This is an archive of past discussions with User:ChildofMidnight. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The statement that "Wilders enjoys no protection for anti Islam comments he made in the media" is a matter of opinion and remains unsourced. It seems to me it is at the very heart of what the trial is meant to determine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not a matter of opinion but of fact: the very fact that he is now prosecuted proves that he does not enjoy that immunity! Perhaps you did not understand that immunity = to be exempted from prosecution? --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed I think there is a language barrier issue involved in the editing of that article. If you want to clarify the wording to "immunity from prosecution" that would be helpful. It still needs a proper citation establishing the source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime I added a note that refers to the (Dutch) text of the first decision of the court of February 3 on the preliminary defense of Mr.Wilders and his lawyer "LJN: BL1868, Rechtbank Amsterdam , 13/425046-09". Under 1.1., 1.2. and 1.3 (Absolute competentie, Relatieve competentie and De ontvankelijkheid van de officier van justitie) the court rules that it is competent and that Article 71 of the Constitution does not apply:
"Artikel 71 van de Grondwet luidt onder meer dat leden van de Staten-Generaal immuniteit genieten. Zij kunnen niet in rechte worden vervolgd of aangesproken voor wat zij in de vergaderingen van de Staten-Generaal of van commissies daaruit hebben gezegd of aan deze schriftelijk hebben overgelegd.
De rechtbank is van oordeel dat de parlementaire immuniteit zich niet uitstrekt tot wat een volksvertegenwoordiger buiten de vergaderingen van de Staten-Generaal heeft gezegd of geschreven."
The court refers to previous decisions in comparable cases by the Hoge Raad (Dutch Supreme Court) of April 2, 2002 (LJN AD8693) and June 2, 2002 (LJN AE1544). The protection of Article 71 does not extend to what the suspect said / wrote or is accused of having said / written outside of the parliament (Staten-Generaal). --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, you've done a fine job for the most part with the article. I hope you don't mind my calls for clarifications.
I used to have a much wamer approach, but trying to keep Drmies in line all the time has worn me down. ;)
It seems to me that the case is at its core about what amounts to hate speech and whether freedoms of speech are protected. So when you say that someone doesn't have immunity for their comments, that strikes me as rendering a kind of verdict and a legal opinion. At the very least it needs a citation establishing the source for that claim.
I understand your point that there are legal immunities afforded to politicians and political speech in the Netherlands that may not apply outside of official proceedings. But again, I think we need to be very careful and clear in the wording and use quality sourcing.
It's certainly interesting that this flamboyant politician who espouses views that many find outrageous is going to be at the heart of a trial over free speech. I don't know if the if that situation is better or worse than the way one of America's porn peddlers, Larry Flynt, became a standard bearer on similar (though not political or religious) speech issues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh and I think I may have removed a characterization of Wilders views as "anti-Islam"? I wasn't sure if it was an accurate paraphrase of his views, but after looking at a couple sources I see that it is definitely accurate and appropriate. So I think it should be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is indeed a very interesting case, that comes to the heart of a very very principal matter, the core of what freedom of speech, law and civilization are. As long as it is not possible to figure out what my personal opinion is, I think I do it well - but your attention is appreciated. --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm 99.999% sure you are not a fan of Mr. Wilders. I also think you believe he is guilty of the chargers and should be punished. Do I win something if I have guessed right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm not a fan of Wilders as I am not a fan of any politician, and there is nothing to bet, or "win" by guessing.
I dare to predict that his lawyer will build a further defense in this case on what is called "ontbreken van de wederrechtelijkheid", i.e. not having an illegal intention, probably referring to an odd case in the history of Dutch criminal law: although the facts were proved, the lack of any illegal intention by the suspect was then recognized by the Hoge Raad (Dutch Supreme Court) in its verdict in that case of the Huizense veearts (transl. "Veterinarian from Huizen"), HR February 20, 1933 (NJ 1933, 918).
I can NOT predict if the Amsterdam court will grant such a defense and I have NO opinion about the question if it should accept such a defense or not. My prediction on the court's first decision on February 3, about which of the desired witnesses could be heard, was quite right. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated H. Neill Wilson, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Neill Wilson. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Using Elkman's tool (see bottom of my userpage), these seem to be National Register of Historic Places buildings he may have been involved with:
76001235 American Museum of Natural History Central Park West and 77th St. New York NY Vaux & Mould Infobox/Commons American Museum of Natural History
05000570 Clapham--Stern House 48 Glenwood Rd. Roslyn Harbor NY Wrey Mould, Jacob Infobox/CommonsClapham--Stern House
94000793 King--Lancaster--McCoy--Mitchell House 54 King St. Bristol (Independent City) VA Beaver, Hoffmeister & Mould Infobox/Commons King--Lancaster--McCoy--Mitchell House
82001205 Trinity Chapel Complex 15 W. 25th St. New York NY Mould,Jacob Wrey Infobox/Commons Trinity Chapel Complex
The article suggest he is the Mould involved in the design of the Museum (which has photos...) But since his name isn't first it suggests he was a junior partner, so the extent of his role should probably be clarified if possible. The Chapel and the Clapham Stern House seem to be credited to him. Good luck. Rainy here, but I'm off to shop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was having a hard time finding him as the senior partner in any projects. But when you come back from shopping, click on the link in the reference for the Long Island country homes--it has some pictures of amazing houses. Have fun! Drmies (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, H. Neill Wilson is on the chopping block, so it's hard to imagine how big the homes need to be to make a fellow notable these days. I guess the Edwards, Gore and Kennedy families have really raised the bar? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy to be on the receiving end of the same ill treatment that all the other mere commoners on Wikipedia endure, thank you very much. It's Shadowbrook? I'm not sure how it got changed, but I think I've changed it back. If not feel free to fix it. Thanks for your help Spiff. Have a good one. Peace out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The NYT obit (and Carnegie's WP article) listed it without the space, you added one in, so I was wondering if there were some other sources that mentioned it that way, so I asked. I would hasten you to stop wasting people's time by creating articles on architects and instead focus on more productive topics. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff18:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This edit summary is out of line. What "massive removal" of mine? I cleaned up after after someone's edit. If you can't be civil, is it too much to expect you to get your facts straight? Please retract your smears. Guettarda (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
He accused me of a "massive removal", when I did nothing of the sort. Making false accusations is uncivil. The text also implies that there was something wrong with the underlying change, when in fact it's in keeping with the MOS. So implying wrongdoing when there is none is a smear. Guettarda (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Guettarda, the edit history clearly shows that you and Hipocrite removed a very large portion of content as well as numerous sources. Please don't come to my talk page making false accusations of incivility where there was none on my part. I initially reverted myself, after I first tried to restore the sources you removed, so that I could investigate further. Then I carefully reviewed the history and what was taken out, and determined that there was no prior discussion and that the massive removal was not warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Was it by me? No. Then his accusation is false. And if he wants to take issue with someone's actions, it would be with Dave's decision to spin off the section, not Hip's follow-up action. Implying that there was wrongdoing by Hip and me is clearly a smear. You can't invoke WP:SPADE when (a) your accusations are, on the face of it, false, and (b) when you're spinning legitimate actions to cast them as misdeeds. Guettarda (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if the wording wasn't clearer. I usually use "tweak" because providing good edit summaries is such a fine art and comments are so often misconstrued. In this case an explanation was needed and I didn't feel that tweak was sufficient, so I tried to explain what I was doing. A large portion of content and the sources supporting it were removed entirely from the article by two editors, that's what I was undoing, and that's what I was trying to explain. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
As I noted in my edit summary (and tried to do myself), I think some conslidation and tightening would be helpful. However, if you want all of those sources and that large section of content removed, you're need to explain yourself on the article talk page. That's where your edits should have been suggested first, before excising all tof hose sources related to the content that Hipocrite removed. I think it will be difficult for you to justify why those sources aren't useful and why all of the content discussing why the e-mails are controversial is inappropriate to include, but you're welcome to explain your view there. I'm sorry if my edit summary seemed unfairly critical. I did my best to explain what I was doing. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
[I]f you want all of those sources and that large section of content removed, you're need to explain yourself on the article talk page - So you're saying that I should leave this version, with all the broken refs? Seriously?! Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Removing the content is what wrecked the formatting of those refs. So if you wanted to fix the article you could have undone that edit. You also could have fixed and restored the refs without the content, or you could have initiated discussion about the problem to get consensus on the way forward. Instead you chose to remove the refs in a followup edit to the removal of the content. That's what I noted in the edit summary where I indicated that you and Hipocrite removed a large block of text and the sources supporting it. Reality is my ultimate defense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Why would I undo an edit that was entirely consistent with the MOS? Dave's spin-off was discussed. Hip's conversion to summary style was in keeping with the MOS. My edit fixed some broken refs. "Reality is my ultimate defense"? What reality? That you didn't bother to look into the matter, you just blindly reverted? Damn. That's a "defense"? Guettarda (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Leaving an extensive timeline of the leak/possible hacking while removing most or all of the content related to why the e-mails are controversial does not comport with my understanding of summary style. I'm happy to discuss the issues with you on the article talk page. I would like collaborate with you towards a tighter and more coherent article. I think the discussions related to that effort are best kept on the article talk page so that everyone who wants to weigh in can do so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The "nutshell" version of WP:SS says "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place". It's simple - if a section is spun off, it should be replaced with a summary. Now we have the same text in the spun off article, and the main article. Which is contrary to the MOS. Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the spin-off article? I'm not seeing anything about it in the article history or on the talk page. As I recall a previous attempt to spin off the e-mail issues was not well received (it was attacked with viciousness and all sort of personal attacks), so that kind of initiative would require discussion and consensus. I'm flexible and try to be accomodating, so I was okay with splitting up the article or keeping it together as long as our coverage was comprehensive, accurate, and balanced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I saw the Climatic Research Unit documents link. What I didn't see was any discussion or explanation of why most of the content and sources related to the controversy over the e-mails should be removed from the main article. Don't you think massive changes of that kind should be discussed first? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You said: Do you have a link to the spin-off article? If saw the Climatic Research Unit documents link, why are you asking for "a link to the spin-off article"? Just for the fun of it?
What I didn't see was any discussion - well, you (a) didn't ask for that, and (b) didn't bother to look at the article's talk page, since Dave posted a link to the discussion 22 minutes before you posted that comment.
Is it too much to ask that you intitiate discussion before making massive changes to controversial article content? I didn't see any discussion on the talk page when I reverted the changes you made, so please don't misrepresent the history to try and attack me. You're antagonistic approach is seeming more and more to be an clear effort at trolling. If you can't be civil and respectful then I'm not going to continue engaging in discussion with you here. If there was discussion and consensus for the changes then all you need to do is point out where that took place. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You mean this discussion here? I think a lot of people are waiting for their retractions and apologies, and your self revert on the article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask that you intitiate [sic] discussion before making massive changes to controversial article content? - No, it's not. But I fail to see how this relates in any way, shape or form to what we're discussing. I did not make any massive changes. Your accusations notwithstanding, I simply removed some refs, in response to Sphilbrick's request, which were left behind as a result of Hip's edit. Which was a consequence of spinning off the section into a daughter article. Which was discussed. This is all on the article's talk page. You should read it before reverting, especially on an article that's subject to probation like this one is.
