User talk:ChildofMidnight/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Clams casino

Dear Child,

I am touched. Thanks! That was really nice, and to be honored with a dish traditional to Italian-Americans only adds to it--you sure have sprezzatura. I'll get on the ref templates when I have a moment. ;) Drmies (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Check it out: [2]. I'm getting a few boxes of 'em. I'd send you some mints if I had your address. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You are a sick man. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, sick, maybe, but I did just receive a letter saying an essay of mine will be accepted for publication after revision! Finally, some good news. Woohoo! I celebrated by having a Russell Stover bonbon, which is all I have here at the office. Later! Drmies (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. Congratulations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Should I get you one of these? I thought about it for my car...until I read the first review. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Barack Obama. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I added that "Obama's relationships with Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko have been controversial. Obama was criticized by Republicans for opposing the surge in Iraq." This is not defamatory and isn't a BLP violation. But your improper warning is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please remove it and apologize. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You were adding in uncited original research, indicated here, here (bottom), here (bottom), and here (bottom). The addition of this equates to edit warring, but since I've given you a sufficient notice below, I'm hoping that it will be sufficient. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that biographies of living persons require reliable sources, not original research or sources from fringe publications. seicer | talk | contribs 16:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You think it's original research to say "Obama was criticized by Republicans for opposing the surge in Iraq"? Please keep your moronic warnings off my talk page. I don't know if you are a POV warrior, incompetent or simply dishonest, but in either case, you should focus on fixing the encyclopedia instead of harassing good faith editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You should strike the above comment. You're on very thin ice here. Wikidemon (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny, because I could have sworn you've been asked repeatedly not to post here. Please stop harassing me Wikidemon. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama article probation

As you are probably aware, the article Barack Obama is under article probation that is detailed here. Editors of such articles should be especially mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, and interaction policies, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT. It is of relevance that you have been edit warring to reinsert a POV-tag, but have done little to detail out why the tag is required and have reverted multiple editors in the meantime. The burden of proof is not on others, but on you to provide reliable citations to your assertions. Drudge Report and associated blogs and unreliable sources do not cut it. seicer | talk | contribs 16:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is disputed. As you can see by the bogus and harassing warning above, any and all mention of Rev. Wright and any mention of a controversy or criticism of Obama is censored from the article. That isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work and until it's fixed the article needs a POV or unbalanced tag. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your bold and principled stand against the whitewashing of the Barack Obama article, and for responding rather reasonably for the unjust criticism directed at you. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks J. We'll see what happens. Clearly the Obama article doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for balance and NPOV. It needs to be fixed. At the very least it should link to the articles dealing with notable criticisms and controversies. I've always believed that both sides of arguments are worth presenting so people can make informed decisions. It's frustrating when a group of editors acts to promote bias and make an important article promotional rather than encyclopedic. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful font of knowledge, and I've enjoyed working on it. I'm encouraged that several editors have stepped forward to try to improve the article's content and provide access to other points of view. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It DOES link to them... took me a long time to find it, though. It's in {{Public image of Barack Obama}}, which is one of about 30 collapsed templates at the bottom.... Linked, but buried. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just as certain editors keep mentioning that there are articles on these issues. There's just no way for the average person using the encyclopedia to find them. The problem is that the coverage in the Barack Obama article is inadequate and the links provided don't get the job done when even veteran Wikipedians have to hunt to find the information they are looking for. It wouldn't take much to fix this, but it seems there are several editors who like to see things they disagree with dead and buried. I'm hoping that there are enough sensible and reasonable editors here that an appropriate compromise can be reached. We'll see. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What's worse is that I started at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and used "What links here" to verify that the main Obama article DID link to it. Then and only then did I go hunting for the text, which I couldn't find in the article itself. Jclemens (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

