Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:40, 22 April 2009

Quote of the day: "I'm not trying to stir up trouble." --ChildofMidnight

To discuss issues on this page, please refer to the associated talk page.

Archives

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

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

Wiel Arets

Wiel Arets (Heerlen, 14 mei 1955) is a Dutch architect. He graduated from the TU Eindhoven in 1983. In the following year he started his own firm, Wiel Arets architect & associates, in Heerlen. He prefers simple and abstract compositions. His palet is very sparse and he prefers black and white (including for his own clothes; he usually dresses in black).

His main claim to fame is his design for the Academie voor Beeldende Kunsten in Maastricht; his design for the Universiteitsbibliotheek in Utrecht is also praised. With Jo Coenen he collaborated in the restauration of the glaspaleis in his birthplace Heerlen, and designed a number of pharmacies (?) in the south of the Netherlands. In Hapert he designed a complete Medisch Centrum (Oude Provinciale weg 81/Lindenstraat Hapert). The form language of neo-modernisme is combined with an abstract, placid aesthetic. His favorite building material is the glass brick.

Awards

In 2005, Wiel Arets received the BNA-Kubus, the oldest award for architecture in the Netherlands. The jury appreciated the remarkable quality of his work and praises his extraordinary contribution to architecture. The Kubus is awarded annually since 1965; previous winners include Herman Hertzberger, Wim Quist, Jo Coenen, Jo van den Broek, Benthem Crouwel and Hubert-Jan Henket, and Wessel de Jonge.

Also in 2005 Arets received the Rietveldprijs for his design for the Universiteitsbibliotheek on De Uithof in Utrecht, which came with a check for 7500 euro. The Stichting Rietveldprijs awards the prize every other year to an architect who builds a remarkable building in Utrecht. Past winners include Koen van Velsen, Mart van Schijndel, and Rem Koolhaas.

References

This apparently has something to do with a thread on this page...

Signing so this will be archived. Gracias Drmies for translation. Although the pharmacies issue makes me wonder whether you are really Dutch? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It was about time you had one of these

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For special merits in Dragon breeding.

Irony

Steely

Goldie!

Hi

:)

Hi

Hi ChildofMidnight. Nothing major really, just noticed your note on the RfA talk page about proceeding perhaps as early next week. I wanted to get in a "good luck" note to you before things got ... ahhh.... time consuming. Also wanted to wish you a happy Easter. As far as your comment "...there is no compulsion to participate or to watch. :)" ... a pack of wild dogs couldn't keep me away from this one. ;). Anyway, have a good weekend/holiday. — Ched :  ?  03:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC) (hmmmm ... thinking back .. I need to stop back over at Stick candy and that dutch oven article, see what ever became of those items.)

Thanks very much Ched. A pack of wild dogs is what I'm worried about. :) No personal attack intended and description used for metaphorical purposes only... ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am under the impression that you share my more conservative political views; but, to be honest, that won't be the reason that I will !vote Strong Support should you decide to go ahead with the RfA. Don't ever worry about my being offended, either by metaphors, humor, or even bluntness. While I may not be quite as vocal as you on many issues, I do indeed share your viewpoints more often than not. I may have voted in support for Bugs in his RfA, that doesn't mean I share his political opinions or beliefs, it simply means that I felt he wouldn't abuse the extra couple functions that "admin" would have given him. I love humor, I'm a patriotic American, a Christian, and I strongly favor the foxnews viewpoints over those of MSNBC. I'll never consider anything you say, to me, or about me, to be a personal attack (short of calling me a fool or an idiot), so don't ever worry about that. (way too many commas in that last sentence ;)). Best of luck in what ever way you proceed. ;) — Ched :  ?  12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Ched. Like most people I am conservative on some views, liberal on others, libertarian here and there, and communist and socialist in some of my values and opinions. I am an environmentalist, I support civil rights and equal rights. I believe in equal opportunity. I try to avoid discussing my politics and my particular viewpoints, because they aren't relevant to editing here. The beauty of our guidelines and our policies is that it shouldn't matter what perspectives people bring to editing, all viewpoints are supposed to be represented with appropriate weight and based on notability and proper sourcing. Where I have come across an editor or editors who are not abiding by our guidelines and who are obstructing, disrupting, harassing, and abusing our processes, I have tried to address those issues as best I can, despite the negative light it will cast on me as some kind of troublemaker. I have clearly made many mistakes and gotten frustrated at times, and for that I apologize. But I edit here in god faith and I think Misplaced Pages should be fun. I don't hold grudges and I welcome collaboration with any editor whatever their viewpoint. Thank you for your comments. Sorry to speechify, but I'm uncomfortable with political labels and the teaming up that sometimes seems to take place here, I know that's not what you are suggesting, but I just wanted to be clear. I would rather be judged on the merits of my edits rather than any perceived political position. Clearly I have tried to improve areas where I think our coverage is slanted or fails to be inclusive, but I am in no way interested in biasing our coverage or waging some kind of partisan campaign. We shouldn't ever have to choose sides here, and should be free to agree and disagree on the merits of individual edits and particulat content disputes accodring to our guidelines which maintain no political bias as far as I can tell. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. An obvious case of subconscious WP:SYN — Ched :  ?  13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Shark fin soup