I didn't see any discussion on the talk page when I reverted the changes you made - Well, it was there. My edit, for example, was in response to Sphilbrick's request. The conversation is documented there. Dave's spin off of the section was in there too. It was in response to Nightmote's suggestion. Not having been around for a week and a half I read through the talk page before jumping into the discussion. You should really do that too.
so please don't misrepresent the history to try and attack me - I'm not.
You're antagonistic approach is seeming more and more to be an clear effort at trolling - Trolling? Let's see, you use deceptive edit summaries, make false accusations against me, and either ignore or deny the content of the article's talk page. Though I wouldn't use the term "trolling", I think it's closer to your behaviour than mine.
If you can't be civil and respectful then I'm not going to continue engaging in discussion with you here. Seriously, I came here to raise the problem of your incivility. I'm being very patient with you, despite your repeated dissembling.
If there was discussion and consensus for the changes then all you need to do is point out where that took place - How can you even begin to consider that a reasonable request? Dave already provided a link to the discussion about spinning off the section - I have asked you repeatedly to join the discussion there. If you haven't seen his link, then you haven't bothered to look at the talk page.
My edit was made in response to what was the third-to-last section on the talk page at the time you reverted it. If you had bothered to read the talk page, you'd have seen it. You talk about civility and respect, but can't be bothered to be civil to your fellow edits, or to treat their efforts with the slightest hint of respect. Guettarda (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
If you had seen the discussion and believed there was consensus why would you say "And if he wants to take issue with someone's actions, it would be with Dave's decision to spin off the section" and wait so long to provide a link? Listen, I'm sorry you're unhappy with me. I've explained my actions and have responded to your repeated accusations. As you've noted, it's being discussed now on the talk page, so you're concerns are best communicated there. I'm just one of many editors and I'm happy to abide by whatever consensus is determined going forward. I'm optimistic that the title and the article can be fixed and the content be made compliant with our policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, since they took away my motorized barstool I haven't been able to get around as much as I'd like to. And now that the parrot and B.B. gun are gone too, times are tough. But these setbacks won't be enough to stop me! Sure, it was problematic that my Asian market was out of longan and banh bao yesterday, but I did have some good pho and falafel. Make of that what you will... I also picked up some gravlax at Ikea and animalitos (my name for a Mexican brand of graham crackers) from Wally World. So I am definitely still able to get around. You'll never catch me! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing progressive about it: They make mozzarella pie from Pepe's in New Haven, Connecticut exactly the same way they always did because you can't improve on perfection. I provide this purely to torture you for implying that the Bay State is "my" progressive state. That's an WP:NPA violation, by the way.
My "progressive" state is Connecticut (the part that hasn't been blown up yet), home of the Apizza and birthplace of the hamburger and the submarine (although not the submarine sandwich, although it is the birthplace of the Subway (restaurant), although that isn't something I'm proud of). You obviously haven't seen the latest Mel Gibson flick, so my brilliant comment flew over your head like the debris of an exploded power plant, alas, alas. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
CoM, (hi there, incidentally, hope you've been well and such...) ...CoM, every time I come to your talk page I learn something new. Often it's the sort of "something new" that leaves me wacketing through Wikipedia playing follow-the-linky for hours, postponing my bedtime and aggravating my cats with my constant listener-free monologue (the sad habit of the only child who now lives alone). I'm girlcotting your page for the next two weeks, therefore; my ex-husband-but-no-longer-ex-boyfriend is coming into town for our eighth non-aversary next week, and would not take kindly to hours of my time being used for learning about--of all things--Sinatra-related killings. My goodness--the things people get in a dither about!!! GJC03:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
When Pepe's did the unthinkable a few years back and started making pizzas at other locations, they took the exact measurements of the coal-fired, brick oven they'd been using for decades and had new ones built to the same specifications. There's nothing like the taste of a hoary, iron-bound, musty old tradition. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one who doesn't know what wacketing and girlcotting are? Where are the Wikipedia articles when I need them? I'm very consfused about it all. Gladys, am I to understand the we've been engaging in a non-platonic relationship? Or is the otherwise highly reliable Urban dictionary misleading me? This is all making me very hungry for brick oven pizza and all I've got is Tony's is the freezer!!! Connecticut? So I have to make lame spelling jokes about the state's name, comments about the big homes and elitists in Greenwich, and the communist leanings of Yaleys? This isn't much to work with. And where's the picture I need for Yale's Street Hall designed by Augustus Russell Street (supposedly the first art school building at any U.S. college)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Unlucky for you, I'm in a prolix mood: Yale, Schmale. They've been commies there forever (although there are however, some exceptions). It's a stage they go through between their Greenwich childhoods and Old Saybrook parenthoods. Girlcotting is obviously what girls do when they boycott. Isn't "wacketing" a word in some Lewis Caroll poem? Isn't that what the frubious Bandersnatch does? The Alice in Wonderland movie (starring an [anti-American] Connecticut resident [part-time]) should be out in a few weeks or months, and you can settle it then. The part that I don't understand is the ex-husband-but-no-longer-ex-boyfriend. But I won't go there. All jokes about Greenwich mansions have already been made, and guess who's laughing all the way from the bank? (The AIG offices where so many of the bad decisions were made and where the big, big bonuses went out were in guess-which-state. The UBS AG offices that were arranging for the U.S. wealthy to stash their cash away from the IRS were ... guess where. We have traditions to uphold here in the land of steady habits, as the guy on the fifty dollar bill found out. And I'm just connecting to the southwest quarter of the state here. Don't get me started.
In answer to your question, the recent movie with Mr. Gibson (who's had his local home on the market -- wanna make an offer?) has a plot that's too involved, silly and forgettable for me to recount in detail, but it's one of his better performances. Some British actor does a good job in it, too. The flick's full of left-wing conspiracy mongering, but nobody's taken any of that stuff seriously for, -- what, 35 years or so? The funny thing about the movie is that it hints that the Connecticut River is somewhere in the near suburbs of Boston. The last scene was unexpectedly good. One nice couple of lines, repeated once, got a laugh out of the audience I saw the movie with: "You know, that's illegal in Massachusetts." Reply: "Everything's illegal in Massachusetts." Nothing about Massachusetts government is shown to be any good and not much about Massachusetts law enforcement, Massachusetts manners (actually, there aren't any). Which is actually pretty accurate. (Think of the corruption of New Orleans and Louisiana, but without the pleasant accent or the warmer weather.) There have been half a dozen films in the past 12 years or so covering the same territory. Call it "Boston Noir". Oh, and one character is a Republican U.S. Senator from Massachusetts! Ha! Like that will ever happen ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute: They've been doing massive renovations, expanding the art gallery over that bridge and into it. [1] I was diagonally across the street from there a month ago, but I didn't look closely. As the pic here shows [2], the best time to take a building picture is before the leaves are back on the trees. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, the girlcotter thing makes sense. I didnt get the gender twist, and the old reliable urban dictionary gave me an alternate meaning. I wonder if Gladys is always this girlsterous about herstory? The article is up so get to it. I imagine the snow will provide a lovely backdrop... I originally took the Mass. comment as being a generic corruption/ big dig cement collapsing type generality, but you threw me with this movie specificity. I checked and you're the only one who's seen that movie. So next time try something with broader interest like Juwanna Man, Pootytang or Shakespeare. Thanks for the wild ride through New England culture. Made me hungry for Steamers and chowdah (though I prefer Manhattan Clam Chowder to its creamy cousin... You can take the ChildofMidnight out of Manhattan...)ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
More popular cultural references? You mean, like, The Borg?
You call that an article? I'm supposed to schlep up to New Haven with my camera for that? I write captions longer than that. I write barnstar explanations longer than that. I reply to Tarc longer than that (but not much longer). There are user names longer than that. In fact, your user name is longer than that. I add categories with more bytes than that. If you actually added a proper footnote to it, it would be longer than all the rest of it. And no, I'm not the only one who's seen that movie. There were at least two other people in the audience when I went to see it. At least they were there when I arrived. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm....pouring milk over the cake is not that surprising thing. Milk and butter are in kinship. After all, the primary purpose of cakes and gummies are for eaters to gain fat. :-) --Caspian blue19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see butter in the dirt cake recipe. Did you develop a new recipe for butter cream dirt cake breakfast cereal served in milk? How innovative! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I'm not sure what to make of it. It's not my area of expertise, but I'll see what the Google Gods have to say about it when I get a chance. I appreciate the bang up job you've done of helping me access it Jonathunder. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe that User:William M. Connolley has already requested that you refrain from using some modes of address. Please simply use "WMC" when the context is clear, or his full username when it might not be. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Er, that's why I said "'your highness' when addressing me", as "addressing somebody" (as opposed to "referring to somebody") implies the second person. There was a comma after the clause including "refer to me in the third person", indicating a separation between that and what followed. Bongomatic23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you are also still not referring to me as Major Trusilver, USAF (ret.). This is very rude and needs to stop. We have ways of dealing with people like you. Trusilver20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I always assumed you held an even higher rank: 4 star general, admiral, or commandant. At least you're not a corpseman. As I've been known to pronounce colonel phonetically, I'm with the golden boy on that one. If people want to be called kernals then they should spell it out! Hmmm... according to this [3] commandant and major are the same rank? It's all making sense now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I very rarely use full names for other editors, and I generally only use acronyms and abbreviations when those are the actual usernames or the most established name for something.
If an editor doesn't want to be called William or Connolley then it doesn't seem a very good idea to use those names for their user name. Imagine my getting outraged at someone calling me Child. That would be ridiculous. We're welcome to ask people to call us by something other than our usernames, but as long as people are civil they are free to shorten and abbreviate as they see fit.
It's very simple: If someone doesn't want to be called something then they shouldn't use that term as a name for themselves. Using Will, a standard short from for William, is entirely appropriate, and so is using someone's last name when it's part of their username. There's nothing uncivil about either. As I don't know what the "M" in WMC stands for, I'm not comforatble using it. I'm willing to address him as "W.C." but I suspect that may not be appreciated.
There is also a problem with hypocrisy in this request. Connolley has referred to other people as per his whims, for example "Lord V" for Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So it's obviously not a case where he thinks doing that kind of thing is unacceptable or improper. This is obviously an abusive bullying attempt to try and control other editors by telling them how they are allowed refer to him. I'm calling bullshit on it. If that's the standard then why isn't it applied to him or in other cases?
The real problem here is that William is an editor with a major conflict of interest. He has a history as an involved party with activist groups on the Climate Change issues and maintains a blog where he attacks those he disagrees with and advocates his opinions. That's fine, but he isn't allowed to try to push those views by distorting and biasing Wikipedia's content for propaganda purposes. His abusive behaviors include efforts to disparage biographical subjects, the censoring of notable and reliably sourced content, and the twisting of content to reflect only those views that he agrees with. Those behaviors are not acceptable, and his edit warring, incivility, wikilawyering and other disruptive and obstructionist efforts need to be addressed.
