Misplaced Pages

Can you point me to sources on Marquise Goodwin, Alshon Jeffrey, or Darvin Adams--Yankees10 05:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Goodwin plays on the best team in college football which should be almost enough in and of itself. He also completed in five track events in high school broke the National High School record in the long jump at the U.S. Championships, finishing with a mark of 8.18 meter (26-10). So he's an Olympic caliber athlete with the best high jump mark EVER for a high school athlete.

Alshon Jeffrey was widely recruited and was involved in that "you'll be working at a gas station" controversy (I think it was Tennessee's coach who said that?). He'll be dominating Alabama for years to come and is a phenom. Loads of sources discussing him. His High School basketball team went 80-0.

So that leaves Darvin Adams. 10 touchdowns, 6'3" and 185 pounds. He'll be racking up the points against Alabama's defense for years to come. Loads of sources on him also. Can you explain why one season with 7 catches makes Barron notable and link to something discussing his "achievments"? There may well be controversies surrounding him like there were for that Ingram fellow. That team has difficulty with rules and fair play. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

None of those are valid reasons at all. Your dislike for a college is not a valid reason on why a player is not notable. You dont belong editing wikipedia if your gonna act like this.--Yankees10 01:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I probably don't belong here. But did you see that I added projects and photo requests to a couple of articles you created? If you could help improve articles I create with similar enthusiasm for collegial collaboration I would really appreciate it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

<--Yankee, I prefer to stay out of these kinds of disputes. I will have you know, though, that ChildofMidnight is a well-known POV warrior trying to get everything deleted that relates to Alabama's Roll Tide football team, out of sheer agony probably. For a while, I automatically prodded everything he wrote. For crying out loud, he once speedied Bear Bryant, claiming "disruptive coaching" (by which he meant winning more than some Gamecocks or Aubies, I believe). Drmies (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not completely accurate. I support the creation of an article or articles on University of Alabama college football rule violations, fishing trips, and textbook giveaways for example. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

And I advocate giving California back to Mexico. Woof! Drmies (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people familiar with the situation here would suggest your position supports the status quo. The Joe Flacco article says "He grew up in a jewish family in a jewish neighborhood." Is that true? I suppose I will have to use my GooFoo skills. And isn't Jewish capitalized? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's not talk college football; I may cry. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ah...an FSU fan...you know, I am actually rooting for you this year, since I think BB should go out on a high note. Not that I like him, mind you, just for the sake of proper veneration. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, never mind! Drmies (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Schwa

I just wanted to let you know that awhile back someone moved User:ChildofMidnight/Schwa (restaurant) to mainspace. The mainspace article was tagged for speedy deletion today and met the criteria. I agree that the subject is notable, so instead of deleting it or moving it back to your user space, I INCUBATEd it. The page is now located at Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Schwa (restaurant). You are, of course, welcome to help bring it up to standard while it is in incubation. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks Thaddeus. Very kind of you. I had seen that it was moved into mainspace and I think it's fairly notable (perhaps as a merge to the cook/ owner?). But it seems a bit pretentious, not to mention out of my price range, so I haven't gotten around to doing anything with it. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi ThaddeusB. I reviewed the article history and don't see the CSD tagging—any idea why? Rgds

Oh mysterious one, I believe it fell under the recreation of deleted content criteria. So I think it was moved into incubation, rather than being speedy deleted straight up. I posted a comment on the talk page on how I think it should be handled. If you want to work it up I'm willing to help as long as you follow my intructions very carefully. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I know why it was deleted, I just don't know why I don't see the revision with the insertion of the G4 template. Try me! I'm great at following instructions (so long as they comport with my views and desires). _matic 05:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I had to delete the page to restore the history (the page had been userified w/o its history, so attribution was broken). When I went to undelete it, I left off some off the pointless revisions, including the CSD tagging. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing other user's comments