Hey, have you ever tried the Chinese delicacy, shark fin soup before? I think you may have it given your enthusiasm for rare foods. Until the introduction to the world by Chinese, who would guess that the hideous fish with big teeth and jaw have the tender, yummy and chewy part inside? I once ate a dish of shark fresh which tasted like craps and had a strong odor but the soup is really good. Though I seldom venture unfamiliar dishes, but when I was little, my mom had me eat all kinds of weird things for tranditonal medicine (BUT I have not eaten any dish made of dog meat, especially "wild dogs" :D). --Caspian blue 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have had something called shark's fin soup when I was younger, but I'm not really sure if there was any shark in it. I think the name may have been more a reference to astyle of soup than an indication of ingredients (like dragon and phoenix which is ummm I can't remember now, a lobster and chicken dish I believe?). The harvesting and eating of shark's fin is very controversial, and I think I'm in enough hot water already without delving into another contentious issue. Is it okay if I sidestep this issue (my dance moves are notoriously bad so I may trip), and note that fried grasshoppers are excellent. I had occasion to swim with some sharks once. I was in S.E. Asia and I was snorkeling and all of a sudden there was one of those one's with leopard spots (reef shark? I forget the name now). It wasn't very big, but needless to say my eyes got very big and I couldn't understand why it didn't swim away. Most animals seem shy at the presence of humans, and those that aren't seem to have gone largely MIA (the buffalo and Dodo bird come to mind). I swam around more cautiously for a while, always keeping an eye out, and it would circle below and to the side of me in and out of view. Then all the fish started becoming even more aggresive and even nipping at me. I started to get a bit freaked out, because there was a shark swimming around and all these fish swimming around me and I didn't want it to get confused or pass from my sight. I couldn't figure out what was going on until I looked above the surface of the water and saw there was a tourist boat tossing fish food all over the place and causing the feeding frenzy. I took leave of the situation, but I still have my memories of my shark encounter and an interesting perspective on the interactions between humans and animals. Coral reefs are awesoem and I hope everyone has an opportunity to see one at some point in their life. Just don't sidestep onto a sea urchin. And watch out for stinging jellyfish. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What an interesting story. You might've been freaked out by the shark's advance. Beautiful places or things sometimes accompany with something dangerous just like roses' thorns or sharks at beautiful sea. I'm curious as to whether it contains any metaphor in reply to mine with some though. In an episode of Lost, sea urchin is used in place for medical needles and in Korean cuisine, jellyfish is eaten as a salad . :) -Caspian blue 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I love language, writing and all of its artful components including metaphors, hidden meanings, poetry, and ambiguity. I'm less enthusiastic about spelling. I have had occasion to eat sea urchin and jellyfish. I'm not a fan of either. I've always had a taste for squid though. I love chewing on suckers. :) Uh oh. Another dubious possibly metaphorical statement that could be misinterpreted. See the trouble you're getting me into! Maybe I should stick to raw foods or go Vegan. Although it hasn't helped endear you to one of other comrades... Until I traveled abroad I thougth you could eat just about anything in New York. But I was very wrong. And things taste different in various contexts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

True, according to context, meanings can be changed and open interpretation is possible. My message can be very subtle, but well, I think you get it quite well in regard to this word. I love your boldness although politics is not my interest, but well do not worry about sharks too much. Ah, you're also very inspirational because I'm gonna create the Korean jellyfish salad which is one of my favorite dish seasoned with mustard and vinegar. That is quite good and eaten at wedding feast. --Caspian blue 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, everyone or every creature can not be "happy together" at the "same time". If sharks bite humans or smaller fish, only sharks will be happy. likewise, shark fin soup is actually the result of shark's death. Well, as for Veganism, I think eating vegetables is not much different from eating meat. Both are once "living creatures". --Caspian blue 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I once got stung by a jellyfish in Costa Rica, it is not much fun, so I welcome anyone who is willing to rid the ocean of one by eating it. I also had shark this weekend, it was alright, but I still prefer salmon or trout.--kelapstick (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I had shark fin soup once. It was at a fancy schmancy place, and ironically it cost me several fins. Baseball Bugs carrots 13:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

More "evidence" for you

I've just been reading your absolutely hilarious "evidence" of my "inappropriate comments and behavior" at ArbCom. You really need to develop a better technique for negative spin, because you have utterly failed to make my harmless edits look bad. Attempts to misrepresent good Wikipedians in this way will do you no favors in getting adminship. The one that particularly made me roar with laughter was where you claim I " good faith edits in edit summaries", and then linked to a diff of me reverting one of your many drive-by article taggings. Well, I fervently hope that you link to this comment as another example of my "inappropriate comments." Pretty please! -- Scjessey (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sal's

Any particular sandwich you'd suggest? :) Luminifer (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip -- I'd been meaning to get up to that area some time to check it out - I've barely ever been to the Bronx. This may encourage me. I'm glad that something (else) good will come out of this 'rainbow cookies' headache, at least ;) Thanks again for your mediating (or whatever you want to call it). I'm tempted to just ask some of the bakers next time I'm back in Brooklyn, but how on earth would I cite that... ;)Luminifer (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No idea - I'll ask around... There are still good places in Bensonhurst (Gino's Foccaceria serves an excellent vastedda - that's a spleen sandwich), but there isn't much the way of normal sandwiches that I know of. Italian food in New York is changing, though, possibly partly due to Mario Batali's old-world Italian influence (a lot of places are moving away from the more Americanized tomato-sauce type stuff, for instance). (I have no idea how long you've been gone. heh). Luminifer (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Barack Obama (disambiguation)

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Article was moved to List of articles related to Barack Obama. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

re: List of articles related to Barack Obama

Heh, missed that because of the link name. Anyways, thanks for letting me know, I've changed my vote. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I actually changed my vote to putting this into the templates/a template since it would be nice to get this info from every page rather then having to go to one. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I suggest you place that on the AfD page, almost swayed me :). ( no problem ;) ) - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link

Thanks for the link. My concern is that portions of the entry as it now stands constitute political posturing, and there is much in the recent history to indicate that that might indeed be the case. I will ensure that my next edit will be up to standards. Zulurox (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

please revert due to inaccuracies This is why you're fat

Hi there,

The information in this post is inaccurate. As the co-creator of this site and co-author of the book, I have all of the up to date information regarding our respective ages (which is listed incorrectly), our professional affiliations and the latest information regarding our book deal and tv development -- also listed incorrectly.

We would appreciate it if this listing was reverted to the previously edited version. If you require additional proof of these inaccuracies I can supply them.

I look forward to hearing from you soon, Jessica— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessamason (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The ages probably shouldn't be in the article anyway, since they are not static (you do age right?), and would have to be updated every year (usually in biographies there is a template where you enter the birthdate and it updates it for you.) As for affiliations, and TV/book development etc. you need to reliable sources that are independent(I am not saying that you are unreliable, but you are not independent). Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages strives for verifiability, not truth.--kelapstick (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to change the age notation to work in that the site was started by individuals in their 20s, if I can figure out how. I think it's notable to that extent. Kelapstick is Canadian, so his aversion to truth is understandable. As an American, yes I said AMERICAN, I embrace truth with both arms. The way to demonstrate truth is to provide documentation in reliable independent sources, as Kelapstick indicates. I'm going to take the liberty of reposting the suggestions made here on the article talk page in case anyone else is interested. Finally, if Jessica wants to apologize for creating a website that accuses me of being fat (I prefer to think of myself as stocky), that would be appreciated. :) For the record, I do not age. Thanks for asking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for This is why you're fat

On April 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article This is why you're fat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New Wrestling Association

What?--WillC 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From first glance it doesn't seem notable but there is no sources and no information in the article so I can't be sure if it is or not. Notability is established on reliable sources. If the entire article can be sourced with reliable sources then it is notable. But if it can't, then it isn't notable.--WillC 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Break-in records

This writeup doesn't exactly define it, but you can infer what it means - that they have this dialogue going on and frequently "break in(to)" the dialogue with these little snippets of songs. Baseball Bugs carrots 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk page behavior

You damn well know that this is inappropriate. Please don't do anything like this again. Grsz 03:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? How do you figure fixing obvious mistakes like that is inappropriate? You meant to say "objects" instead of "objections"? And what exactly is a "soapy box"?