If you want to institute a name use policy please do so at the Village Pump. Your attempts to target me with arbitrary and abusive enforcement measures as you've done in the past are entirely unwelcome and unacceptable. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
We already have Doc Mies (Drmies) and Doctropics, not to mention Baby Doc Duvalier. Given the frequent popular uprisings, Wikipedia is often a physician heal thyself type collaboration. And credentials aren't always verifiable. It would be nice if more appreciation were shown for my impressive restraint in not using the nicknames Wilber, Willis, and Willy more. I'm trying to use William as much as possible but it seems awfully formal when Will is so much more natural and concise, so I'm not finding it easy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not the preferred approach because we don't want to legitimize their socking, but it's not like you proxy edited for them or something. I think it's more or less ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why it wouldn't be OK. The edits by Damian made the three different dates of birth in the Scotus article (1264, 1265 and 1266) consistent by giving a single date (1265) which may not be correct, but is at least consistent and agrees with modern scholarship. Another example: what if the article on arithmetic made the claim that 2+2=5, and that a banned user came along and corrected this. Would an admin be compelled on grounds of policy to revert? And if CoM came along and reverted back, would this only be 'more or less OK'? And what would be the 'preferred approach' here? There is also the matter of a perfectly good and well-sourced article that has been entirely deleted. John Watkins LLD (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if there isn't some way to bring Damien back onboard in good faith. As easy as it is to reblock it strikes me as being kind of crazy that as a community we're so strict with enforcements and the "standard offer" nonsense when we know full well that most people can go ahead and create a new account to edit away without us knowing; as long as they don't acknowledge who they are, which I assume is part of the point he was making? It seems like a kind of absurd kabbuki we're playing with shadow puppets of our own making. Meanwhile, those who got into trouble, but can't or won't create alternate accounts don't get another chance to "blend in" or to come clean and are mostly gone for good. I say if someone wants to come back let them. They end up being watched like a hawk anyway, and if they mess up it's not hard to reblock. Why create such a large incentive to game the system? It doesn't make any sense to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
If there is an actual request to be unblocked made in the usual manner, I'm usually a supporter of a second chance, and in fact I just wrote this essay on the subject. But as you know, we admins must act according to established policy and not dictate new policy ourselves (at least that's how it's supposed to work) so I followed the standard procedure and undid all the socks edits. I only vaguely remember Peter from his sometimes bizarre requests, like asking all vandal fighters to stop reverting vandalism in order to prove some grand point of his, so I really don't know what the community reaction would be to an attempt to unblock him, but at a glance I'd say it's unlikely given the recent sock accounts. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the unblocking process involves acts of ritual humiliation such as prostration and kowtowing to the whims of whoever is considering the request that don't make it enticing for people who have pride. My preference would be to extend good faith as a way to encourage getting more of it in return. I've had my differences with Damien in the past and the whole destroy Wikipedia to save it scheme didn't seem very constructive, but the guy has expertise (as far as I can tell) in a variety of subjects and i think the encyclopedia would benefit from having him back as a contributor. Academics can be opinionated, argumentative and passionate (especially about their areas of interest), but I think it's good to have them around. Insights and ideas, even provocative ones, can be useful, and sometimes provide inspiration for novel solutions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
On the 'bizarre idea', at least one well-respected admin (and steward), user:Lar, has a banner on his page saying "This user demands flagged revisions NOW and refuses to do vandal fighting." The point is that if people stopped vandal-fighting, Wikipedia would be compelled to introduce some sort of registration scheme and uniquely-identifying accounts. The emphasis on vandal-fighting detracts from what this project ought to be, the building of a comprehensive and accurate reference source. We seem to have the opposite: articles on genuinely encyclopedic subjects are being deleted as 'vandalism' which is surreal. John Watkins LLD (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Work actions are discouraged. Perhaps understandably. But there are other means of protest, some of them can result in indefinite blocks and even bans though. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
There's another aspect that is missing there too. A lot of vandal fighters aren't content contributors and don't want to be. Although Wikipedia doesn't exist just to entertain them with the cat-and-mouse game of vandal hunting, a lot of these users would probably just walk away because they had nothing left to do here that interested them. I do agree with you that the unblock process can be needlessly humiliating sometimes, I do my best to tell the difference between someone who was blocked for newbie mistakes and the ones who actually have bad intentions, but it can be very difficult to judge someone's true intentions based only on text. Maybe we should start offering the option unblock via Skype so we can see and hear who we are dealing with, but I imagine a lot of admins who are ugly/naked/drunk (or all three) might not be into it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
CoMonics
I have some questions on grammers (sic). Maybe one of my stalkers is a high school English teacher?
When responding please indicate if you are a colonialist oppressor of Britian (cob) or freedom loving American (fla).
1) Is one of these incorrect? Do they have different meanings?:
Bobby discovered the books were destroyed.
Bobby discovered the books had been destroyed.
2) If an article discusses The Nautical Exploration Committee and a writer doesn't always want to write out Nautical Exploration Committee each time the group is mentioned, can the group be written as "the Committee..."? Or would it have to be "the committee..."? I know committee is not a proper noun, but does it have to be lower-case even when it's standing in for a prior proper noun, or can it be made capital to indicate its standing in for a proper known? Is it ever a judgment call or is there a hard and fast rule?
If you literatti don't know the answers to these important questions, perhaps someone can point me to where I can get answers?
I slept on it, and according to my recollections of Mrs. Krebopple's 8th grade English class, both versions of the Bobby example are okay and the first construction slightly preferred. The "had been" construction is waning in popularity and usually reserved for past perfect(?) constructions where something occured over a period of time or on a regular basis. Example: I was a good boy, but in recent months I have been eating too much sugar.
And I think the substitution with Caps is also considered acceptable in select cases?
If no one responds to this post in the next 5 hours I will take it as a clear consensus that I am absolutely 100% correct and that you are all sorry for past transgressions against my good judgment on grammatical innovation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hm. The books were destroyed by the fire. The books were destroyed in the fire. The books had been destroyed by the fire. The books had been destroyed in the fire. Any of those sound wrong? The answer probably lies in that wrongness, 'cause it seems like an active/passive voice thing. Nightmote (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The had been construction seems unnecessarily wordy to me, and my understanding is that the general movement as far as grammar goes is to simplify things. This page explains the issues [4], but I would argue that the had/has constructions should be reserved for periodic or durational (is that a word?) occurences since the other uses just make the sentences wordier. Por ejemplo, in their first example "You had studied English before you moved to New York" isn't any clearer than "You studied English before you moved to New York", and is therefore unnecessarily wordy. And confirmation of that page using all kinds of bad exampels that should be discouraged is confirmed by their use of "We had had that car for ten years before it broke down" as an example. Yikes!
Any comments or thoughts on substituting "University" instead of "university" for the proper noun University of Dunceworth when it's repeated in a text and the acronym UD isn't commonly used or confusing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think both examples of what Bobby discovered are what the article on the pluperfect calls pluperfect of state. To my Midwestern-American ear, both are correct and idiomatic. There may be a shade of difference between the examples, depending on context. Jonathunder (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. I suppose it's a greyish area in the English language? I think those flukey tenses are more popular in other tongues. Many of the examples seem arcane and dated to me. I think they might fly in literature, but I don't think they belong in an information source such as an encyclopedia where clear wording and readability is desirable.
He saw that the door had opened, and children were running through it.
He saw that the door was open and children were running through it.
He saw the door was open and children were running through it.
He saw the open door and children running through it.
Fun stuff. I know which version I prefer, and it's no wonder the English teachers are mostly hiding in seclusion.
If only I had had more discpline and had payed (or is it paid?) attention when Krebopple was explaining this stuff! (Which of course I would write as: If only I were more discipled and payed paid attention. But why simplify?) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.... because paid (oops) is in the past tense there has to be agreement? Makes sense I suppose. I'm learning. Slowly. It seems to me that someone could be talking generally and then mix in a reference to the past, If I was taller I would have eaten more bananas. Does it have to be if I were taller? I'm not allowed to mix tenses that way? But someone else is granted there had hads? So unfair. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A purist, such as dear old Krebopple, would put statements which are contrary to fact in the subjunctive mood: if I were taller. Among non-purists, the subjunctive is slowly dying in Modern English. Jonathunder (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to remember that. If only I were in possession of a stronger memory... How do I get subjunctive off the chopping block and more of this pluperfect had had nonsense under the guillotine? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
You're mentioned in my AN/I complaint against Tarc
Thank you for your reverts to the Scotus article. There is still a problem with the Greyfriars article [5] which has the birth date as 1264. No one really knows the exact date (it is an inference from the fact he was ordained in 1291) but the dates should at least be consistent, and the scholarly consensus is around1265/66 (see the SEP entry e.g. [6]).
I saw that, but a year one way or the other didn't seem enormously significant to me and I haven't compared sources to establish which date is preferred. Another alternative would be to pick the average (or either one) and use "ca." I'm not a big date person. Does it mean something if he was born in 1264 instead of 1265?
Note the revert by Beeblebrox has destroyed the link to John Pecham which is now showing red again.
On Illuminationism, there is not really such a thing as illuminationism (European). The version discussed in Illuminationist philosophy is simply the Islamic version which comes from pretty much the same neo-Platonist sources as Augustine's. Again, see the relevant SEP entries [7], [8], [9].
There really should be a single article which discusses all the different varieties, and indeed Damian made a start on this but it has been deleted. [10]. An admin needs to restore it. It seems absurd it was deleted at all. Best John Watkins LLD (talk)
Thanks for the note. I'll try to have a look but I'm out of my depth on those subjects. I'm still trying to figure out what the question of the eternity of the world is.