Thank you for thinking of WP:NPA, but it is best not to edit others' comments on WP:ANI, as you did here unless there is outing or some sort of clear emergency need. No need to worry though; this looks like an error motivated by good intentions. Jehochman 01:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem in that dispute is that the usual drama mongerers are stirring up trouble instead of trying to help resolve and alleviate the dispute. I appreciate your reminder, but I think my trimming of the comment was reasonable, and I pointed it out to the editor who made the comment so it's up to them if they want to revert. We're a collaborative enterprise, and I think helpful efforts to look out for one another should be encouraged. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing the comment above Cirt's reply makes Cirt's comment look needlessly petulant, when in fact Cirt is stating a legitimate grievance. It also denies the person making the attack a chance to retract it, which might help end the conflict. In any case, the thread needs to end, and the content dispute, if any, needs to go to an appropriate forum. Jehochman 02:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Perhaps I should have left a <trimmed> bit in there. Oh well. I think Cirt could do more to let the situation simmer down by staying focused on the content. Reopening the thread hasn't helped. How's the Arb race going? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. The campaign seems rather quiet. Maybe everybody just decided I have no chance, so they aren't bothering to ask me any questions. :) As for that thread, hopefully it will fizzle soon enough. I'd like both sides to de-escalate the conflict. Jehochman 03:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I was intrigued by your candidacy. I've been very impressed with your efforts to assist editors and your willingness to help resolve and alleviate difficult disputes, as I think I've noted previously. I respect editors who are willing to take unpopular, or at least politically unadvantageous positions. There's too much politicking and cabalism here. On the other hand, it seems to me that you do play favorites and take sides. Perhaps I'm mistaken in that impression? I wonder, for example if the editors needing assistance hadn't been ones you agreed with on content issues if you would have assisted them in their efforts to remain an editor in good standing. I think you're very very beneficial here, but I don't know if I'm comfortable having you as an Arb. Independence and being a bit rogue is okay, but fairness is important. We'll see what happens. Voting opens Tuesday? And it's secret ballots this time (a position backed by the current Arbs, Giano, and Malleus if you can believe it!). Yikes. So much for community ideals and transparency. Anyway, that's my unasked for input. Have a good one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar for your recent WP:ANI comments.

Definitely

You deserve the above. I thank you for your patient attention to what matters. Just got your note. Agree that Alford pages now much improved. Still reservations about some other associated pages, but frankly I do not like the timewasting and politicking and decided to improve an article instead. I myself once had malintent and have never cooked over a campfire since. I will give it a look though, and hope to be in touch soon. Redheylin (talk) 21:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PS - got any tips on how to go into detail about ways in which the cited page does not contain the information referenced? Redheylin (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a rhetorical question? Philosophical question? :) I saw your comments regarding this issue. How best to reflect what is (and isn't) in the sources is a key to quality article writing work. If something is in some sources, but not in others, that's certainly an area where disputes can take place. Finding sources that support an argument, as opposed to pointing out sources that don't support the opposing argument, is probably a more productive route. But I'm hoping some "new blood" will take up the issues and offer a way forward. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you pushing this so hard?

You advised Redheylin: I think getting a breather would be a good thing. And yet now it appears that you are pushing hard for his POV. That is a bit odd, to say the least. If you cannot bring sources to shore up this POV, and are instead making WP:SYNTH-type assertions, this is a waste of time, just like the ANI thread was. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article Alford plea? Have you seen the work that I have put into it? Have you noticed that prior to this work, the article was completely unsourced? Cirt (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have, Cirt, and well done. Redheylin (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin, then why do you engage in disruption over the tags? Cirt (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, I suggested repeatedly that you guys work through dispute resolution and that Redheylin try the content noticeboard. The feuding seemed to continue with the ANI thread repeatedly getting reopened and with the same parties continuing to argue their positions (including accustations and counter accusations). Redheylin has stated that a post to the Law project discussion page didn't get a response, and neither of you (as far as I know) took up the suggestion to take the core issues up at another venue for dispute resolution. So I tried the content noticeboard, a place that seems very conducive to collegial discussion and outside input.

I was trying to lead by example in posting a request for outside input to see if we could work through the dispute resolution process together. It's one thing to just tell people to use dispute resolution, but I think it's important that admins and editors be willing to take part and in some cases to show how it's done. There often seems to be a reluctance from admins and others to get involved in the mediation process, becuase once they look into the matter they form opinions and become participants, but I think it's worthwhile getting into the trenches and attempting to work through the content issues.