I'm also curious how your aggressive edit summary and threatening post here complies with our guidelines on assuming good faith. Do tell!

Rest assured I will not mess with your reversion of my spelling corrections. Maintaining mistakes and errors is a serious business on Misplaced Pages. I heard someone was banned for similar editing violations!

In fact, if you're lucky, I will soon be topic banned so you won't have to worry about my pesky insistence on pointing out inaccuracies and inappropriate imbalances that violate our guidelines in the article either. So please don't report me to ANI. I'm sure my well intentioned edits correcting a fellow editor's text will cast further aspersions on my good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia in a collegial manner. No good deed goes unpunished as they say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I don't care how un-good my grammer may be, don't change others comments on a talk page, it's as simple as that. You've been around long enough to know that pushes buttons. If it bothers you, ignore it. It's not what you changed, it's the issue in principle. Grsz 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, you should not have to be told at this point not to edit others' talkpage comments. Simple copyedits they may have been, but you need not do them. LadyofShalott 03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rest assured I will never again dare to copy-edit any of Grsz's comments. I will continue to extend this courtesy to other editors, however, and I hope they will do the same for me. Not everyone on Misplaced Pages is a prick. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there, son. Changing other peoples' comments is forbidden, unless those comments themselves are a violation of the rules - which misspellings ain't. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Charming. Grsz 04:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This is no way to treat a lady, but it is your own talk page so I guess you can do what you like here. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This was just slap-in-the-face disruption. It's a shame you're taking this route. Grsz 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there an echo in here? -- Scjessey (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You can say that again. :) Here's a guy who thinks he wants to be an admin, and doesn't even know basic rules here. Baseball Bugs carrots 04:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Bugs & others, but there is no prohibition on editing other editors' talk page contributions. Please read Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. There is a prohibition on editing other editors' talk pages to change the meaning, or striking out other editors' comments. While editors should "exercise caution", and fixing typos is not a specifically referenced example of an appropriate sort of edit to other editors' talk page comments (and it is pointed out that some editors find such behavior irritating), it is certainly not prohibited. Many users (such as CoM and myself) are generally grateful if someone fixes nits or more significant (obvious) errors in talk page comments, provided the meaning isn't altered. And by the way, the referenced guideline is just that a guideline, not a policy. So really, I think you all should simmer down. Bongomatic 04:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but it is still considered by many to be extremely annoying and rude. Also, this edit did change the meaning of the comment. The original meaning was a subtle rebuke, but after CoM's edit it was considerably sanitized. This is clearly demonstrated by the the lady putting her foot down. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not defending every action of any editor. My point is that

• The following (initial) comment is unnecessarily inflammatory and not supportable by guideline or policy: "You damn well know that this is inappropriate."
• The following comment is inflammatory and wrong (and condescending, too, "son"): "Whoa there, son. Changing other peoples' comments is forbidden, unless those comments themselves are a violation of the rules - which misspellings ain't."
• The following comment is inflammatory and not supported by events: "Here's a guy who ... doesn't even know basic rules here."

The original change that Grsz11 objected to was obviously in good faith. There are more appropriate ways to indicate irritation with such edits, and the piling on by others is overblown. If people spent as much time editing the encyclopedia as getting hot under the collar, the project would be improved. Bongomatic 04:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Scjessey, I hope you're not irritated that I removed a colon from your previous comment on this talk page—if you feel so moved to revert, please be so kind as to add one to each of the paragraphs of this post.

As I understand it, and as has always been explained in disputes such as this.. a user is free to blank, remove and/or archive his/her own talk page. A user is not, however, allowed to refactor another user's comments, even on a user's own talk page. I see no spelling corrections in this particular edit, as not a single word removed by CoM was mis-spelled. Good faith edit maybe, but against Wikiquette and aside from that, it wreaks of rudeness, common decency and respect. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 05:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "misspelled". Just because "objects" is a word doesn't mean it's not a misspelling of "objections", and just because "soapy" is a word doesn't mean it is not a mis-spelling of "soap" (if you disagree, please go change the wording of WP:SOAP to read "soapy box" everywhere "soap box" is currently referenced). In this context, it is beyond clear that the other words were intended, making the original words misspellings (or if you don't like that use of misspell, then "typos"). Also, I think you mean "reeks", but I am loath to correct your talk page comment. I do agree that correcting minor errors that can only make the original editor look sloppy reeks "of common decency and respect", something that should be commended, not abhorred. Bongomatic 05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What was yesterday, punch CoM day? I'm sorry I missed it; it wasn't marked on my calendar. Scjessey, Bugs, next time, please notify me so I can join in the fun. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy

As one of my fellow editors has noted, showing courtesy and assuming good faith is important and is a basic tenet of editing on Misplaced Pages. I could have made a snide comment about another editor's mistakes, instead I quietly made a minor edit correcting some obvious typos. I know I make lots of grammar and spelling mistakes, and I'm always thankful when another editor takes the time to fix them. This seems like the most basic of courtesies to me, but I understand that angry rabble rousers who are up to no good may take even well intentioned actions as slights.

I would also like to point out that posting lots of inane rantings on an editor's talk page with whom you are in a dispute is downright rude. At least have the decency to make your point and move on.

Finally, grammar has two As.

I would kindly request that editors who don't want their spelling and obvious grammar errors fixed please refrain from posting on my talk page. Persons with this attitude strike me as being uncurious riff-raff, and anyone who chooses to wallow in ignorance is unworthy of my time. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To see it from another point of view, correcting someone's typos is putting a bit of an emphasis on their mistakes, and whether it be intentional or not, someone suspected of having done it intentionally can hardly be trusted to deny it honestly.