Ok, now we do have a problem. John here has just been blocked as another sock of Peter. (12 apostles socking motif?) Anyway, it seems Mr. Damian is trying to turn you into his "good hand." I doubt I have to explain this to you, but you should proceed very carefully at this point, lest it appear you are indeed proxy editing on his behalf. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will try not to mess with any philosophy stuff that might be related to his work going forward if it's a concern (although I might try to draft something on immediacy which came up in relation to a discussion unrelated to him). But it should be noted that I have no way of knowing who's who. I also don't have any stake in him being blocked or not. I just saw that the edits were beneficial and restored them. I'm not attempting to do anything on his behalf, or anyone elses. And I haven't had any offline contact with him. If someone has a good suggestion or points something out that needs fixing I'm usually receptive, and I usually just assume good faith on whoever I come across. I don't have any checkuser powers, so there's not much I can do about that kind of thing anyway. And I find our approach to blocking people pretty primeval anyway. If someone want to help build the encyclopedia in a collegial manner I don't much care who they are. In fact I've disagreed with Peter vehemently on several issues in the past. But I do I think a communication channel should be opened up with him so his interests can be assessed. If he wants to do article work then I support his being unblocked. If not then c'est la vie. Presumably he's at a university and can jump IPs at will. I'll try to more wary of unfamiliar accounts and philosophical subjects and discussions if that's helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It didn't really occur to me at the time either, I don't recall having any direct contact with him before and wasn't even really looking for it from this guy, but in retrospect it seems likely. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, all of yesterday's photos are now online. Most are now at National Register of Historic Places listings in Clark County, Ohio, although I've uploaded two others of the Tecumseh Building. Sorry that they weren't online yesterday; snow shovelling has caused me to get way behind on other things, so I needed to catch up. Couple of comments, by the way — (1) For examples of what it looks like in Springfield and slightly to the north, check File:House at 320 Scioto in Urbana.jpg (part of a district in Urbana that I illustrated months ago) and the photo for the Main Street Buildings. Yesterday's weather was wonderful compared to anything in the past several weeks, and likely compared to the next few weeks; we've had several more inches of snow today. (2) I'd advise against creating substubs as you did for several of these listings; at least please add the infobox from Elkman and the categories that it supplies. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
What kind of editorial review? Do we know that they check their data rigorously? Moreover, Wikipedia articles also require the citation of reliable sources, but that isn't enough to make Wikipedia articles into reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. Individual building profiles say nothing about their sources, so we don't know how trustworthy they are; if we can't check the sources, we can't know whether they're really reliable; and in the absence of evidence of strong editorial control, there's no way that we can trust a site as reliable. Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Why should we include anything without sources? I don't know that some of this information is correct (e.g. the bits about architectural styles), so yes, I contest it. It's not like adding an unreferenced "destroyed" comment to the Reeser House line; the photo is quite sufficient to show that the house is destroyed, but the photo of the Tecumseh Building is insufficient to say that architectural historians have assessed it as being Beaux-Arts. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I did reply; that's the comment made at 02:52 yesterday. It's simply that you know these buildings are notable, and I know these buildings are notable, but most people may not. If you don't add the infobox and some other data, you're making it more likely that they'll get speedied (although that's wrong, since buildings don't qualify for speedy) or taken to AFD. The Wilson and The Cathcart just barely survived AFD: they were very small stubs and, because they misunderstood what was going on, several people thought they were not at all notable. If you'd asked me this two weeks ago, I might have been more open to the subject; I simply want to be spared more AFDs. Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't see it either and I know it's not because my views have been exceeded. Looks like it's set now for limited preview and that page won't display. It may have been changed from the time the reference was added to the article as Google books has been restricting access to some of the books it has posted. Perhaps the copyright holder contacted Google with a request to limit views. And so on. GeoffWho, me?22:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That's too bad, it discusses a use of the term in Maine but I can't make out all of what it says on the subject. Is there a way to figure out what this source [13] has in it on the subject? All I can see is:
THOUGHTS OF AN OLD FUDDY-DUDDY WHILE SITTING (Or, Anybody Can Do This Sort of Thing) GEORGE BELLOWS, just before his death, patiently expounding his defense...
Looks like the Google books reference is in error, as it leads to one of former President Kennedy's books. I find the phrase referred to here, in a book titled "The Night Club Era," by Stanley Walker. (The TOC is visible on the link page and it shows the "fuddy-duddy" phrase for page 298, matching the Google snippet from the other reference.) A long way to answer your question, by saying: try the public library? GeoffWho, me?01:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
<meant to be posted to another user's talk page but it got locked down. :(>
What about my question regarding whether you use the term fuddy-duddy in Britain? That was a serious question related to a new article I'm working up. This archiving is an outrage! Who made you King of this talk page? I would ask Iridescent, but I don't think she cares for my brand of humor. Ah well. I suppose I best shower off. Chlorine is no good for my skin. Do we get to eat ice cream soon? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm outraged that someone would vandalize Leave it to Beaver star Marty Van Buren's page. What is the world coming to? Did you see the Glenn Beckspoof on South Park last evening? It's so rare they show new ones on Comedy Central, so I was happy to catch an episode I hadn't seen already. It was mostly about Cartman standing up to Smurf killing politicians. Sort of an Aesop's fable for the modern age without the animals. I thought it was smurfy, and wondered whether Doc had seen it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
A Canadian phrase? Where are the freaking speedy taggers when we need them? What an outrage. And can we merge poutine, pizzaghetti and Labatts already? It's all the same slop. ;) Where's underdog or whatever his name is when I need him? Wait is Conan Canadian? One of those comedians is, I think. He or she should be cancelled! Yesterday! Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Take this as a friendly warning - I've noticed that you are frequently reverting climate articles, only to later find out that you are reverting items that were specifically discussed and agreed on on the talk page. Please be certain to carefully read the talk pages of contentious articles before editing them, especially before reverting them. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
As I noted on the talk page (did you fail to read it?) editors should consider including "per talk" or even a link to a talk page discussion in their edit summaries when a change is based on discussion so people seeing the diff on their watchlist know to look there for an explanation. This helps assist other editors and is what edit summaries are for: explaining why changes are being made.
If you're referring to this edit [15] then of course I support including that link. We need to at the very least link to an article on the history of global warming when the global warming article itself has been so distorted by flat earth propagandists that it contains the absurdly misleading claim that global warming is the "increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century", without mentioning that the earth has had numerous periods of global warming and cooling throughout its history. Are you perhaps unaware that there have been ice ages and warming periods? We shouldn't be misrepresenting facts or misleading our readers with distorted content. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be terrific if I had the time to check the talk page for every edit I review on my watchlist. I don't, so that's not going to happen, which is why people need to use edit summaries to communicate the reasoning for their changes.ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Created in God's image with quite a bit of protein, I will tell you that I meant Doctor by Heredity. :) I don't like acronyms or titles much except for arbitrary and invented ones, especially when we're dealing with an encyclopedia building project on the internet where anyone can edit, anonymously. I think people are nuts to use their real names here, but I suspect many of them may be of dubious authenticity anyway. TCB. (take care buddy). ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I see. I often think people are nuts to be here under any name. FWWPSKEATTPM (Fool who will probably keep editing and trying to make peace). Gerardw (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the "and" and "to" get capital letters. And I try to exclude verbiage. So I think what you're looking for is FWWMP, fool who wants more peace, or FAWWP, fool addicted to wikipedia wanting peace. Acronyms get confusing if they're too long. Maybe it should be PFAW, peacemaking fool addicted to wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)You missed the fine print near the top of the Commodore 64? How much would I be outing myself if I said I used to own one? Anyway, it's here Kernel. Gerardw (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
People respond well to polite communications. Warning templates (really any templates, but we make some allowances for practicality) and blocks without warning are highly uncivil and inappropriate unless the circumstances are exceptional. There was no need for a punitive block against that editor and it has only served to inflame and disrupt the situation. There's no need for an atmosphere of threats and bullying here if only admins would start leading by example. If blocks are preventative I support a block on the admin(s) who thought that such a bone-headed move would be helpful. Perhaps it will teach them to be more thoughtful and considerate in the future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
"If blocks are preventative I support a block on the admin(s) who thought that such a bone-headed move would be helpful? How is that a helpful comment? How would you justify such a block? Or have you just missed out a "not"? You have to understand the background and not rush to conclusions to appreciate why the block of Mattisse was preventative (as it has been). If you want to "teach" admins "how to be more thoughtful and considerate in the future", I suggest you apply for bureaucratship. Geometry guy23:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how helpful the comment is, but I think a block of you and your fellow admins who lack the basic courtesy and decency to communicate with your fellow editors would go a long way in putting a stop to abusive and policy violating tool use. It's called civility. You know, courtesy? Like saying hey, I think you might have made a mistake here, can you back off, instead of busting in like shock troops to "teach" people a lesson. You guys are acting like bullies and it's not okay. Wise up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually I am a champion of courtesy, and am well known as a courteous editor on Wikipedia. I apologize if my posts to your talk page caused you distress and I encourage you to research background information to ensure you keep to the high standards of courtesy that you espouse. Many thanks, Geometry guy00:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocking should be used only as a last resort. It's a very negative and punishing action that should be reserved for instances where it is absolutely necessary. Please don't fail to communicate your concerns to fellow editors first in future, before blocking. At the very least you are expected to issue warnings. It is also not appropriate to use blocks in a punitive manner. You're not dealing with dogs wearing shock collars, we're human beings who respond to respectful engagement. Please be more careful, considerate, and civil in the future. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic. Then please make sure to share your wisdom with other admins, call out those disrupting collegial editing and cease defending indefensible and abusive blocks that violate our policies. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I will edit in whatever way I can to improve the encyclopedia. I hope you do likewise, otherwise this will become just another MMORPG. Geometry guy00:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Abusive, harassing, and threatening behavior is a big problem on Wikipedia. If you want to make it less like an MMPORG you should try get editors, especially admins, to treat one another with respect, instead of running about with billyclubs playing "gotcha". It's the law of the jungle and the cabalism that are so damaging to collegiality and civil interactions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
(User:2over0 coming to my talkpage to make absurd and ironic comments)
The discussions at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement are not meant to be general fora for discussion of other issues. Narrowly targeted productive comment at any thread is welcome, but please confine your comments to the substance of the request and closely related issues. For instance, if a request is made detailing edit warring by one party, it could be appropriate to provide context in the form of links to talkpage discussion or diffs of other parties engaged in the same edit war. It would not be appropriate, however, to bring unrelated issues to an already open request, discuss content issues, or engage in incivility or personal attacks. If someone else makes that you feel merits a reply but your reply would not itself be closely related to the original request, please raise make your reply at usertalk, open a new enforcement request, or start a thread at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Thank you for your cooperation. A few diffs of posts that venture partially or wholly off topic, or would be better suited to other venues: [17], [18], [19]. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
LMAO. Right. I'll pay REALLY close attention since you've been so attentive to addressing the relentless incivility engaged in by William Connolley that's been documented in half a dozen or so filings that have all been ignored. Please don't post unfunny jokes like this on my talkpage. Your biased involvement in the AGW articles has been enormously disruptive and unhelpful, you've been called out by lots of editors, and you should slink away with what's left of your severely damaged reputation. Have you no shame? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Those diffs were all relevant to the discussion. The problems with your abusive and biased enforcement is that it has encouraged the disruptive behaviors we've seen from William Connolley and others in the AGW cabal. And the final post was only made in response to the many disruptive comments regarding the content issue which had absolutely nothing to do with the Connolley's grotesque incivility cited in the report. Sidetracking discussion with irrelevancies and your improper collapsing of threads about Connolley's COI and abusive behavior has been enormously damaging to get the problem addressed and solved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi George. I hope you are well and that 2010 is going well for you so far. I don't like to see anyone blocked, as I think you know. But like many editors I am frustrated and fed up with the abuse that's going on at those articles and the relentless incivility, baiting and disruption that's tolerated from some of the AGW advocates. The biased enforcement actions and one-sided interventions that 2over0 has carried out have contributed greatly to the problem. Those articles are a very toxic environment and efforts to get problematic behaviors addressed have been largely stymied by 2over0. Meanwhile blocks and bans have been tossed around willy nilly to editors with other points of view than the AGW's strongest adherents. In my experience you're something of an expert at going after one side of a dispute, but it's not right and it's damaging to the encyclopedia and makes the editing environment highly toxic, frustrating and partisan. The rules should apply equally to all parties, not just those we happen to agree or disagree with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I had not meant to refactor the thread header. I had added my own, and then changed my mind, but apparently deleted the wrong one. It's late here and I'm trying to work on Lake Onota and a new article I've been researching on Wirt Dexter Walker. Maybe the problem has gotten enough attention now that something will be done about the nastiness? Or is 2over0 going to be allowed to continue blocking editors he disagrees with in favor of the AGW crowd, no matter how abusive and disruptive their behaviors and uncivil their comments? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
To be frank - I don't have the bandwidth to wade into the climate articles issue as a whole with enough time and attention to intervene myself in any widespread way. Unless something specific and unique pops up to the level I can clearly see is a problem by itself, regardless of context, I can't really get involved fairly there.