hey

- don't let anyone take the joy of editing here away from you. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless its me, never forget that I not only own you, but do indeed, and with all privileges thus entitled to me by the office, pwn you. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Scapler did you see all the work I did linking the colonies together? I even got the Chesapeake one moved to a correct spelling! And you haven't reverted my massive rewrite or asked for the rest of my long list of critcisms. Are you okay???? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What joy? Hahahaha. No worries. Just a bit grumpy I suppose. All the personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith will do that to a fellow. Plus I want every possible conspiracy theory front and center in the Obama article and am a right wing wacko conspiracy theorist, don't cha know. Hopefully I'll recover my wherewithal soon and retreat to my little corner of Wikipedia where I can edit in peace with good faith collaborators instead of warring with POV pushers. Speaking of which, now that SA is topic banned do you think I can safely expand the exopolitics article? I'm dying to see if I can sneak the How Does One Speak to a Ball of Light? book back in. Supposedly it's self-published, but come on, how can a book with that title not be notable? Thanks for the note. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And why are you spending such time on trivial matters such as the president (especially one who can walk on water) when there is a multitude of bacon articles that have yet to be created, kudos on the clams casino, although not in any casino around here! I may risk the bacon explosion for the "ethnic food" pot luck we are attending this weekend.--kelapstick (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no comparison. The Jesus article has a lot more criticism in it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

NPA @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airi & meiri

Regarding your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airi & meiri: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Cerejota (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest you disregard the above warning, as it appears to be written by someone whose native language is not English and who apparently misunderstood the meaning of your comment on the Airi & Meiri AfD. --DAJF (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Right on. Cerejota, settle down; no one is suggesting you're guilty of something. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I can sort of see how my comment could be taken to mean something other than the standard meaning, and I think it's an interesting example of a culture gap type misunderstanding (which is ironic since my statement was in regard to not discriminating based on cultural differences).

Unfortunately, no one has helped me write the culture gap article yet, so the world will continue to wallow in ignorant bliss.

I also think my "we shouldn't discriminate against other cultures" comment was a bit cavalier. But I can't read Japanese so it was the best I could come up with at the time to justify my vote. On a side note, I want to take this opportunity to mention that I saw Scapler has weighed in on the Obama issue. I find this absolutely wonderful! I love to see my friends get sucked into inane drama as it makes me laugh and feel much better about myself! Thanks Scapler. You're the best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Although you could argue it's a language gap issue. Which is also not an article. I see Cerejota clarified. I kind of agree with his/her reasoning that the implication is that voting to delete implies a cultural bias. But I can't really think of another way to say that actually. While they may not be notable here they are there? I guess that would be good maybe. "Let's take a broader view and include a broad range of cultural arts that may not be universally notable"? Jeesh. It's a lot of work to be diplomatic. No wonder the UN and Arbcomm don't get anything done. :) Only kidding. Hahahahaha. Arbcomm is great!!! WOO HOO!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Take Care

Please don't use Science Apologist's talk page to have long and involved discussions with users that are not SA. This has caused problems in the past. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the note. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I might have done it again. What am I not supposed to do? Seriously though, blocking for spelling corrections? I have trouble finding the words to describe how inane and disruptive the actions of those sanctioning SA have become. I have no idea if he was playing games or not, but we are supposed to assume good faith. Whatever his reasons for fixing spelling mistakes, he has my blessing for making those improvements. As long as the extent of his supposed disruptive activities in pseudoscience was confined to spelling fixes, I think we should have been thankful and appreciative of our blessings. That those now sanctioning him have so little self-control that they couldn't wait to see if he did in fact escalate his editing to an actual substantial violation of his restrictions makes them look petty and absolutely ridiculous. The argument that he caused this insanity and somehow provoked them into having no choice but to make reports on his spelling correction activities, and the idea that he somehow forced their hands and they had no choice but to block him for fixing spelling errors, is the height of absurdity. What happened to free will? I feel stupid just talking about this nonsense. I fear someone has infilitrated Wikipedia with doctored kool-aid. Why so much insanity? I need a Dr. Dr.???? Where are you? Put down the pulled pork and talk me down from here... And why isn't there an article on Chocolate cake for goodness sake!!! A redirect to cakes? WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009, again

I have commented out your soapbox comment here.[3] Do not reinsert them. You have been warned again and again by a number of editors to tone it down. Please heed that. Wikidemon (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Repost of my comment in question

What do the three edits Feb. 24 have to do with the sock puppetry investigation of COI from 2006 and early 2007? This all seems like a big stretch to formulate a grand conspiracy theory where there isn't any. Editors were aware of the COI back when it happened (years ago) and dealt with it. The article is edited and watched closely now.