I certainly hadn't intended to restoke the fires, although I see Redheylin's most recent note here suggests he's attempting to move forward on other projects. Last I looked the discussions were continuing on his talk page and I didn't see any indication that the content issues were resolved, so I felt moved to take some initiative to get a better consensus. I don't see what harm can come from soliciting outside input. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Your action of posting a dup post to the same board that I had posted to only a short while ago, while in your comment you argue for the POV of Redheylin, is certainly not an NPOV action, and moreso, it floods the noticeboard with duplicate posts and lessens the possibility of a positive outcome. I wish you had not added the dup post to the same noticeboard. You appear to be interjecting yourself across multiple pages, ANI, now the noticeboard even though there was already a post there, etc. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your post when I went to the wp:content noticeboard to make a post on the underlying issues. I understood your request to be narrowly focused on the taggings. So I thought it was reasonable to post regarding the underlying content issue.

I tried to be neutral in the way I worded my request and to present both sides as best I could, noting that there are sources establishing what's been included, and that there may be sources and a reasonable argument to support the need for further distinctions.

I actually don't have a strong opinion on the issue, and only looked into it to see if I could be of help. The disptue seemed to be ongoing and it seemed worthwhile to try the proper outside venues to get a better consensus. The fact that you posted to the content noticeboard about the taggings that are being argued over seems to indicate that the dispute hasn't yet been resolved, so I'm still hopeful that with additional input we can get a stronger consensus through collegial discussion.

My sense, based on looking into it the issues only sufficiently to understand the dispute, is that Alford pleas are usually (perhaps even always or almost always) used where there is strong evidence and the likelihood of a conviction, but that there may be other considerations and even cases where a guilty plea is entered for other reasons. If evidence is weak there is certainly less of an incentive to plead guilty, but it seems that the evidence may not be the only consideration or even the primary consideration in all cases.

Are guilty pleas made for reasons other than the likelihood of convictions? Are those still Alford pleas? I'm not sure. I only looked into the issue enough to understand the arguments. It's not entirely clear to me whether entering a guilty plea to avoid a trial or to avoid the chance of a death penalty conviction is worth noting, and I'm not sure whether a guilty plea for reasons other than the evidence, or in addition to evidenciary considerations, is a significant distinction. Has an Alford plea ever been made where there isn't strong evidence? If a guilty plea is made for other reasons, or not only because the evidence is strong, is that worth noting? IS it still an Alford plea? These seem to me to be basic straightforward questions that need to be answered in order to make sure the article is accurate and NPOV, and issues where additional input might help resolve the dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly from your questions you have not read my work at the article Alford plea. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read through the talk pages and noted that there are sources supporting what's there. I also did my own Google News search, it affirmed that many many sources note the sufficient evidence clause. I also noted Red's arguments and sources he points out don't mention the evidence considerations. And indeed I found articles suggesting other considerations may be involved.

I'm not trying to decide the matter and was only trying to understand it so I could present a fair description of both sides and the arguments. Perhaps I haven't been as neutral as you'd like or as I aspire to be, in order to understand the issues I looked into them a bit and certainly I have ideas of my own on how I think the matter should be resolved, that may well have influenced my phrasing even as I tried to be fair in presenting the issues for outside consideration. As I noted on your talk page, I was hoping to get additional outside input rather than just a rehash from the parties already involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Grand, so you have not yet said that you have even read the article itself, and therefore are not aware of the work I put into it or the sources presently in the article itself that answer all of your above questions. Cirt (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are so confident in your position, why are you so resistant to additional input? Red is just as adamant about his arguments. Isn't that the reason there is a dispute?

I have read the article. If your suggestion is that there are no sources to support Red's position that additional clarification or revision might be helpful, I don't agree. I think both arguments are reasonable, and I find you to be a bit intolerant of perspectives and opinions other than your own. I also find you to be overly forceful in trying to have your way and in affirming that you are "right".

In disputes like this one there are very likely to be parts of both arguments that are valid, and it may be that what is needed is a reasonable compromise. I intend to abide by the consensus as determined by good faith editors considering the issue, and if your position is upheld in total, that's an outcome that I'm happy to respect; just as I'm willing to respect an outcome that supported Red's positions and arguments, or something inbetween.