In terms of who's doing what - it's clear that admins are getting sanctioned for misbehavior, long term well known editors are being sanctioned for misbehavior. Whether that's impartial and unbiased and fair, I don't know (see paragraph 1 ... ). I lack the context to judge if it's fair, not fair, moderately unfair, etc.
I popped in to point out the singular specific point that the person you were specifically complaining about getting away with stuff had apparently crossed the line enough to get blocked. It's a dispute that I agree needs uninvolved admin time and attention, and people outside the dispute to help rationally calm it for constructive discussions. But matching my guess of the scope of effort required to be fair and useful to my available volunteer time indicates I can't realistically do that.
If you think 2over0 isn't neutral here and needs to be included as an involved party in the arbcom issues, you can go request so at the appropriate places. I can't tell on my own without investing the time I indicated I don't have...
I've actually found many of the editors in this subject area (the vast majority!) to be quite collegial and cooperative despite differing opinions. The trouble with having a majorly disruptive party or two is that it poisons the well and hijacks discussions. It only takes one or two parties making uncivil personal attacks, baiting, and harassing comments to disrupt the editing process. That kind of activity takes a major toll on everyone else involved. If the problem is addressed early on before things reach this boiling point of frustration then there's no need for all the bad blood and drama, and the adults can work out their differences in good faith.
I'm not perfect, but if I'm expected to treat editors respectfully then they need to be held to the same standard. I'm here to improve articles. I understand there are differing opinions especially on contentious issues, but we all have to play by the same rules or it just becomes a jungle of teaming up and personality conflicts. Anyway, cheers. Thanks for stopping by. We'll see what happens going forward. I hope to be able to lay low for the most part. I don't enjoy conflict very much and patience isn't my strongest trait, but there should be room for good faith contributions from a variety of perspectives. I don't think you'll find anything fringey or outrageous in any of my edits, despite what the smear merchants claim. In fact I've created several articles on the scientific subjects related to global warming and climate change, but the political articles seem to draw most of the interest. Which is too bad. Neither sides propaganda is all that interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
CoM, I am collecting evidence of 2/0's uneven enforcement, with the intent to take it to arbcom. I suggest you disengage from those pages, and from 2/0, and use the time to collect evidence. I've already downloaded the entire enforcement page history and I am currently pouring through it, starting here with the 7 WMC enforcement requests that 2/0 largely dismissed. You are welcome to participate by contributing evidence there. Note, I want to keep this professional, so if you do decide to participate on my page, I reserve the right to refactor anything that is overly inflammatory. ATren (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the note. Clearly 2over0's role has not been helpful. However, I'd like to see the focus return to article improvements instead of all this conflict. Maybe things will change now that there's finally been some enforcement on the key party disrupting collegial editing? Thanks for the note. I'm going to get some sleep and hope the new day brings a dawn of good tidings (and cooperation). ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.
1) Background of VOTE 2:
In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.
This was VOTE 2;
Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?
As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;
Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?
Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.
Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.
2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?
Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.
3) How to help:
Directly below this querying message, please can you;
Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".
In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).
Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.
I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,
Strong Support 100% deadminship. Let's start fresh. :) You mean to tell me that if 80% of the community is against someone being an admin they still get to keep their tools? What happened to adminship not being a big deal. Oh well. I tried to vote, but there was a lot to read and wade through. I am available to chair a desysop committee with absolute power and no checks on its authority. As chair I would also like to be able to select the other committee members, in the interest of fairness and consistency. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind note. We'll see what happens. Given the concerns expressed and the history, one option would be to allow him to work up articles in his user (or user talk) space for a while to establish some goodwill.
I see Beeblebrox unlocked his talk page, so I think the ball is in his court. If he is interested in a return to editing as a member of the community in good standing I expect he'll let us know. At least he can communicate with openly now. I don't really understand the locking down of talk pages unless there is really something outrageous. It's not like anyone is compelled to look or interact with someone on their talk page. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Comedy section
Protest: Why doesn't CoM get a clock template like I do?!?!
Hey, have you caught any of the action over at Blenheim Palace? Apparently it possesses a siren's call more powerful even than the island of Sirenum scopuli. What was once a gift to John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough "from a grateful nation in return for military triumph against the French and Bavarians at the Battle of Blenheim" just keeps on giving. There's even a bounty of pirate's treasure involved. It's all too much, the Odyssey and the Iliad have nothing on these courageous and adventurous fellows engaged in all sorts of tomfoolery. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Two words from Rachel Maddow for the CoM defense team - "appropriate drama"
I'm sure CoM will appreciate rhetorical assistance from Rachel, the Rhodes scholar, and lathering liberal lesbian. :-)
P.S. God thinks CoM is a drama loving troll, too ... and that is why CoM is going to heaven, says God, with a big smile on Her lathering liberal lesbian divine face of universal proportions. :-)That concludes Proofreader77's comments on the CoM Civility debate. LoL (Fat chance.) -- Proofreader77(interact)04:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
1 week block
{{unblock|As established in all the quotes below from recent activity on the noticeboard, all kinds of insinuations of bad faith and personal attacks have been made but not objected to, even though they should have been. Plese contrast these with my statements. I've reproduced my quotes in their entirety, and while they are unnecessarily antagonistic (that comes with abuse and frustration after a while, I'm not perfect) they are not in violation of any policies and were on a talk page. I'm happy to refactor anything that is objected to, but it's certainly my privilege to object to admin actions that are abusive. This block is also problematic because it came without warning, without discussion, didn't use the appropriate noticeboard, and was engaged in by an involved administrator who has made clear his disdain for me and his support for William Connolley who was FINALLY blocked after 7 filings at the noticeboard and dozens of diffs and warnings over weeks.}}.
Sorry but [24] and following edits [25] is completely unacceptable both in terms of style of addressing 2/0 ("grotesquely biased and damaging", "abusive enforcement actions and your disruptive activity"), failing to assume good faith, repeated use of other provocative language e.g. in characterising other editors as "disruptive propagandists" etc. I am blocking your account for a week. If you show signs of genuine apology I would be happy for any other admin to shorten this to 48 hours. But they should look at your block log and breathe deeply first. --BozMotalk18:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly willing to apologize and refactor if it will shorten my block, but it doesn't change the fact that 2over0's involvement has been very disruptive and his enforcements have only gone after one "side" of the dispute. Are you going to block editors for describing another editor's actions as disruptive? If the word biased is problematic I'm happy to change it. Do you think having an admin protect those they agree wtih and go after parties they disagree with is acceptable? 2over0s improper actions are well documented, from closing valid threads when they are requesting enforcements of AGW acolytes, to only blocking and banning parties seekign balance in our article coverage. If I have to be blocked for expressing my opposition to that kind of disruptive and damaging abuse, then at least I will be comforted in knowing that I stood up to the wrongdoing. By blocking me for speaking out against policy violations you are only encouraging more of it, and siding with an abusive administrator. 2over0's actions are unacceptable and they've been pointed out to him repeatedly by numerous editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Here are the comments I'm being blocked for (without any warning or discussion) in their entirety:
"Hi 2^0. In order to assist me in gathering diffs of your abusive enforcement actions and your disruptive activity in the AGW articles, could you please provide me with a list of enforcement actions you've taken and the relevant editor names? Have you done a single block or ban on any of the disruptive propagandists who are trying to cleanse the encyclopedia of scientific information such as content and links related to episodes of global warming that occured before the 20th century? Thanks."
and
"I saw your contributions before I posted this. It doesn't change the fact that your involvement has been grotesquely biased and damaging. It's played a large part in contributing to the frustrating and toxic environment at those articles. As I've noted previously, I have no problem with your weighing in on the discussions. But we don't need admins bullying those they disagree with and taking the side of partisans whose views they share. Could you answer the question? Which editors have you blocked, banned, and carried out other enforcement measures against?"
It should also be noted that this improper act of retribution by BozMo is because he is upset that William Connolley was finally blocked for his relentless incivility and personal attacks (after a mere 7 filings and dozens of diffs produced by at least a dozen editors). BozMo's history is also telling as far as poor judgment and improper action. BozMo, I trust you reported your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard as you've told other editors to do? You wouldn't engage in a unilateral and controversial block without any warning or discussion would you? You know it's not right to apply your tools against someone you don't like and who you took the time to point out to another editor "has a long block log". Sounds like you were looking to find any excuse to block me after your buddy William was finally blocked. Have you looked at my block log? Most were undone as improper. So you join an elite club of abusive admins who act improperly using misrepresentations and abuse the community's trust based on their personal whims about who they like and don't like. Shame on you. And "old fruit" is insulting and should never be used. Please don't defend your buddy William's abusive behavior and come after those trying to rein him in ever again. Comprende? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Others Comments
I am puzzed by BozMo's block. He solely blocks this editor [26] and then goes right on to comment [27] to another that blocks (for another editor) should be taken up by a community. There seems to be a double standard here in BozMo's action and the comment diffs (maybe I missed something, but that's what it looks like to me.) Hey, but then that was the issue COM was addressing in the first place, so then it seems like he get's blocked by it for bringing it up. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
According to BozMo's eggregiously abusive and dishonest standard these are all blockable. Notice how he defends William Connolley's name calling though. Too funny.
"ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is deliberately misusing this page." "CoM has made similar capricious, clueless and offensive edits just to make a WP:POINT against a perceived opponent. " "CoM should refrain from manufacturing events " "If CoM has nothing sensible to contribute, he should be banned from posting on this page or its talk page. Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)"
"At the moment he is gaming the system and misusing this page. Mathsci (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2010 "
"Absolutely. Another example of baiting and gaming the enforcement system based on very little knowledge of the facts. I think. --Nigelj (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC) "
"On the other point there is a difference between calling an editor malicious or an edit malicious. Compare "foolish". I make foolish edits sometimes and would not consider having an edit called foolish a PA. Calling me foolish would be quite another matter (I may be as well but it is a PA to say so). But I do not think this request is other than good faith. People do feel that WMC is offensive sometimes and some of the reason why it keeps coming back as an issue is a sense of frustration which is better aired, up to a point. --BozMo talk 09:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" I think this quote is tellingly ironic as well. He defends abusive behavior when it's his buddy, and now he blocks someone for much less, without any warning or discussion. Hypocrite much?
