page is not exactly enforcing a remedy, but I wanted to err on the side of caution. Anyhow, hopefully this is all resolved now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm not sure we agree on where the disagreement lies. 2) Understood. 3) I still seem to be blocked. :) You could ask Ched to help, but I'm not sure I want end up indefinitely blocked or maimed by some sort of horrific administrative mishap. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed autoblock cleared. –xeno^talk 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xeno, you beat me to it. I forgot about the damn autoblock. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to forget until they installed a helpful reminder for dum dums like us into the {{unblocked}} template =) –xeno^talk 04:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is helpful, now if I had only used the unblock template! My informality will be my undoing someday, perhaps on Wikipedia but more likely in real life.  :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ched isn't mad at me now is he? It was just a joke. You know, hazing the noob admin. Gulp. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ched mad? Pfft ... at words on a webpage? Shirley you jest. Anger is a poor bedfellow I believe. I'll admit, there are times I'm disappointed, but it's usually because I'm hurt when I see people I respect discussed in an insulting manner. Grudges make poor companions Child, and while you still have many supporters, I believe that if you continue speak of our fellow editors in a disparaging manner, the number of supporters will dwindle over time. You're capable of good work here, but good work is easily tainted by vitriol. I'm sure you don't want to read my words of advice any more than anyone else who has tried, so I'll just wish you the best. I trust the "gulp" was intended as humor, but rest assured that I'm not personally offended. ;-) — Ched :  ?  16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the gnat to which you refer has continued to bug me. There's obviously no need to pursue and stalk me around Wikipedia looking for trouble. You don't see all of the edits because I can't be bothered to point them out, but a nuisance is a nuisance. It's nice that you want to believe the best in your fellow editors. But when an individual shows they are here to cause disruption and are incapable of contributing usefully, I don't see any need to mince words. I'm glad you weren't annoyed with my attempt at humor directed your way. It was hilarious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation relations can wait. I have just finished a huge, tedious overhaul of the "Foreign relations of ..." articles, and they have enough fantasy to last me for months. "Saudi-Japanese relations are based on mutual respect and common interests in all areas." "The United States has promoted national reconciliation, encouraging Nicaraguans to resolve their problems through dialogue and compromise." Enough! I will do some dull but uncontroversial articles like Ethiopia–People's Republic of China relations while I recover my sanity. You might give it a try. Take a break from the Obama wars. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even allowed to mention any subjects that start with the letter O. It's outrageous. I mean ridiculous. Oops. I mean uhoh. Wait that has an "Oh" in it too. I'm finding this very difficult. And hasn't Obama commented on Saudi Arabia and China? It's a slippery slope. Thank goodness there are diligent and vigilant editors constantly looking out to make sure the I'm kept on the straight and narrow.

The best political relations article was Iceland-Korea, but some ne'er do well mucked it up entirely. All it takes is one trouble maker to undo lots of hard work.

When I was in Brunei they had an entire museum devoted to the gifts of tribute the Sultan had received from the leaders of other nations and various dignitaries. I'm hoping to become a Sultan of Wikipedia. What are you bringing me? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and there was an entire segment on China's investments and expatriates in Angola. So if you're working on that relations article let me know and I'll find it for you. Interesting stuff. Unless you're Tibetan or a Uighyer (sp?) or some kind of activist it's all good... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better stay away from Kenya – United States relations - dangerous there. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulp. The so-called birthers are everywhere... I'm not hearing much about Africa in the news these days. Not since the pirates.

Anyway, I'm mostly interested in U.S. relations with Vietnam. Improving bilateral trade as it relates to improving my access to pho and banh is very important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Wikipedia already has its god-king? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Aymatth2 (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we can still edit the food "things we eat" articles together. ;) ... awww come-on now ... that was funny. :-O — Ched :  ?  03:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... ummm... Don't quit your day job. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL .. I guess Letterman isn't gonna start sweating yet then? ;) — Ched :  ?  05:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have one of these, my treat!

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment [1], specifically the "More mature and respectful parties" comment, did not help civility here.

Please don't poke the bears. The section needing collapse was self-evident. Getting nasty back at Roux was not productive.

I've already warned Roux on his talk page, but I want to remind everyone involved not to behave in a hostile manner, particularly on ANI. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems valid to me. Everybody's a critic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On July 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article pocket neighborhood, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Why isn't Baptisia arachnifera getting a work up on the beach?" It will - if you look at the times of my work, you'll see I was up way too late last night working on the Duncans. I do have to sleep sometime. Did you see my new article already in mainspace? LadyofShalott 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:LadyofShalott/Baptisia arachnifera LadyofShalott 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article is looking very good. I'll see if I can find anything to tweak. Sleep must come second to completing the sum of all knowledge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum..., Yes, I would say that they deserve an article, but not the current one in Wikipedia. I used to go to the original one located between Avenida Lomas Verdes and Santa Juanita in Bayamon and let me tell you, forget KFC. Do you know the secret behind their formula? They marinated the "pollos" in beer. Anyway, here are two websites, especailly the "San Juan Herald" which would explian the notability of Martin's BBQ: [2] and Puerto Rico Herald. The article needs a little work. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hi CoM

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

<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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

<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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

And your forum shopping to harass me is not surprising.[3] I'm warning here you again for your repeated harassment. Please bear in mind that you should abide by the NPA rule.[4]--Caspian blue 04:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The new remedies are here [5] 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)[reply]

• (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. You're a disgrace. Right up there with Aitias, Connolley and the other thugs abusing policies and disregarding our rules to go after editors they don't like and to support their friends. You're a slug. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]