I think the article and the debate itself are interesting, but I don't really care that much about the outcome one way or the other (even as I have some opinions on how best it can be handled). Since the two of you can't seem to come to an agreement, I think it's reasonable to get additional input, rather than having the disputants keep going at it. I tried to be neutral, but it may well be that I did a poor job of presenting the issue fairly and accurately and let my own views and perspectives show through in my phrasing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but if you have read the article then I do not see how you have not read the part where it says the Supreme Court of the United States specified that in the Alford plea the defendant must be made aware that the plea can only be made when there is also sufficient evidence to convict. It says that in the article, properly sourced. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hi CoM, allow me to have my input here. Yesterday you proceeded to mark that ANI thread resolved even though you are not an admin and even though there were other people who thought the thread closing was strange. There's a reason its called the administrators noticeboard. I believe it would be best if you let administrators use the Resolve template at the Administrators Noticeboard. This way you'll avoid problems like you did yesterday. Secondly once again, you should not have deleted one editor's personal attack ("attempt to deceive ANI noted"). The obvious problem is this: A replies to B and B insults A. A replies to the insult. Now if you delete the insult and someone reads the discussion later, the conversation suddenly wont make sense anymore and it may may result in the reader being misled and A looking bad. Do you see what I'm saying? You could have struck it out while signing your name so two important things are clear: (1) the comment was struck and (2) who struck it. I hope you can see what I'm trying to say. Other editors also found the comment deletion strange. It is best to attempt to resolve something, provide input or intervene, only when one is asked to help or intervene. But anyway these two issues are in the past so we can move past them.

The main reason I came here is to tell you that if you have issues with an article (Alford plea), then you should voice your specific concerns at the article page. It doesnt help to make generalized claims such as a certain editor is not willing to tolerate different views and so on. That can apply to anyone for that matter. It would be best for you to focus on that article (not the editor) and point out the specific problems with that article. I look forward to seeing your input on the article(s) talk pages. As you said above "indeed I found articles suggesting other considerations may be involved.", I would like to see your sources and what you read so that can be incorporated into the article.--Matt57 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Matt. While only Admins have the tools to block, anyone can weigh in at ANI. As an uninvolved party I don't see anything wrong with my thread closing. And in fact it was affirmed by another editor and an admin and then another admin. Had it been left closed a great deal of arguing and accusations could have been avoided and the focus could have been returned to the article content and sourcing issues.

I believe my refactoring was also proper, the policy page is wp:refactor, although it would have been better to leave a <trimmed> indication so that it was clear something had been removed.

I've tried to stay out of the content dispute and to direct the involved parties through the dispute resolution process as well as directing them to stay focused on the content while refraining from making accusations against one another. In order to further that dispute resolution process along, I did post a request for input at wp:content noticeboard earlier.

Cirt seems upset about that request and is continuing to argue his side, instead of letting others offer their input. I don't find that constructive, but he's certainly allowed to make his case. It can get disruptive when editors refuse to hear other opinions and insist on arguing their own point of view with great intensity.

I may choose to weigh in at some point, but for now at least I'm only interested in seeing how following through on the dispute resolution process works without my getting directly involved in the dispute itself. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case Cirt, but you're entitled to your opinion. I've tried to be fair and have tried to leave my opinion on the matter out of it. That's one of the reasons I didn't think it was important for me to read up on all the discussions, articles, and issues involved. I did so only enough to post what I consider a reasonable and neutrally worded content noticeboard request (although I would have preferred if one of you had done so on your own). I have subsequently done more reading up as per your requests, so I think I am now actually pretty up to speed on the issues and content in dispute. I do have opinions on the content, but I haven't shared them and have no plans to do so, especially since no one has asked me for my opinion (which is always shocking since I have all the answers). You seem intent on trying to scare off anyone who doesn't take your side or who you think may not agree with you, and I think that's unfortunate. I encourage you to keep an open mind and to seek outside input when you find yourself in a dispute.