What remains is the same trivial mudracking we've seen before. It's a spurious pile-on request and should be discarded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Calling trolls and POV morons trolls and POV morons isn't incivil, it's the truth. Truth is the ultimate defense to defamation. -- 166.135.160.248
"..."old fruit" is categorically inoffensive."--BozMo talk 09:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This relates to WMC calling other editors "old fruits". So of course BozMo came in to defend him. Because you know, calling people you disagree with old fruits is a really good idea and should be encouraged, especially from someone who considers "Will" a personal attack when used in reference to an editor named William.
And here's 2over0 referring to an editors comments as "tendentious and unproductive", but pointing out his biased and disruptive actions is blockable? Puh-leeeze. "User:Kauffner is warned not to use talkpages for further tendentious and unproductive commentary ..." - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
What all these comments have in common is that they are from AGW acolytes. So of course they weren't objected to. But pointing out 2over0s highly abusive activities results in a week block without any noticeboard posting, without any discussion, without any warning, from an admin who is buddies with an editor who was finally blocked for relentlessly attacking and baiting me and others. Welcome to the jungle folks. Wikipedia at its best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Talk pages
Hi, you seem to have overlooked the guideline on editing others' comments by correcting another editor's spelling, perhaps inadvertantly.[28] You may wish to reconsider that part of your edits. . . dave souza, talk 20:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Ah, looking above I see you may not be able to attend to this for a few days, but something to think about in future. . . dave souza, talk20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm 100% confident that Sirwells appreciates my good faith tweaks, just as I appreciate people fixing my comments. I am embarassed that I left exaggerated with only one G, I could have sworn I fixed that, but I guess not. Maybe you could fix it for me on behalf of Sirwell? It's a collaborative and collegial encyclopedia after all, and as long as I am fixing my own spelling I do try on occasion to improve bits for others as well, even though this courageous action comes at a severe risk of stoning by heathens. It seems the decent thing to do, and I always try not to let ignorance or animosity stand in the way of acts of friendship and good will. Of coruse I refrain when there's any chance the other party is some sort of nasty and ignorant monster of a person who cares not for bettering themselves. I am very familiar with that type of disruptive and antagonistic creature, running around using any opportunity to pick a fight and engage in taunts (of blocked editors for example) but I think goodwill and kindness are always preferred and shine through with the light of goodness even in dark places. I much prefer that kind of atmosphere over one full of craven insinuations, bad faith assumptions, cabalism, and the worst kind of propagandist POV pushing. Don't you? If Sirwells objects I'm sure he'll let me know and I'll be more than happy to change things back to how they were. Thanks for your interest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, sorry to see you are blocked. I didn't know if you were still following the Peter Damian unban discussion, but he has indicated he does not want to be unbanned as he has no interest in editing here anymore. I find that somewhat hard to comprehend since he has been creating new accounts and making edits all along, but those are his stated wishes at this time, so the unban discussion has been rendered moot. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I saw that. Thank you for unblocking his talk page. If he wants to be unblocked he will have to ask. And if he wants to make a point about how even good edits from blocked and banned editors aren't allowed, well... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Among the legalese in the AN discussion of Peter's blocking, unblocking, drawing and quartering, hairshirting and whatnot, your remarks encouraged a fundamental trust in human beings. A pleasure to read. Salut! Haploidavey (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It looks like you're working on some interesting articles. I have some critiques/ suggestions if you want to hear them. Being a critic is what I'm best at! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Feel free. Constructive criticism's always welcome, and I watch all articles on my contribs list. (Never see such a busy talk-page as this one...)Haploidavey (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm starting a new !CABAL, the Benevolent Order of Old Fruits (BOOF) and hereby issue you an invitation for a charter membership. I'm working on a logo - something in the rotten apple motif seems apropos [29].
If I start making jokes about "old fruits", I will undoubtedly end up in even more trouble than I am in already. I would like to note that time flies like an arrow and fruit flies like a banana. And it may please you to know that I am the author of the fruit hat article. I like my fruits ripe, but not overripe, and am a fan of bananas, mangos (although they are hard for me to prepare), kiwi, longan, apples, lychee, pineapple (fresh especially), and maraschino cherries (but not syrupy ones in chocolate). I also like foofie drinks with fruit in them (and on the rim), but have trouble with papaya. Cold coconuts are delightful, I wonder are they fruit? I also like tomatoes. Aren't they supposed to be fruits when all is said and done? What about berries? If they count, those are my favorite. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It does in fact please me no end to know that you wrote the fruit hat article. A fine contribution that ArbCom is sure to take notice of. With ya all the way on the berries, I like mine with a bit of heavy cream (pies are nice too). Stay thirsty my friend. JPatterson (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
New section so I can discuss things without edit conflicts
Where did all these peeps come from. Here I am waiting longer than at the Post Office or DMV, and as soon as I post for a review people from all over the world are popping in. Namaste. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were blocked. Are blocked users allowed to view other parts of the encyclopedia? I may report you for violation of the terms of your block. Bongomatic00:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
That looks like some good work except that none of the diffs have anything to do with those articles whatsover. They just relate to this outrageously abusive block by one of William Connolley's amigo's. But I do like the first diff:
(From the Global Warming talk page)
==Article rename needed==
This article is not about global warming, it's about recent warming and anthropogenic warming in the 20th Century. There have been numeous periods of warming and cooling, so it's highly inappropriate that we are misleading our readers in this way with this incomplete and innaccurate content.
God bless Ryan for wonderful comments like "I'm sadly of the opinion that CoM is nothing but a drama loving troll".
It's a good thing he's a well respected admin. That kind of incivility is strongly discouraged from us mere peon editors... err trolls, if you will. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of trolls... I wonder is it fun to launch all sorts of smears and broadsides on editors when they have no opportunity to defend themselves? Thank goodness Tarc checked in with his usual helpful commentary. I'm a troll but a third of his edits relate to me in some way. Go figure!
The message of this block is very clear. Don't mess with William Connolley, he has admin friends, and don't mess with admins that are his bullying friends. Message received.
Perhaps I should be banned like all the other editors who have dared to enter the forbidden zone and question whether our Climate Change content should consist of something more than biased propaganda from climate change activists who operate hate sites off-wiki where they make hateful attacks on global warming skeptics? Heaven forbid we actually upheld core policies like NPOV or actually expected our policies on civility and appropriate tool use to mean something.
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
There is a rough consensus at WP:AN that although you have had many past issues regarding your interactions with others, the edits that led to this particular block did not merit such a harsh penalty. There is also now a pending motion relating to you at ArbCom and it would be best if you were able to reply directly to what is being said there. I would strongly suggest to you that you not ignore this issue and take this situation seriously.
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Essentially, we are passing the buck to ArbCom since there has already been a user conduct RFC on you. I can only say that although I do not always agree with your approach to other users, WMC does seem to have some powerful friends and/or enjoy near immunity for his actions, and even many admins (read: me) want nothing to do with climate change related articles anymore because of what you correctly refer to as a "toxic environment" surrounding this topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
A gift horse? Let me look in your mouth and see what I can find...
I think you may be misreading Vsmith's statement? That's just another attempt to hound me off the climate change subject area with yet another improper appeal to the admin's enforcing their favored viewpoints againt those they disagree with while protecting their editor allies. I'm not aware of any arbcom proceeding. But if there is one, a diff would be helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hoping you don't mind a polite suggestion. Hot button phrasing can detract from a substantive message. In particular, the words "spouting off with hateful bullshit"[30] are likely to give neutral readers the impression of lowering oneself to the same level of conduct one aims to criticize. Take this from someone who agrees there are problems with that administrator's recent actions--it's simply too easy to harp on that choice of words, and thoughtful editors who agree with any part of the post are likely to distance themselves due to the presentation. Please consider a refactor there. Durova40903:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The guy said I'm "nothing but a drama loving troll" in his opinion. But I refactored. Heaven forbid I call the lies being told about me bullshit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Is that Arbcom related? I didn't realize. I thought it was jsut a noticeboard to try and deal with a contentious area. Whatever. Another abusive report against me using diffs from my objections to the last abusive actions taken against me? More of the same. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you'd be able to find some peace and quiet if you tried to concentrate on architecture more for a bit? Don't take me as trying to tell you what to do; it's simply that I appreciate articles such as DeCurtins, and I wonder if you might be able to avoid getting attacked if you worked on topics that aren't as controversial. Nyttend (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd freaking love to, unfortunately just as this latest trauma was ending a new drama to antagonize and hound me was begun in another forum. And so it goes. I already responded, although I'm exhausted by it all so I probably didn't do a very good job. Hopefully I'll at least freer now to do collegial article work. I appreciate your suggestion about avoiding contentious subjects all together, but do you really think it's right to let editors be chased off by disruptive incivilities and abusive admins pushing their beliefs? There's an important principle at stake, and there are many editors suffering in the climate change topic are because because of improper admin enforcements that have aided and abetted those engaged in uncivil conduct, POV pushing, and disruption. Many editors have already been hounded off, banned or blocked, all on one "side" of the issue. The side trying to get more balance to have NPOV respected. It's a mess. But I'm definitely planning to get back to more relaxing article work. There's only so much I can do, and there are gangs of trolls that constantly hound me and pursue conflict with me whenver there are disputes, even though they are wholly uninvolved. They just use every opportunity to disrupt and harass me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at Beeblebrox's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Look at you causing trouble for me once again LoS. Tsk tsk tsk. I think it's probably borderline, but in my mind (warped though it may be) it's exactly the type of subject that's great to include because it provides useful and interesting insights on an arcane subject that is difficult to find good information on elsewhere. I think it's reliably sourced and I'm sure it will improve over time. I also think the notable iterations of the term are a good indication that it's worth covering. The article also serves as a useful and itneresting disambiguation page, as well as a primer on the subject. But certainly there will be those who will holler "dicdef" at the top of their lungs.
I see it as useful whimsy. A frolick in a paperless encyclopedia's cheese dreamy pop cultural goodness.
Where will those wanting to know more about whoop ass go once it's gone? Are you prepared to condemn them to the Urban Encyclopedia and other less wholesome and more unsavory environs? I'd rather have more articles on notable and interesting slang than blurbs on all the olympic athletes who finished 57th in their respective sport. TEAR DOWN THE WALL LoS. Freedom of information! That's what we're all about.