Regardless, don't you think it would be a better show of good faith if your post up there wasn't filled with insinuations? It would do your cause more good than harm if you make it clear with every action that you put the encyclopedia's needs above petty and hopefully temporary disputes. --Raijinili (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more that "correcting someone's typos is putting a bit of an emphasis on their mistakes". This has it absolutely backwards. Correcting mistakes eliminates them, it doesn't highlight them. As to the second part of that statement, your premise seems to be based on an assumption of bad faith, instead of an assumption of good faith, which is what our guidelines require. I'm not sure which editors you've been working with, but this misunderstanding of our policies is deeply troubling.

As to your second point, I haven't attempted to insinuate anything. I always try to be as clear as possible while abiding by our guidelines, which are rendered by community consensus! My focus is always on improving the encyclopedia which is why I have been so clear in objecting to the actions of obstructionist and disruptive editors. They need to abide by our guidelines, and I'm sure they can be reigned in if an admin is willing to do what it takes. Thanks for your comments, I hope I have answered your questions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

For the first statement, I'll relate it to making jokes. Jokes in a heated argument, with no love lost on both sides, can be taken as covering direct malice. I'll restate one of my earlier sentences in a way that's hopefully more clear: If two people are involved in such a way that one would suspect another of copyediting their comments out of malice, then it would have done little good for the other to claim that their copyedit was good faith.

The guideline is to assume good faith for as long as possible, and while some of the editors might have lower levels of tolerance, and others ignore the guideline altogether or are ignorant of it, it seems to me that it's best not to aggravate them unnecessarily by testing their assumption of good faith. On the other hand, it is possible for a good-faith editor to mistake another editor's actions for bad faith, and again it's probably better to let this slide, such as by leaving alone minor errors, than to push it without a great need.

As for insinuations, am I mistaken in thinking that many would consider your last paragraph of your first post a reference to certain editors of this page as "uncurious riff-raff", "who to wallow in ignorance"? --Raijinili (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The full statement seems quite clear: "I would kindly request that editors who don't want their spelling and obvious grammar errors fixed: please refrain from posting on my talk page. Persons with this attitude strike me as being uncurious riff-raff, and anyone who chooses to wallow in ignorance is unworthy of my time. Thanks." (colon added, as something about the grammar has been bugging me and maybe this will fix it) If someone wants to make it into a banner, I will consider using it at the top of my page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Though without context your full statement can stand alone, I would have preferred a "yes" or "no" somewhere in that reply which would be a summarized response to my question.

While it might seem clear to both you and me, I think it would be best if we could agree on the color of the transparent. --Raijinili (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a reference to any editor or editors. It is my assessment of those who object to their mistakes being recognized and corrected. If an editor posts on my talk page, I assume they are doing so in good faith and that they agree my quite reasonable terms (if they have seen them) (and I would hope they would be appreciative of someone who took the time to copyedit mistakes). I might be mistaken in doing so, but I try to assume good faith wherever possible and always attempt to do the right thing. Respect is fundamental, even when there are disagreements. The lack of respect and consideration shown me by this gaggle of <insert descriptive term here> speaks for itself and is damaging to the encyclopedia building effort. Harassing, juvenile, and disruptive behavior of this sort should not be condoned or tolerated as it is clear that it is not being done in good faith. Ie. someone making an ANI report against you for copy-edits can be assumed not to have your best interests (or those of the encyclopedia) at heart. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My question was about "certain editors", but I'm willing to leave the matter at this. --Raijinili (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarified. I noticed your involvement in an AfD discussion where I'm being personally attacked by persons claiming an article I created (the need for which I've been quite open about) is somehow an act of bad faith. Imagine if I was the one making those claims and what the response would be. And by the way, it's one thing to deal with these editors as a third party (an annoyance), now imagine you are facing the brunt of their full fledged assault. Not fun. :) But I will continue to do my best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my intention is to be a neutral voice, unattached to the content at the center of dispute. --Raijinili (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice

• As a courtesy to you, I am notifying you of this ANI thread I have started. Thanks. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ 06:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your second one of the day. Your first attempt didn't go so well as I recall. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Update 0-2 on inane reports. Your first one complaining about improvements to an article at AfD was roundly rejected, and your mistaken belief that there is a prohibition on copy-editing has also been dismissed in the second. You haven't quite caught up to Wikidemon on the abusive reporting front, but you're well on your way. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.

Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of YouTube fame

An article that you have been involved in editing, YouTube fame, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/YouTube fame. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To quote Kyle Broflovski, YOU BASTARD!!! :) Oh wait is that a personal attack? See you at AfD sucker... :) Oops, There I go again. Hey thanks for the note. It will be interesting to see what the community decides. See you at tribal council. ChildofMidniʨh (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and may the best Wikipedian win...muahaha! (disclaimer for readers: AfD is not a competition. We are just having a laugh.) rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you went there with the square milk jug...it's on like Donkey Kong! :D--kelapstick (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are getting beat on, worse than smelly feet on, your sauteed head with prawn, served up by Megatron.

Milk bags? Seriously? Speedy delete or redirect to breast. (Is this comment offensive in some way? If so please take it to ANI for further discussion. Thanks in advance.) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon other editors on this page

I shall ask the editor to refrain from posting here unless absolutely necessary, but only because it may lower the temperature somewhat. I did not see any harassment in the comments, just advice from a particular viewpoint - you may not like it, but that doesn't make it harassment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Less. Is there a number of posts after being asked to avoid another editor's talk page that amounts to harassment? Because in my world I would say the number is one, maybe two. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The T-word

I noticed your posts at ANI... you know, the only reason I suggest avoiding calling people "trolls" is because it is actually, in reality, counterproductive to what you want. It will keep you from your goals. You hurt yourself, not others, when you try to identify them as "troll" or "disruptive editor" or whatever kind of so-and-so you want to call them.

Dancing around the word is equally unhelpful. The most effective solution is to actually rise above it, and actually refrain from commenting on other people's motives. Playing a "I'm not going to say the word" game is silly. If you disagree with my advice, then don't pretend to sort-of follow it. Go your own way with pride!