Even though I rarely need any help, I still like to get various opinions so I can fully consider all the points of view and find out if other people see things my way or might have a perspective that I hadn't considered. Of course it's sometimes frustrating that people remain misguided and fail to see things my way even after I've shown them where they've gone wrong, but it's an imperfect world. Patience and tolerance are virtues. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

CoM, according to WP:REFACTOR, "refactoring of talk pages must preserve the full intentions of the original authors.". If I call someone bad swear words on a talk page and what not and you came and deleted it, would that be preserving my full intentions? Further it says "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.", so you should have reverted your refactoring right after you saw an objection. And yes ofcourse you should have used the Strike markup to show what you had done. But since your deletion did not preserve the full original intent of the author, it was wrong to begin with. This time is ok but you should know that you shouldnt do it in future, unless you (1) strike it (and not delete) and (2) sign your name saying that it was you who did it. Cirt has replied to you on that content noticeboard is waiting for you to reply. As again you should show what specific problems you have about articles and not focus on an editor or explain if or why they are upset and so on. Focus on the article, not the editor. If you're not interested in talking about specific issues in an article then there's not much point in trying to "resolve disputes" because those disputes come out of specfic issues in articles. So I would advise you to reply to Cirt on that noticeboard and follow any further discussion on the article talk pages where you see specific problems, and point out the problems you have. And once again, focus on article issues and not the editor.

"have tried to leave my opinion on the matter out of it." - then perhaps you should withdraw yourself out of this dispute resolution unless people ask you for help and advice? Or you could focus on the article issues directly on their talk pages.

"That's one of the reasons I didn't think it was important for me to read up on all the discussions, articles, and issues involved." - sorry but no one can resolve any disputes without looking at what the disputes are about. It would be like a judge trying to decide on a case without wanting to hear what the defendents and prosecuters have to say.

I urge you now to stop focusing on Cirt now and use the same time and effort to focus instead on the article issues directly on their talk pages.--Matt57 00:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I will consider them carefully. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input CoM. Unlike you, Brumski (talk · contribs) does appear to have done the due diligence and analyzed my work on the article. In two comments, Brumski supports the tremendous amount of referencing and research and writing improvements I have done to the article. See Brumski's comments The sources directly support the text, and Reply to Redheylin. Not much else to say here, perhaps it is best to take a break from this line of back and forth banter. It is clearly not going anywhere. You have your opinion that Redheylin's POV is for some reason right and you chose to post that POV at the content noticeboard despite there already being a thread on the same subject directly above you, and the fact that at Talk:North Carolina v. Alford and at Talk:Alford plea, multiple different third-party editors support my referencing work. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Arbcom Voting Guide

Despite my protestations, secret balloting was adopted for this year's Arbcom election. There's probably a discussion page somewhere, but who can be bothered finding it. And all of the fun questions get removed anyway by ne'er do well clerks (which rhymes with jerks). So for anyone interested here are my opinions:

KnightLago ...Who? Oppose.

Jehochman Strong Oppose. Never heard of him.

Hersfold Strong Oppose. Sounds British. Possibly female. Violates jury of peers theory. We shouldn't be mixing genders on Misplaced Pages.

Secret Strong Oppose. We shouldn't be promoting secrets. Transparency is better.

Mailer Diablo Strong Oppose. "Mail demon" name makes me think of junk mail. I don't like junk mail.

Kirill Lokshin Strong Oppose. Sounds foreign.

Fred Bauder Strong Support per Misplaced Pages Review opposition. Based on that, this editor is probably wholesome and not out to destroy the encyclopedia (at least not right away).

Seddon Strong Oppose. Something insidious about the name Seddon. I don't know what it refers to, but seems to be based on the same root as sedition, sedentary, and sounds a bit like "sit on".

Cla68 Strong Support. Nothing offensive about username. Default to keep.

SirFozzie Strong Oppose. There are enough muppets on Arbcom already. And we don't need any more royals.

Shell Kinney Oppose. Seems foreign, possible British. Shells seem childish or dreamy or something. Too cutesy.

RMHED Strong Support. You'd have to be crazy to oppose RMHED.

Xavexgoem Neutral. Username is a bit weird, but also kind of cool. Unsure.

Coren Strongest possible Oppose Hasn't apologized to me for failing to ban those bugging me.

MBK004 Oppose Might think he's a secret agent. Username lacks originality.

Fritzpoll Oppose Makes me think of polling on the "fritz". As Arbcoms vote on things, I don't think that seems like a good thing.

William M. Connolley Strongest Possible Support We need to shake things up at Arbcom. Bringing in some new perspectives from those who share a willingness to compromise is the way to go.

AGK Strong Oppose Dick.

Kmweber Oppose Seems British. Possibly female.