Happier times when cans of whoop ass delivered silly string to joyful children
Kelapstick, I'm very sorry that Shallots wants to make you cry by threatening to delete content related to a very special and meaningful birthday present you received, even after reading your touching anecdote. You need to stay strong and hold it together. Remember that no one can crush your dreams. Not even a meanie Wikipedia disciplinarian can take away that magical can of whoop ass/ silly string that you got for your birthday. Those happy memories are yours forever. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Shockingly Bongo, some editors don't want that crucial information to ever make it into the encyclopedia. And as a result, many of us will remain ignorant. For example I am allergic to the combination of Ben Still and Cameron Diaz, so I haven't seen the movie. I guess now I may never know what that film classic has to do with cans of whoops ass. The ignorant shame I feel is a terrible darkness. Please someone let in a ray of light. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ben Stiller has explicitly requested that you refrain from using some modes of address and refer to him only as "Still-o-rama" or "Herr Doktor Love". Thank you. Bongomatic02:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I see I made a couple of typos there. Ben Still? Well, there's no question that alcohol helps when you're going to be watching his movies, so that may well have been my subconscious speaking. And whoops ass is what you open up after one too many. So at least I was thematically consistent. Have you and 2^0, who I'm actually quite fond of, opened up a Village Pump discussion on user name abbreviation protocols? It's an important subject and we need more policies to address it. Maybe a userspace essay would be a good place to start? Nervermind, it's probably been done. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Can of whoop ass. Oh my. What a concept. What a useful link that could be in so many situations on Wikipedia. Where do you get these article ideas, CoM? Hmmmmm. Maybe one of these days I'll consider the possibility of opening up one of those cans myself. And how's your day been? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Post haste was deleted, maybe LoS or another Wikipedia admin can tell us what was there? It seems it should be spelled posthaste? I'm thinking a redirect to immediacy makes sense. Unfortunately immediacy (philosophy) is still a redlink. And so it begins... Unless people think immediate is a viable subject? Everyone always rants and raves about dicdefs, well I think the least we can do is to have soft redirects there if we aren't going to include the words here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. This related deletion discussion is also rich [34]. And here's the game itself [35], Johnny B will be happy to know it's made in Massachusetts at a union shop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
That might not be a bad idea. There's "open a can of whoop ass" there, but I think you could improve it, and I'm not sure whether or not "open a" should be in it or not. Here at Wikipedia, It'd be a hard sell to get beyond WP:DICDEF objections at AfD, and rather than go through the trouble, why not beef up the coverage over there? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. The article woefully ignored the "open up a" configuration of speech (is that an idiom?). I have attempted to correct this oversight. Perhaps that mistake was what led to the good faith prodding of the article. Thank goodness it's getting the attention and clean up such an important subject deserves. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I am very interested in purchasing a can or two of whoopass, do you know of any reliable retailers in the area that can assist me with my intended purchases?163.1.147.64 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Request for posting a review on Administrators' Noticeboard
Soleroti, I hope there's enough. I wasn't expecting companyHere's some more... but I think it needs cleaning
Would a kind sole soul be so kind as to post a request for review of this disgustingly outrageous block on WP:AN. I'm sure our admin elite will sort this mess out in no time once they're made aware of it and have a chance to review the evidence of BozMo's foul play. Unfortunately the block review template seems to be malfunctioning. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems that correcting another editor's errors is a crime against humanity, but making a joke of them is A-okay. Such a cruel world. And how are you Gustaf? It's so good of you to take time out of your busy schedule to come by and say hello. Do tell what articles you've been working on? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight's incivility and assumptions of bad faith go completely against the policies we abide by on Wikipedia. The block is well-justified and will provide the blockee with the time to reflect on recent mannerisms.--संपादक (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)— संपादक (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [36] --Caspian blue00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, the new user who created his/her this account 21 hours ago and has no history of mutual interaction with CoM[37] appears to know CoM very well and to taunt him on his talk page. Hmm...Smells funny--Caspian blue00:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that also, but I do like his username! I would like to have one like that. Think of the problems it would give the trolls and harassers as they tried to keep track of my movements... Caspian blue, have you had a chance to reflect on my suggests regarding Kimchi? I'm ready to clarify the dishes biblical origins. Just say the word. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
But anyways, back to the topic at hand. In any case, you should reflect on your recent actions. Hopefully this week block will be of a benefit for you and others. Incivility is never this bad on the Hindi Wikipedia.--संपादक (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Since you claim to be an admin of Hindi Wikipedia, there is no reason for you to hide your other name. If that is not true, it's worthwhile to WP:Checkuser. Regardless of who you are, your taunting here is not constructive.--Caspian blue00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I can get review by a German admin who is familiar with "Randy from Boise"? And someone from the Hebrew Wikipedia? I would very much like Rabbinical review. They're very thoughtful I think, and I know the findings would be insightful. As long as it's no one from France. We're all allowed our biases and I'm not fond of the frogs and their surrender monkeying. :) If it's a Canadian I'll need more information. What province are they from? Do they play hockey? When is the last time they ate poutine. have they had pizzaghetti? Russian also is very acceptable. Unfortunately my friend Dimitree is not yet an admin. But soon, I'm hoping! I would like a jury of my peers. That means the reviewers must be international, handsome, lenient, loving, fond of food and bad architecture, and of the sign of Aquarius (or at least some sort of water sign). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
You qualify for something. What? I'm not really sure. What do you know about Kolams? I guess that would be Tamil Wikipedia. Hindi? Hmmm... They do some fine Tandoor up that way. Your Prime Minister seems to be getting on well. A Sikh isn't he? Wonderful that it's so multicultural over there. We have nothing like that here. Just the same old crooked leftist union goons and their corporate cronies. Did they finish that fellow's house, in Bangalore I think it was? A big apartment building. What's the Rupiah at now? 32? 42? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Caspian blue, please do not be so inhospitable to my international guests! Also, could clarify where I'm allowed to refer to editors as "Chummers"? It seems... well... I'm not sure.
On February 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rudolph Tietig, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On February 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Heart-kun, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you happen to know or meet AtlanticDeep (talk·contribs)? Since the sockpuppeter unrelated to you bothered himself to badger you, it is too obvious that you're a unofficial Wiki-celebrity!! :-) The photos of fish dishes look yummy.--Caspian blue16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
My hand is sore from signing autographs. Where are my body guards when I need them to keep the adoring fans at bay? I'd like some calamari also. Do you deliver? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Terrific news indeed. Now I'm trying to remember when it was year of the rabbit. We're coming off rat? I get confused about the order. Where are the pictures???? Put them up there so we know what these gentle giants look like before they attain their full 10 foot adult height and 450 pound girth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link Dravecky. I took a quick glance. Looked tasty. I'll have a more careful examination when I get a chance. Are you working on something for March 1??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much LoS. I can't find much on Wallis. But his partner and the firm seems quite notable. Cheerios. I hope all is well with you. Are you following the Olympics? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. BTW, you can always get me on my talk page for stuff like this - it wouldn't have been much faster this time since I happened upon your request here pretty soon, but it might have. I was surprised to see it had been something I'd had my hands in before, if only to do a cleanup that didn't stick. I'm doing ok myself - hope you are. Nope, not really following the Olympics. Maybe I'll catch some highlights on youtube or something. :) LadyofShalott03:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll keep that in mind. But I prefer to ask for volunteers than to ask people to do stuff for me. The other way to go would be to make me an admin. :) How's your collaboration on spermophagia or whatever it is coming... ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Oy frickin' vey, says I (agnosto-atheistish surreptitiously-recovering Catholic--hey, can't be TOO obvious about it; don't wanna break my mom's heart, after all). And as an easy-to-revile, leans-so-left-that-I'm-actually-parallel-to-the-floor commie socialist pinko tree-hugging granola-scarfing fuzzy-headed squishy-hearted blue-statin' Limbaugh-hatin' feminazi libtard of the highest order (yes, we have orders--it gives us something to scribble on those cards we apparently carry)--as one o' them folks up there, I have two words for that block (in fact, for the whole thread, top to bottom), and the first one is "cluster". (But just as a small, hopefully-not-TOO-relevant point: asking ppl not to ascribe a POV to you just looks a wee bit hinky when a few lines up, you're defining other people's "leanings" for them. I'm not sayin', I'm only sayin'.)
Okay, though: seriously. Whoever the guy was---it wasn't Yogi Berra, was it?--who said "you can't win 'em all" has probably NOT been reincarnated as a WP editor, but whoever he was, he had a point. Right now, I gotta tell you, things are NOT looking good re: your long-term survival here. You've dug in your heels at some of the most contentious articles we've got; no crime in that, of course, but the people who manage to keep a long-term tenure at those articles--the ones who do it RIGHT, anyway, not the ones with powerful friends or cadres of defenders--are the ones who speak quietly and calmly, in measured tones, but with the force of every possible policy behind them. They often don't say much--it takes a lot of time and energy to marshal evidence and pre-address all the objections they know they'll get from the other side. But when those objections come, those editors know it's best to turn off whatever part of their brain demands that all sentences end with the phrase "...and the horse you rode in on, as well." They go into Spock mode (Mister, not Doctor) and put emotion--and that includes right, wrong, left, right, POV, admin abuse, who's on what side--put all those things aside and quietly repeat: Here is a fact. Here is where it says this is a fact. Here is where it clarifies that the guy who says this is a fact is not a crank. This is the dog that chased the cat that worried the rat that ate the corn that lay in the house that Fact built. You do see what I mean, I trust.
As you know, the sharks are circling. What you don't _seem_ to be processing, however, is that every word you say on a noticeboard, on an admin's talk page, on any page which could even remotely be defined as "contentious", is the Wikipedian equivalent of splashing around in the water at the center of a circling ring of Great Whites, singing "Look At Me I'm Sandra Dee" while stapling raw meat to your body. I don't want to see you banned from here. I would suspect that there are a lot of ppl here who feel the same. As meat-staple-y as you've been, I think your heart is in a good place and you honestly want articles to express a truly neutral POV. But you're never gonna make it happen if you're sitebanned.