Are the only recent edits those three attempted additions to the Barack Obama article? Hardly a high crime it seems to me. What you're really upset about is that someone did an unfavorable (but accurate) story about how all attempts to include any mention of controversies or criticisms in the Obama article were reverted. News flash, many of us have had the exact same experience this editor had. If we block users for editing under "false pretenses" so be it, but lots of editors post on other sites about their experiences here. This hardly seems like some grand scheme to bring Wikipedia to its knees.

This check user investigation, however, and the AfD certainly look like an overeaction that only adds fuel to the fire. Klein said he asked someone to make the edits to see what would happen. He reported on the experience and those he witnessed of other attempts to edit the page that are easily viewed through the history. This hardly seems like something worth making a federal case over. The only mischaracterization is yours: "under false pretenses to incite a block and, through off-wiki agitation, bring disrepute on the project and trigger a major meltdown on the Obama page." The fact is the editor in question arranged for an attempt to make a reasonable edit to grotesquely biased article and reported on the experience. That it's not favorable to Wikipedia is certainly cause for reflection and consideration of how we can improve our handling of issues like this in the future. I know when something messed up is noted on another site and people here are made aware of it there's usually an effort to fix it. That happened in this case, but the guardians of the Obama page made sure nothing changed. So be it. If it upsets and embarasses you as it does me, do something to fix it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jerusalem21 is blocked indefinitely now anyway so this is all moot. Seems like a lot of hoo ha to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

End of repost

Wehwalt blocked the reporter indefinitely. Seems like an okay block to me, although I think the policy on what can and cannot be posted on other sites should probably be made clear somewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Drudge Report

Hi, we've just had a long conversation about the conservative tag there and have some sort of fragile consensus, so please let it be. I wonder if they also had an argument about "liberal" at HuffPo? ► RATEL ◄ 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the article page. No need to say the same thing twice. Also, it's an article about the website, not its owner. And it's also undue weight to put it in the very first sentence as if it's the most significant thing about the website. Again, since you don't seem to mind redundancies, it's already in the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind waiting until we achieve something on the Talk page before installing your version of "consensus"? Sheez! ► RATEL ◄ 08:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My version of consensus is to have the appropriate sentence come at the end of the introduction as is warranted by Wikipedia's guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour on the Drudge Report page is not covering you with glory. I don't find your edits consensus-driven or even useful. ► RATEL ◄ 01:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly notable

Hahahaha!

I went back to that page for a laugh, and there it was - thank you. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is "right-wing pundit" "criticism"?

? THF (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In the US the words "right-wing" and "pundit" have derogatory connotations. I think referring to him in the introduction as conservative would be fair. Thanks for the note. Sorry if I caused edit conflicts. I will leave the page alone for a while. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's a case where the words have multiple meanings so there is some ambiguity. But because some of the meanings are quite negative, their use violates the NPOV policy. For example, right-wing can be used to mean reactionary. I would be surprised to find anyone on Wikipedia referred to as "left-wing" or any leftist journalist referred to as a pundit. Punditry is associated with "talking heads". In cases like this commentator or even critic is I think far more neutral in and conveys the same meaning. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I should have noted that anytime politics are ascribed to a journalist, it is implied that they are not objective and is a way of discrediting their coverage. This is true whether it's George Stephanopolous and Dan Rather, or this fellow. Objectivity is a core value for "fair and balanced" journalism. That's why there's so much dispute over how stories are covered here and elsewhere. See for example the dispute over the location and weight given to the word conservative in the Drudge Report article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Accompaniments

Foie gras with Sauternes wine

Accompaniments sections of what is eaten with the product? People say that other food articles do not have a section of what is eaten with the product. With the exceptions of cornichons and truffles, If we do not, that isd abig mistake, and needs to be corrected imediately.

Hey there, I am not crossed, like everybody else... Little Animal (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The photos for the cornichons article are not great (although the cornichon as lightbulb one is very cool!), so the aritcle may violate the BLP (Biography of Little Pickles) policy. I don't believe in truffles. But I harvested some morel mushrooms once and some shaggy mane mushrooms. And I like the white ones you get at the supermarket. And portabella. But pigs are perhaps best used for other purposes than sniffing out mushrooms... ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Once? How often are you in the woods?