Steve Smith Support Football players are underrepresented on Arbcom. Smith is having a tough season and is unlikely to make the playoffs, so it's the least we can do to give him something to be a part of that will make him feel wanted and needed.

Rusilik0 Oppose Edits physics articles, apparently. I don't want to be judged by people who are smarter than I am.

Wehwalt Oppose Possibly British.

Unomi Oppose Possibly foreign. Could be female.

I hope this voting guide is helpful. If there's a policy against my posting it, too bad. Suck it. I do what I want! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I will consider them carefully. _matic 07:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

AN

You may find this data useful; it lists the most prolific contributors to Commons in order. David is about number 60; I am 27th, including bots. David certainly knows that when I say something is a featured picture drive it's credible. Both Jake Wartenberg and I have done featured restorations. See this gallery. Durova 07:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Durova. I'm not exactly sure what this message is intended to communicate. I'm well aware that you are an extraordinary contributor. Your WikiCup victory, article contributions, mentorships, and photo work speak for themselves. I was not being sly when I said "with all due respect".

I do think you were taking the socking issue a bit personally and I was trying to provide more perspective. The community seems to be split on whether it's better to be lenient, respectful and to continue extending good faith even to those who mess up, or to severely punish breaches of community trust. For some reason when people slip up here we seem to like to crush them completely. This seems punitive to me, and while there was inappropriate behavior I didn't see anything particularly damaging or disruptive, only promotional and inappropriate.

I think it would be healthier for the community to try to be as kind and reasonable as possible to our contributors even even when they mess up. I don't think keeping order requires throwing the book, so to speak, at people when they mess up. Many others have different opinions and they're entitled to them, however misguided they may be. :) There are patterns of behaviors from other exditors that I think are far more damaging and destructive that go unaddressed. So David's socking to put up his photos doesn't seem to me to be that big of a deal. I think asking him to take a month off and requiring him to use one and only one accoutn going forward is fair enough. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No boast is intended. David's claim was disengenouous. Jake Wartenberg has done historic image restorations before and has featured credits for it. Getting him started on another restoration expressed, He's apologized; let's all get back to content. The image was a photograph of a theatrical backdrop and a man carrying a prop. David's own uploads have pushed the envelope: the set of a gay porn studio during filming, a homeless girl urinating in the street. Yet he was blanking the announcement of a g-rated featured picture drive. I have indeed extended great amounts of respect toward him and defended him in the past. Yet the same day as insulted me on a sock account he was emailing me cordially. If he had any legitimate complaint he could have raised it properly. Instead he was two faced. Yes, I do change my opinion about a person under those circumstances. Durova 06:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 30 November 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll

• News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Misplaced Pages-Books, 2M rated articles, and more

• In the news: Reports of Misplaced Pages's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

More on donuts

I found out a little more about some of the Chinese variations listed on that donut page but I should warn you, without seeing the actual characters involved for all of the Chinese names, it's hard to be sure what was actually intended due to all of the differing pronunciations.

The only "known" thing is that two of the items listed (Jin Doi and Chien Doi) are basically "alternate pronunciations" of jin deui, commonly known in English as "sesame seed balls". I created re-directs for the English names, but I'm not sure the "doi" names deserve them cuz I don't even know if those names are the correct ones (in terms of how Chinese names are written out in English).

Also, "Zhá Miàn Quān" appear to have something to do with fried noodles. Not the "fried rice" kind of fried, but the deep-fried crispy kind. According to my source, "Zhá" is fried and "Miàn" is noodles, but "Quān" didn't seem to fit here cuz the only meaning that made sense was "wide", and no dish that would meet that description came to mind, let alone anything even remotely donut-like. And I don't think the little fried noodles that come on some "mandarin orange salads" count ;-)

Applying similar principles, "Zha Gao" would seem to refer to "fried dumplings", but those are salty more than sweet since the fillings usually have minced pork and mushrooms (see the "Deep-fried Crescent Dumplings" entry on this page). Would those still count as donuts? BTW in case you didn't know and/or were wondering, "gao" and "gok" are the same Chinese character, just pronounced differently in different dialects.