Please. I'm asking nicely. I'm not saying you're right and they're wrong, nor the other way around; I'm not even saying anything lefty, righty, nor in-betweeny. I'm just asking you to put down the stapler and the cold-cuts, and let the sharks find something else to do for a change. (You can, however, hold onto the bacon, if only to make "disgusting bacon confections"; that is an activity of which I approve highly, especially if you share them.) Take care--please??? GJC21:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Besides being an excellent analysis that ends up right on the money, that was the most brilliant piece of prose I've seen here on Wikipedia in a while. When GJC's statement gets anthologized in the Best Essays of the Year 2010, or perhaps The Best Poetry of the Year, or when the King of Sweden hands her the big medal for literature, I think it would really help if they could put in the little italicized introductory paragraph that you took her wise advice. Happy Presidents Day. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Well Gladys, it is a lovely screed. :) But when there is wrongdoing it is unacceptable to remain quiet or to slink away. So I diagree strongly with the import of your statement. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my; I think you may have misunderstood me. I am the LAST person to advocate silence in the face of wrongdoing, much less "slinking away"!! However, I have just erased my third pass at clarifying my real point, which leads me to believe that tonight may not be one of my more-articulate evenings. I will try again tomorrow. In the meantime, chin up, and don't do anything outrageous; we've already lost Proofreader this week, after all. GJC03:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I find that remark insulting and will report it immediately to ... glad to see you are back. But I am too full of good food and wine to be coherent right now. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
So that's what they mean when they keep talking about two Americas. Apparently things are great up there in Canada and there's even an Olympic sized party. Meanwhile we're surviving on government cheese and the crumbs lefts for us by the Edwards, Gore and Kennedy clans. Down with the aristocracy!!! Let me eat cake!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
One time I hit a deer on Highway 400 with my SUV, and before I had even left the car to check on my wife and 8 month old (both were fine in the back seat, the boy had spit out his souther and went back to sleep), someone was at the door asking if he could have the deer, and if I would help him load it in the back of his truck. True story.--kelapstick (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
It may be more common than you think. Just after moving out from T.O. we were driving along Stoney Lake road and saw a deer in the ditch being hounded by a dog. It had been shot in the leg and was wounded but very much alive. We called 911 and within a few minutes two local guys showed up in a pick-up truck with a rifle, quickly and efficiently finished the job, tossed the deer in the truck and drove off looking very happy. They told us not to worry about the dog. They knew it and it only lived a few miles away. We had a hole in the car blanket we had thrown over the deer, and they had the deer. That was a few years ago. We know more now. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Keeping your nose (and other areas in and around your face)
Entertaining. :) Thanks for the link Grundle. I hope all is well with you. Have a great year of the tiger. I saw something cool on yahoo about this cave with giant crystals that I thought might interest you. Maybe you saw it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
On February 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article H. Neill Wilson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I only have two pictures for buildings listed in James' article — the one in the infobox for First Congregational-Unitarian Church, and one of the Sir Alfred T. Goshorn House that's inferior to the one currently on the article. I hope to get to Lima before too many more months pass — it's less than an hour away, and there are plenty of sites — but I'm having enough trouble getting to a few sites just one county away (instead of two, as Lima is) that it might be even longer before I can get Lima. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved, and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
Hmmm ArbCom again? that's exciting. Hey, I am a swine eater (Mandarax, if you're reading along, skip this part): tonight I bought three pounds of bacon, two pounds of hog jowl bacon, a pound of ham, and a chunk of salt pork. I'm making ham-meatloaf and bacon and brown sugar ice cream (from Seduced by bacon--but augmented with maple syrup). Yumm-o! Good luck in your case. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
And that bacon ice cream...with some of the brown sugar replaced with maple syrup...make you wanna slap your baby brother. Drmies (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to the article in the People's Rant. I read about the troubles of the other skater, but I can't figure out the bird poo connection? As far as Arbcom jokes, feel free. When there's a gang of monkeys throwing poo around, it's best to stand clear and laugh at it as the ridiculous circus act it is. But the stench is something terrible I must say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Ha, a poo-thread, always nice. Van der Duim fell on the 10K, when all he had to do was finish--he claimed he slipped on some bird shit. Good luck at ArbCom. Is there anything exciting to read yet? I only looked at the opening missives, a day or two ago. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
They're piling it high and deep. I think it may be an effort to break some kind of world's record. Nice photo by the way. It looks a little fatty to me, but then I'm known (unfairly) for being lean and mean. :) How was it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It was not as good as I hoped. It was cheaper than regular bacon (this is the Cumberland brand gap, not top of the line) and it tasted like it--I was expecting a more specific (and good) taste, since it's a different part. But the ice cream I served it in was delicious, courtesy of Seduced by Bacon. Good luck, Child. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Their most famous work they did together. As best I can tell the son did most of the other work, but I just can't tell for sure. So that's the problem I'm having. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I wondered why you were asking me about something with Oregon, since I've almost never edited matters related to that state :-) Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added a photo for Sabin. Except for one time (when I was a child) that we made a wrong turn on the way home from Pennsylvania, I've never been into Mansfield except on the highways that go along the edges of the city, so I can't give you anything for Hursh. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The good news is that there are photos of his work in the public domain (published in 1911) in case someone wants to upload some of the more impressive examples of his work. [39] :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... Well, I would be happy if there was actually an article on Global Warming instead of just a promotional piece about anthroprogenic global warming that's being passed off as an article on Global Warming. Apparently there are those don't want anyone to know that the earth has warmed in the past and don't think we have a duty to explain what causes warming and cooling. It seems the fanatics have chosen to ignore facts and appropriate content in favor of eliminating all distinctions that need to be made about this period of warming.
I didn't think this effort was about misleading people and promoting ignorance, but I'm learning different. It's frightening that the cult has gotten so crazed that they want to mislead readers by excluding all context and background. Apparently the cause has become so important that exclusion of science and history is now being pursued by the fanatic nutjobs running this "encyclopedia".
They pulled the same shit with waterboarding, making it into a legal argument instead of an encyclopedia article covering the subject and controversy. Instead of accurately describing what waterboarding involves and explaining why many/most scholars consider it torture, they think it best to tell us what to think. Knowledge is no longer important to these hateful poo throwing smear merchants. A bunch of the hypocritical monsters are now hounding me off Wikipedia with a giant mound of lies, half truths and distortions. Sick fuckers. C'est la vie. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, CoM, do not change other people's comments. I reverted the changes you made in the ArbCom workshop page. You know you are begging for more trouble when you do stuff like that. Really, please, please don't. LadyofShalott03:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I've already made a note to you on your talk page. The statements you reverted to are clear lies. I know you didn't make them originally, but you can't revert to them without violating our civility policies. Those misrepresentations are unacceptable and now that they have been pointed out as such they need to stay corrected or be removed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, CoM. In case you weren't aware, users are asked to post only in their own section on Arbitration Evidence pages. I notice you've made several comments in response in other's sections - if you could please remove these, you're welcome to post responses in your own section or on the talk page. Thanks. Hersfold(t/a/c)04:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I'll have a look. Feel free to move tanything that I didn't put in the right place. I don't spend a lot of time there on those pages.
More importantly, I'm having a very serious problem with being slandered. Are you an arb clerk? Some immediate remedies need to be made to remove or correct the lies being told about me and what I have and haven't said. Blatantly dishonest attacks can be very damaging and are clearly intended to disparage me. They cannot be allowed to stand.
It's bad enough that I have Coren and Risker after me because I've objected to their improper actions in the past (Rlevse isn't a fan either, but hopefully he can separate set aside his frustrations and be fair). ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I've moved your comments to the talk page since they were about specific evidence. Please feel free to start your own evidence section and, in doing so, explain your concerns. ~ Amory(u • t • c)05:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I need the help of an Arb clerk. Another editor is lying about me in Arb evidence. This is a clear civility violations and the statements need to be fixed. Slander is unacceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The /Workshop page is for proposals and the proposed finding of fact isn't lying, but rather a framing and interpretation. The other editor(s) proposal presents information and diffs in the context of some statements and not others, while your preferred version takes that information and presents it in the context of some different statements and not other, different ones. I don't see anything approaching actual slander of your person, and accusing others of a BLP violation is heavy-handed. Your best bet would be to do what you seem to have already done on the /Evidence page, which is point out what exactly you find incorrect and, more importantly, show why you feel those claims are so grossly out of order. If you can do that, it makes your case much stronger. ~ Amory(u • t • c)04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
What Amorymeltzer said, except the material on the evidence page should not be in another editor's section, so if ChildofMidnight does not move it to his own section (he has been told to do so) a clerk needs to move it since it makes one evidence section difficult to read. In any case this is a matter for the ArbCom case pages and not for this noticeboard. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs04:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I will not be slandered. We have clear policies about civility and a BLP policy. Even if I am somewhat anonymous, I may not be forever and I am entitled to be protected from false disparagements. Is there an Arb clerk around that can address this VERY serious issue before it gets out of hand? I would just like the blatant lies to be removed or corrected. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You have not been slandered, you have had an ArbCom case brought against you. This is not a biography. Yes there is a clerk around, as I am one and already replied. As I said, these are not blatant lies but rather your interpretation and a different context. You are invited to politely explain why you think the proposal is erroneous, but refactoring is not to be tolerated. Drop this. ~ Amory(u • t • c)04:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I am absolutely being slandered Amory and I won't stand for it. Read those diffs. They are being utterly misrepresented in an effort to disparage me. This is not allowed and it needs to be addressed PRONTO. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Speaking as an Arbitrator, Amory is correct here. The reason the arbitration cases are held in this format is so that the committee can see all viewpoints of the situation. The other editor in question has provided evidence to support her assertions, and is making them in a rather neutral manner. You do not have the right to refactor her statements, least of all on arbitration pages, and referring to her comments as "slander" is coming very close to crossing the WP:NLT line. Please stop now. If you believe these assertions to be false, you are invited to present evidence in support of that. Now, if we could move this off of AN, which is not the appropriate forum to discuss this, that would be appreciated. Hersfold(t/a/c)05:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
This is absolutely not resolved. The civility policy and the BLP policy are very clear. It is not acceptable to misrepresent what other editors have said in order to disparage them. I will have to take this issue back up when I have more time but I am OUTRAGED that the discussion has been moved and closed improperly in this way. Demonstrably and obviously false statements cannot be allowed to stand. If this is not fixed by tomorrow we are going to have a MAJOR problem. Lying about what I have said to attack me is slanderous. Period. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless your intent is to make a legal threat then I firmly suggest you refactor that last comment since It's beyond borderline now. SpartazHumbug!05:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight, theres no need to refactor any of your previous comments because it appears that Spartaz has failed to highlight the correct link. However, now that I am highlighting it in this message, you would no longer be justified in using words like "slander" regarding this. If you believe you're the subject of a slanderous statement, Wikipedia:SLANDER sets out who you should contact - for now, you can present evidence in support of your position. Except if you're receiving no response from that email address, there is no point repeating the claims on-wiki, as it would mean you risk being blocked for something as trivial as NLT. I hope you understand. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ta-da!
The Surreal Barnstar
For effectively having a one-way conversation with yourself here, then actually coming out with productive additions to the article whilst replying to your own comments without the insight of others. Bravo! ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs01:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I never believed in those superstitious shenanigans...but of course, I'm probably asking for a phantom to haunt me tonight if there are any. Wish me luck. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs03:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, without delving into the supernatural, I was able to locate a source that credits him with the hotel. So it's all tied together now. All that's needed is a nice ribbon bow. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
What better a way to make a grand debut than a DYK nomination. Only needs about 220 more characters of prose or so to meet the 1,500 character requirement. Or perhaps you were planning this already? Hmm... ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs04:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
If you always talk to yourself, you never lose an argument (if you do, than there are other issues). Hey CoM, how about a road trip to Nova Scotia, meet you in Vegas, of course you would have the whining pug on your lap and would be a giant furball by the time we got there, but I-40 is a great place to lay low until the heat is off, and trust me, Nova Scotia has NO heat this time of year. Rock on....--kelapstick (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
What about the return trip? I-40 is a great place for truckers and ummmmm glory... ummm cough cough. well you know. or maybe you don't ;) Anyway, I'm not sure I can make it to Vegas in time and I would want to sight see, so I'm sure I'd just slow you down. Drive safe though. No hurry. And make sure to stop and stretch your legs often and to get plenty of rest along the way. Vaya con Dios amigo mio. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to an interesting cluster, including a notable librarian. There are more subjects in the cluster, more that are connected to it, and these ones could use a lot more content (particularly Kermit and the press), so it is not "done" by any means. Interesting. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
On March 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article cheese dream, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On March 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Burgers' Smokehouse, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Well, where I am there are still 2 plus hours left of National Pig Day, so you're welcome to launch a Pierpont Bacon article for this year's challenge. Otherwise, there are 365 days until next year's event. :) The existing article on Bacon Academy look pretty well established, unless you think you can fatten it up 5x? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Cudahy Packing Company
On March 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cudahy Packing Company, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Resolved