The way I see things, you can either be an effective editor, or else you can call names and score points. You can't have both. I understand that you're frustrated, but is shooting your own foot actually a good, helpful reaction to being frustrated? I don't think so, but if you disagree, then disagree boldly. -GTBacchus 00:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

GT, I appreciate your comment. I wasn't intending to mock you in any with the T is for Troll statement, but there comes a time after the fifth or sixth bogus ANI report that calling a duck a duck isn't just reasonable, it's preposterous to do otherwise. These are trolls. Look at my page history. There's an editor posting 6, 7, 8 times on my page. They say they really REALLY REALLY want to converse with me. Yet they remove my comments from their own page. If you want, you can go look at the history on their talk page and you'll see I've been nothing but civil and courteous to them. These same editors are campaigning right now as I type this on the talk page of any admin they can get to listen to them to try and block me. So what should I do? Should I post an AN report about this inappropriate behavior? They've been advised how to proceed, they just choose not to listen. They received the same advice 5 (or maybe it's 6 I lose track) bogus ANI reports ago. Every single time there has been no wrongdoing on my part, yet this abusive behavior continues. At some point an admin is probably going to start believing the smears. Yet here I am minding my own business trying to edit articles, and I'm harassed endlessly by these mudslinging POV warriors. So while I understand your point, I hope you'll understand that the time for delicacy is long past. These disruptive, hostile, and harassing editors need to leave me alone. There's nothing they've posted here that is in any way relevant to improving the encyclopedia or that's interesting or humorous to me. I'm tired of their attacks, and at some point I'm hopeful (though not optimistic) that a courageous Admin will finally block one or more of them until they shape up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't matter whether they're trolls. I deal with trolls regularly, but I never call them that. It would make me less effective. That's all.

The best way to deal with trolls involves not calling them out. Strange, but true. The best thing you could do is just collect diffs, in a very neutral way, and build up a case. Then, when there's an RfC or something, you're ready, and you're seen occupying the moral high ground. That's not a bad position to be in.

Meanwhile, feel free to let me know about any particular situation. Of course... as you know from watching another encounter, I'll only deal with them in terms of content and article edits. However, this method does get to the bottom of trolling. It takes a little bit of faith, I guess. -GTBacchus 01:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems

Coming up on AfD. I am going to need a lot of support on this one. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 17#List of unusual personal names and Place names considered unusual. I see my friends shaking their heads and turning away. So sad... Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you. I thought you had retreated to your man cave/ dragon's lair. I'll have a look. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a groundswell of support for a policy change in regard to the "unusual" articles. So isn't recreation sort of a formality? I read the debate a bit. It's all a bit over my head. I couldn't find anything to do with bacon, youtube, or partisan politics. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

AHAHHAHAHA!!! That (List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems) is the single greatest article I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. I love it. TERRIFIC!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• I spent days working on that one, researching, rewording, copy editing (which is tough with a one-word article) and then Orange Mike | Talk just swatted it out like a gnat. I am devastated. But I may recover. Thanks for the support - I need it. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate article

May I ask why you created the stub Pistachio salad when there was already a stub called Waldorf salad about the identical recipe, which you knew about as you linked the article? Given the limited scope of either article and the identical ingredients, this is simply a synonym, an alternate name. Many dishes have interchangeable or omittable ingredients and a variety of names. Note that Hero sandwich redirects to Submarine sandwich, despite the many variants of possible ingredients. Similarly, there is no separate article for grinder, hoagie, Italian sandwich, wedge, zep, or torpedo. Abrazame (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while now, but I didn't discover Waldorf salad until I was well into the article. I'm also not sure I understood merges and redirects at the time. I'll have to look now, but if they are identical it probably makes sense to merge. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Watergate salad. Which name should it be merged to? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, yes, of course, I meant Watergate salad. (Both hotels!) My Google search brings up nearly twice as many hits for "Watergate salad", though that's not exactly a scientific method of making such a determination. (Many of those might actually be mirrors of the older Wiki article.) Preferably we would go with the more common usage.

Are there a lot of these sorts of recipes? The only thing I'd ever heard of along these lines was Ambrosia (fruit salad)—which is also a stub. Rather than having all these dessert salad stubs, I propose a single article about such fruit salad variations tossed with instant pudding or artificial toppings. The individual names would redirect to the single article, which becomes more informative. Abrazame (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I support a merger of pistachio salad and Watergate salad. Either name will do. Pistachio salad seems more NPOV (leaving out the political figures :) but Watergate salad may be more notable. Although that may just be in a certain area that produces books and articles, because I've noticed Midwestern cuisine is often discriminated against with less media coverage (an outrage to be sure!). (Imagine the difficulty I've had in finding mainstream media sources for important foods like Snickers salad and Glorified rice). Mixing all these into fruit salad seems too messy to me. As long as the articles inter-link I think that's the way to go. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you think of a phrase you've seen in your research for these desserts that would capture the sort of dish that is tossed with puddings or whipped toppings? In those cookbooks that include these dishes, under what heading do they appear? I find notable usage of the phrase "Dessert salad". I agree that these recipes are one rather large step away from what is encompassed by the term "fruit salads", and am not proposing to add them to that article. I propose a new article encompassing this subset of stubs, many of which, as you mention, may not actually be notable enough to rate their own Misplaced Pages article. I do think that "Dessert salad" (unless we can find a better phrase) would make an excellent compromise, where unique examples of this theme could be given their own sections, with alternate names and variations mentioned therein. If you would like to be the one to create and compile this article, as you've been involved in creating the aforementioned stubs, I would defer to you to do so. As I've pointed out, similar things are done not only with other food and drink articles but with articles in other categories, all about subjects far more notable which, nevertheless, don't really rate their own article insomuch as they are not really their own thing. Abrazame (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think an article on dessert salads would be great, but I don't support combining the various articles there. The ones that have articles are independently notable and I don't see an advantage in a combined article. I do think a general article on the subject would be great. But combining them seems to me like combining hummus and tahini in the meze article. Or combining cobb salad and caesar salad into the more general salad article. They are different subjects, general and specific, both notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Userfied fruit

It didn't get linked on GTBacchus's talk page, but the userfied deleted page you requested is at User:ChildofMidnight/List of fruits that cannot legally be carried on certain public transport systems. Obviously feel free to move it if you find the title a bit, uh, unwieldy. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So COM, how do you explain that article, hmm? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a very notable topic with a lot of good information for travelers, all in an article with a simple and logical title that is no doubt a common search term that will make it easy to find. And it's well illustrated with a useful see also for those seeking more information on a related topic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

I've deleted it, as it was wasting far too many people's time. If at any (quite far away) point in the future you want it reinstated, just ask. Black Kite 23:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall twisting anyone's arm and forcing them to ask a question or post comments on the talk page of my (potential) RfA. If you want to cut down on the wasted time, maybe you could steer those making inappropriate comments in a more productive direction and step up your vigilance against frivolous ANI reports. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (refactored with a bit of expansion)