And finally, "saa1 jung1" appears to be more of a description rather than an actual item. "jung1" could mean "middle", and the best guess was that "saa1" refers to the red bean paste ("dou sha") that's often used as a filling. So this phrase could be more akin to "creme-filled" which describes the donut, rather than "boston creme" which would be the name for that type of donut.

If these "best guesses" are accurate, then I'm not sure these deserve their own articles. What do you think?

Cheers, Shymian (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks so much for investigating Shymian. There does seem to be some overlap between fried dough foods and doughnuts. I think many of the redlinked terms on the list need to be redirected or even trimmed. As per your findings, a lot of them seem to be indistinguishable clutter, if that's the right phrase for stuff that isn't properly sorted out or explained in a way that's helpful. I'm planning to sort it out a bit more in futur and your findings will be helpful. Redirects and merges seem like a good idea where applicable. I will try to do some follow-up on "Chinese doughnuts" and see what I come up with. Thanks again. Have a good one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In my view, this wikipedia is incomplete without an account of donut eating in Nepal. The streets of Kathmandu are full of donut vendors, this being the most important Nepali fast food genre. Redheylin (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I too late?

Is it too late for me to sign up to the 2010 Bacon Challenge? Just wondering.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking January 1st will be the official kick-off. But article ideas can be added any time! I also considered starting it sooner, as a Christmas gift to the community, since there are so many synergies with the Doughnut Drive. How are things? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Things are okay. I'm considering creating one of those redlinks on the 2010 Bacon Challenge page. Of course, I won't include it onto the mainspace until March, as the page says. Out of curiousity, is there a prize for the participant who creates the most bacon articles?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure that user:Drmies is planning to put up a $1,000 reward and subscriptions to a bacon of the month club as incentives.

If the article you're going to work on is listed, you might want to note that you're working on it so other editors can help and nobody overlaps. But if you want to keep the bacon all to yourself I understand. We're going to be especially inclusive this year and are trying to get bacon alternatives for the Veggies and those keeping kosher an Halal included in the important event. That's the plan anyway. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An idea

You probably know about the WikiCup, well how about a WikiBacon Trophy if there isn't already something in place? A point scoring system is used and all participants are awarded points for their work on articles. At the end of the challenge, the paritcipant with the most points is awarded the WikiBaconTrophy. Point scoring could be something like this:

• 3 points for every bacon article that you create
• 1 point for every bacon article that you didn't create but helped to improve.
• 1 point for every bacon picture uploaded used in any article (whether you created the article or not)
• An additional 2 points for any bacon article that you created that gets "Good Article" status and an additional 3 points for any article that you created that gets "Featured Article" status. Any bacon article that you didn't create but contributed to that becomes a GA or FA earns you an extra point as well.

What do you think about this proposal?--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. It's been non-competitive in the past. But a Side of Bacon Award and Bacon Bits of Recognition for top contributors might be worth considering. I'm not very "crafty", so someone else would have to work up the award designs. Would you be willing to score the event? Post the idea on the talk page and see what others think. I believe they have it watchlisted and are eagerly awaiting the start. I know Kelapstick has been upset at having to wait so long to get started. Last year we tried to get an all bacon DYK update, but had to settle for having them chopped up and spread out over the updates. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to be the point scorer for the event, hopefully my real-life job leaves me enough time to do this. I will think about more ways to score points and then I'll post it on the talk page. Cheers.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on a picture being worth a thousand words, I think photos should be worth 2 points. And maybe points for DYK nom and for anyone listed as a contributor at a DYK nom would be a way to score points for those asisting with content building. Otherwise it's not clear to me what helping out on an article entails. Is a copy-edit worth a point? Anyway, keep it simple. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks done. Let the feedback begin...--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Between Doc's prize money and awards and the Wiki-trophies, there should be thousands of participants. :) If you compete can you still be score keeper? Hmmm... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I don't expect to win. Just to be involved for the fun of it. I don't mind not competing either but I DO want to be score keeper ;) I intend to compete though. ;)--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see Great Dunmow. Redheylin (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And have an Azalea.

File:PinkAzalea.jpg

It's like an azalea, but the same. Redheylin (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

posted pics... Paalappoo (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. . John Carter (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusing someone of doing something that you are engaging in is hypocrisy. That's not a personal attack. And your history of disruptive and biased behavior towards good faith content contributors is totally unwelcome here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)