The whole thing was a joke turned bad. You were trying to be a smart ass by asking Dougs to nominate you, then it backfired. This type of disruptive editing is exactly why so many have expressed concerns regarding your editing. Landon1980 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank

Could I plz get your input as a past contributer on the talk page on the section Lead (again) Soxwon (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The consensus has been to move it down to politics, not delete. Plz don't, at least not until the Media Cabal has finished (see talk). Soxwon (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any major objection to moving it down into the article and have done so myself in the past. Feel free to add it back in an appropriate section. It's misleading and taken out of context, so my personal preference is for it to be left out all together. It most certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Irfan Yusuf

Please seriously consider what you are doing with the Irfan Yusuf article. I have offered a discussion. You have not really participated in it. Then unilaterally declared what a consensus position was without responding to the issues I raised. It is not good practice to remove a variety of well-sourced material including a reference to a soon to be published book. You even deleted the cover because you just reverted it without really paying attention to it. I think that is a matter of concern and I encourage you to stop. And to discuss any changes you want to make on the Talk page as you had said you would. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only have I engaged in discussion, but I went through an extensive point by point discussion of why the version you're pushing is inappropriate. Another editor agreed. If you're not happy with consensus I suggest conducting an wp:RfC or posting on wp:FEED. As you are the only editor pushing a version that is inappropriate, unencyclopedic and that violates Misplaced Pages's guidelines for wp:BLP (biographies of living person's), I'm not sure how I can be of any more help to you. Good luck. Please don't restore your version until there is a new consensus or you've addressed the concerns expressed. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have offered to go through each sentence of the article, as your observations, to which I responded in detail, were really rather general. If you want to write a revised version of the article that includes the material - differently weighted if you like - you can do that. But you won't build a consensus by just unilaterally deleting the work of other people. That's quite inappropriate. Please don't restore your version until there is a consensus to do so, your insinuation that there was a full discussion of the issues just isn't right as anyone looking at the Talk page of the article will see. There was a very limited discussion, with no one actually discussing anything in detail, something I am happy to do. I'd be happy for your input but other than deleting a lot of well-sourced and entirely appropriate material you haven't really suggested anything constructive and I think that's a shame. I urge you to act in good faith on this issue. Join a meaningful discussion and re-write of the article or leave it alone. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messanger

There has been a tread discussing the deletion of your recent RfA started here. Just thought you should know. — Ched :  ?  19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Ched. I will abide by whatever the community decides. I have no interest in participating in a discussion that seems like an unnecessary drama fest. An admin made a unilateral decision to delete the unaccepted nom. I presume it was made in good faith. I have tried to abide by proper procedures and was advised that I was not under time constraints as far as accepting the RfA nom. I have tried to make my intentions clear. People chose to comment on my (potential) RfA on its talk page and several editors have asked some good questions on the nom page itself. There have also been less constructive actions including canvassing, numerous disruptive ANI threads, inappropriate comments on user talk pages etc. etc., but I've tried to steer clear of the nonsense. As far as I'm concerned the proper course of action would be to direct the disruptive editors in a more constructive direction. But I don't see anything wrong with people making comments on a potential RfA nom and I certainly have no ability to control who says what where. If it's determined that the unaccepted nom is an unhelpful distraction, then so be it. I guess some people are unable to control themselves? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Middle Colonies

I see that you are involved in a bit of drama at the moment, so I apologize, but I was wondering if I could ask a favor. I nominated Middle Colonies for GA, but some information was added by others recently which seems a little confusing. I attempted to clean it up, and I think it worked, but I was wondering if you could look the article over and tell me if it's clear or not. Chances are I will be waiting weeks for someone to perform the review, since that is just unfortunately how it works. Oh well... Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Scaps. Would you prefer I make suggestions or do the edits I think appropriate and then you can revert or adjust as you see fit? My general feeling is that the opening paragraphs (what I would call the introduction, but what Wikipedians under the nefarious influcence of British colonialists have termed the "lead" and sometimes spell lede, as if the world has gone completely bonkers! :), is too detailed and lengthy. So I would move a lot of it into the article body and give a general outline in the opening paragraphs. Also, I prefer opening paragraphs with few or no citations, but I know there has been some vigorous editing on that article so if they're needed maybe they're needed. I'm ready to move some stuff around and let you see what you think. The bread bit in the opening line is also bugging me, but I have a solution which is to move up that discussion from the third paragraph and deal with the geography straight away. I can't really tell you what the GA folks will suggest. The awarding bodies here seem very interested in style, where as I am more concerned with clarity and content. PEACE! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that you go ahead and make the changes, though I disagree with you about the lead. The paragraphs contain no information not in the article's main body of text, and is well within accepted lengths. WP:LEAD is also not completely clear on citations in the lead, saying to use balance. As far as any other suggestions, I would urge you to make them. Also, what do you mean by the fact that the Bread Colonies bit is bothering you, it is another name for the same colonies. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries Scap. I think it's a solid article with a lot of good information. Maybe Mies, Dr., will have a look if he sees this. He's a far better copy-editor than I am. But other than some organizational preferences that I would implement the article looks okay to me. And my changes don't have much to do with GA concerns anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC Collect

Could you give your impressions of Collect at his RfC based on your interaction with him at Drudge Report (include other if there is any thnx). The RfC is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect Soxwon (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've followed that RfC from a distance. It strikes me as an utter time wasting absurdity pursued mostly by abusive editors who themselves should be blocked. I symphathize with Collect, and I would encourage him to ignore it and focus on doing article work. Sadly there's no willingness on the part of Admins to reign in abusive smear campaigns so editors can focus on article improvements. By the way, unless I'm mistaken, you didn't have a very great impression of my work here, yet now that you're confronted by some of the same problems I've been dealing with you seem to be asking for my help. It seems a bit ironic to me. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't agree with you on the DR, that was a difference of opinion and doesn't affect my opinion of your other work. I'm not asking just you, but ALL involved parties. Soxwon (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked in your history and didn't see the comment I remember. So maybe I'm mixing you up with Snowded. You seem to be fighting the good fight, so I wish you luck. And by fighting the good fight I mean trying to have fair treatment of editors and accurate article content that isn't full of POV pushing nonsense. Take care.ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Hi COM, I haven't decided how I'm going to !vote in your RFA if you ever transclude it, but I wouldn't have asked a question unless I was planning to probably participate. I would suggest that if you are the pure vandalfighter that your nominator presents you as you would be advised to broaden your experience here before running. If you are not (and I haven't yet looked at your contributions and won't until you transclude) then I suggest you make that clear in the RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My RfA nom doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. I've taken on some thorny issues and have been willing to take controversial positions when they're in the best interests of the encyclopedia and its readers. I'm interested in solving problems and I haven't hesitated to tackle areas where Misplaced Pages needs improvement. Most of the drama surrounding me isn't, in my opinion, of my creation. But as I'm at the center of it, the disputes themselves will be enough to turn off many voters. I can't say I blame them. Who wants to spend the time it takes to read through all the nonsense to sort out that I've been a target of a smear campaign by POV pushers who have done a lot to undermine Misplaced Pages's collegial editing environment and weaken our article content. There's also no question that I don't have the softest of touches, and I've certainly made some mistakes. And from what I've seen, being human is a big disadvantage at RfA. :) There are lower-case v vandals and upper-case V Vandals, and I try to fight both kinds. Trying to get editors to abide by our guidelines has made me a big target. And then there are lots of political partisans who will vote against me because of political perception, so that's more than enough to sink my candidacy. :) But it still might be fun and interesting. I think people deserve an opportunity to vote and to have their questions answered. So we'll see. Thanks for your good works and your interest. Party on and have fun. I may fix obvious spelling and grammar mistakes if you ever make any again, so watch your back! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I that the best thing for Misplaced Pages at this point is for you to request deletion of that page. As you yourself have said, WP:SNOW applies. The continued existence of the page isn't serving any useful purpose. It is only serving as a drama magnet now. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone drawn in by a drama-magnet shouldn't be walking around with drama-iron-filings in their shorts. -GTBacchus 20:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC) That's just an observation, not an argument for or against anything... except drama. -GTBacchus 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point Shef and I have a lot of respect for you. Thanks for expressing your concerns here in a collegial manner. There is a group of editors who refuse to abide by our guidelines and who've worked aggressively to intimidate me and attack me because they disagree with me on content issues. They have caused drama here on my talk page, repeatedly on the AN and ANI page, on various other usertalk pages and on my (potential) RfA nom. My opinion is that the appropriate course of action is to simply ask these troublemakers to cease the drama mongering. I think it sets a very bad precedent to close the (potential) nom because they've chosen to disrupt it. I think it's reasonable and I have no objection to asking editors generally to wait until the RfA nom goes forward. However, if certain editors are determined to make trouble and to post unconstructively there, I think that says more about them than it does about me, and there's nothing I can do to stop them. Other posts have actually been quite reasonable and I have no objection to editors being able to comment or ask questions there. I understand your concerns, and as I've said here and in the other discussions, if the community feels that closing or deleting the nom for now is the way to go, I'm okay with that. But I don't think smear campaigns and aggressive activity of this sort should be accepted or rewarded in any way shape or form. Other than describe the worst offenders as bobbleheads and a gaggle of windbags, which seems a fairly restrained and accurate description given the circumstances and is at worst a fairly mild incivility, there's been no suggestion that I've acted inappropriately in any way shape or form from anyone impartial. I'm concerned about giving in to disruption of this sort, and I encourage you and other Admins to do the right thing and ask those causing the disruption, making personal attakcs, and behaving childishly to cease these activities. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Administration (Refactored under this thread title by CoM)

CoM, hi. I hope I'm not butting in here.

I'm not sure you appreciate just what an admin has to deal with in a situation such as this. From your perspective, it's easy to see that you've got a group of trouble-makers who harass, stalk and bully you. However... in 100% of these situations that I've dug into, those people are acting in good faith. It is almost certain that they truly believe that you're making a mess they have to clean up. Just as much as you see your edits as good, and their actions as bad, they see your edits as bad, and their actions as good. As far as they're concerned; they're helping, and you're not.

Now... if I'm an impartial observer (and I think I'm fairly impartial), I can look at a lot of evidence, and it simply does not boil down to a good-guy/bad-guy situation. In every such case I've ever looked at, everyone believes that they are acting in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and all parties are partly correct. People don't get caught up in it so deeply unless they believe in something. Maybe your case is the exception, but.... the odds are against it.

Maybe it's very easy for you to say, "the appropriate course of action is to simply ask these troublemakers to cease the drama mongering". However, no impartial observer is going to see an innocent editor on one side, and drama-mongers on the other. I don't know if you have much practice putting yourselves in other people's shoes, and seeing the world through their eyes... it's something I try to practice. If 20 neutral, intelligent, good-faith admins were to wade through 10,000 words of backlog, then 4 of them would agree with you, 4 would agree with the others, and 12 would say the truth is somewhere in-between. Furthermore, if you characterize the situation as a group of ne'er-do-wells versus you, very few people will buy that characterization. They won't believe it because that tends not to happen.

This is why I refuse to address these issues as personal disputes. When you really, really focus on the article edits, to the point that you never even mention other people, directly or obliquely, then you start winning. I doubt you believe me, but it's really the best advice I can give you. It's difficult advice to follow, but if I didn't do my best to tell you, I'd be doing you and the project a disservice. There are effective ways of dealing with these problems, and there are ineffective ways. Expecting that some admin sees things your way and enforces what you want is pretty far towards the ineffective end of the spectrum. I'm sorry, but it's true.

I hope you take these words in the spirit that they are intended, which is that I'd really like to help you overcome this problem, if you'll let me. -GTBacchus 21:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

GT, as I think you've suggested many times to those involved in disputes: let's focus on the content. That's all I'm asking. The disruption and behavioral issues should be dealt with, so we can get down to business on the content and good faith editors aren't stuck dealing with disruptive distractions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you don't get what I'm saying. Yes, let's deal with the disruption and behavior issues. There is precisely one way to do that (you're gonna hate this): Forget about it. If you take the leap of faith, and forget about trying to get any satisfaction over the disruption and behavior issues, that is precisely when you will start to win. Please let me help you. Forget the behavior, let me edit content alongside you, and then watch what happens. You will grow wings and soar above all the behavior problems, but it'll never happen as long as you're trying to make it happen.

Faith. -GTBacchus 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of counter-intuitive, which is the cart and which is the horse. People believe that we need to deal w/ behavior issues so they can edit content. This is backwards. People need to forget behavior issues and focus on content.... and then you end up beating the behavior issue. I'm speaking from experience here, and I wouldn't tell you this if I weren't trying to help. Please believe me. -GTBacchus 22:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what could help your case, (Which I was attempting to do with that question in RFA talk page) is to open up and finally make a decision even if it is "I'll make a decision by this date." That way you don't look like you are toying with everyone. You would look like you are being open and honest with everyone and not closed and mysterious. Also, on a side note: If I were you, I'd stop weighing whether you would get the vote, or whatever, and throw your dice out onto the table to see if you get the nomination. If you didn't get it, then at least you could say you gave it a shot which no one would or could fault you for. Brothejr (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I laid out a timeline and, as I noted it might, it changed. I made the decision to participate in the Obama arbcom early last week, something I was reluctant to do, but ultimately felt was important. That took an awful lot of time and was very stressful and unpleasant for me. It's a fairly involved process and I've tried to follow it as much as I can stomach and participate in a way that's useful for Misplaced Pages. I'm also involved in some AfD discussions that are important to me and that I want to stay on top of. And then there were some unusual (but increasingly frequent) disruptions by those coming after me. So those were also time consuming and involved. Ultimately, as I indicated in my answer to you, I'm going to go ahead when I'm good and ready. I'm sorry if that came off as snarky, but I don't see why I should have the timeline of my RfA dictated to me by anyone. I can't stop people from commenting and if their posting are causing a fuss then someone should tell them to stop posting. I'm not the one posting there except to reply to issues raised by others. I'm not trying to stir up trouble. I don't know what else to tell you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually, when someone commences an RFA, they usually drop most everything else and concentrate on the RFA, especially when it opens and the Q and A really begins. That's what got some of the others was that you didn't seem like you were as concentrated on it as other prospective admins have been in the past. Maybe cutting back on some of the other things and concentrating on that might help your case. Brothejr (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama talk page

I have started a conversation at User talk:ThuranX to discuss some process matters having to do with the question of citizenship conspiracy theories (it's there instead of elsewhere by happenstance because that editor was the first to make a comment outside the scope of the discussion), and asked the editors involved in that latest thread to keep process matters there. An IP poster asked a question, and the question was constructively answered. As you know, you are free to make constructive suggestions for improving the article, including if you want to re-propose that citizenship conspiracy theories get coverage in the article. As I have asked the others involved, let's please use the talk page for discussing article improvements, and bring complaints and talk of other editors elsewhere. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a ThuranX fan, but as the discussion is relevant to issues regarding our coverage of Barack Obama, I think that the Obama article talk page is the appropriate place for it. That it was an "anon" who raised the issue is irrelevant. I'm interested in discussing our article coverage and the recurring problem we've had that people can't find the content they're're looking for. As you know I've made a constructive proposal to try and resolve the situation. To your credit you seem to have considered it with an open mind. If there's another way to solve it or we need to work it through more, let's do it. But I don't think it's resolved so it shouldn't be archived. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(potential) RFA nom

How is the nom that you requested a "potential" RFA nom? I don't get it, you ask for the nom, and then dance around it for two weeks like you are just way too busy to accept it? You go to one editors talk page and say you "stumbled into an RFA nom" and that ideally you would like for them to be your nom and not Dougs. So, my question to you is why did you ask Doug's for the nom if that is the case? If you were not ready to proceed forward why did you request the nom, and why from Doug's? We both know the answers though, don't we. Landon1980 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you know, why ask? Since this is Earth week, perhaps we should all save some electrons. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, so in the spirit of Earth week why have you added a comment that adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, and serves no purpose whatsoever? Landon1980 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we both know the answer to that, I think. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Pageant of Steam

Haha I go there every year; have you been there or aren't you from/in England? It seems like the majority of the big time editors/admins are in England. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

DC, I've never been to that or any steam festival. And I don't think I've ever been to Schenectady. But I see it was named for a Mohawk word, and I attended a Camp Mohawk. So that's as close as I can get. But it sounds interesting and I enjoyed reading the article you created. I'm a big fan of traditions and festivals. I agree there are an awful lot of Redcoats running around Misplaced Pages inserting Us after Os and replacing Zs with Ss. It's troubling, especially as you point out that so many of these members of the monarchy are in Admin positions. What's a good Yank to do? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lemon poppyseed cake

This made a superdelicious batter--perhaps also because I accidentally poured the three tablespoons of lemon juice for the glaze in with the batter. Oh, the Lakers are shooting the ball purty good right now... Drmies (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stone Creek--yes, that's good, better than my somewhat stilted sentence. However, sir, there seems to be a bit of puffery/peacockery introduced...astonishing...amazing... Drmies (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How dare you sir! I'm shocked by this outrageous and most incredible allegation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way this has a whiff of truthiness. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Here are some sources for poppy seed as bird food . ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Actually, those sources aren't very good, but these are better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Chechil

I have worked some more on this article, copy-editing and adding references. Please take a look. --Zlerman (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this the stuff ? I can't find a free photo. But I can get one if that's what we're looking for. I haven't heard it called chechil, but love the real string cheese. Those sticks are a joke. What are the little black seeds again? Delicioso!!! I wonder if Mies, Dr. has ever had any. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Steamed clams

What does this have to do with bacon?--kelapstick (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Clams are the summertime pigs of the seashore? How are the hooks coming for my latest articles there boss? Rubbernecking is on deck... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Which ones are they, I have been off the grid lately?--kelapstick (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Other than steamers I wrote up Stone Creek Jamboree, don't cha know. They haven't been hooked up to the Matrix yet. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Singular not Plural

No, I was not referring to you in the metaphor at all. The discussion was supposed to be interchanged just between GT. and me (in the open space though) and the adjective was used a couple of time before when I said to GT about the user's "dreadful curses". I truly thank him that he ignored my presence. I wish I don't encounter him ever. Once you commented there, your ardent fan in a fluffy garment followed. Anyway, you're forgetting the fact that they've been working the same areas in which Badaganani are active. You can not blame their overlapped activities, but rather ask Badagnani to stop being disruptive; adding original research, synthesis, false information, link spams, blogs or promotional sources, YouTube links, sneaky hidden remarks or questions, false accusations, incivility, POV pushing, vegetarianism, Peta Pan-Asianism agendas, wikistalking, harassing, racist comments etc. Unless he continues such practices, he has to face contests. That is all his responsibility. As I said before, you're too generous about his behaviors.--Caspian blue 21:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)