%*()@#%) l (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been stuck in the woods since coming to Wikipedia. I think it's okay to refer to cornichons as diminutive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record I thought I was reading an article about cornichon, but I notice now that it is a redirect from cornichon and about pickles, in which case the photos make a lot more sense. Do cornichons deserve an article of their own? Are they notable? Chocolate cake must come first. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rand Illusion

Haha, I was watching Stephen Colbert's "Word" section while I was reading your comment on Swamiji...check it out on TV or YouTube, and you'll see why I was laughing. Power to the people! Drmies (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bacon shrimp article?

*Some praise from published connaisseurs for bacon shrimp:

• • "Here is divine finger food for the hopelessly hedonistic: one perfect, plump shrimp wrapped up in succulent bacon."
  • "A unique and delicious way to serve shrimp."
  • "The smokiness of the bacon against the sweetness of the shrimp is irresistible."

References

ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Dutch Oven

Smile!

A Nobody^{My talk} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of incivility

I did not consider my recent comment to be a personal attack, and I have further reiterated my point in that thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

YouScjessey would be very wrong. Were it phrased like this in the first place you wouldn't have had an issue. Toddst1 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If it was phrased like that in the first place it wouldn't have been an issue. That it was phrased as an uncivil personal attack on editors with a different viewpoint (and required clarification) shows that it violates our guidelines and is totally inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement - sorry if I didn't make that clear. I've ammended my previous comment to be more clear.Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your post was clear. I just misunderstood and read it as a response to my comments. My mistake. Sorry about that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I still disagree with either of you, frankly. We are talking about people who are clearly way outside the mainstream, and I think the description was appropriate. Indeed, several other commenters couldn't see why you had a problem with it. We are talking about people who think fossil fuel doesn't come from fossils - that sort of thing. Crazy. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether I agree with you or disagree with you as far as your characterizations, we don't call other editors names. The way you've stated your position in your post here and the clarification on the talk page is at least civil.

I don't see how your assessment of people's views is directly related to improving the article. It seems tangential at best. Comments should focus on article content and related issues such as citations, organization and wording. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving you this mess to sort out?

Dude! What is the matter with you? That is an insult to "mess"! Seriously, what to do? Drmies (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

LMAO. I guess it all needs to be redirected to one spot and then deleted, as best I can tell. Yikes. Glad I'm not stuck with that task. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe it's not so bad. A translation tag? Haha. It's really only two articles (but even the titles don't conform to the standards for those articles). The template looks OK, at first glance, but I'm no expert. I am, however, the guy who is about to leave the office! (PS Colbert cracked a "Rand Illusion" joke in reference to poor foreclosed schmucks in financial ruin who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps per Republican request or some such thing.) Drmies (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are much more pressing issues at hand than Saudi-Japanese relations at Wikipedia, such as the controversy afoot at Talk:Rock-paper-scissors as to what the "true name" should be (with or without hyphens, I prefer commas myself), supposedly the integrity of the sport (and I use the word sport in its loosest possible context) is on the line, and the World RPS Society is going to claim authority over the entire game as we know it, not on my watch.--kelapstick (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm on it. I'm working on a proposal that replaces Arbcom with a coin-flip. Too much skill involved in rock-paper-scissors.... oops no commas. Looks like you're on the wrong side, again. Tsk tsk. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Shocking edit to a sacred article

Did you know this?--kelapstick (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm very encouraged by the level of vandalism on that page. It seems to indicate people are finding it. I considered pushing for Dutch oven to be disambiguation page, but I've tried to restrain myself and let the cookery fans have their page. As long as people have access to the vital information they're looking for I'm satisfied. I'm still waiting on you to come up with a photo for the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There are those who would push for the fart chamber to be listed as the primary usage, I highly doubt that you would get a photo from me (at least first hand), as I would be unavailable for posting immediately following execution (of both the gag and myself).--kelapstick (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not for commercial use.--kelapstick (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's looking at you, kid

		The Food and Drink Barnstar
		Awarded to ChildofMidnight for all their work on improving the coverage of food, and especially Americana-food, on Wikipedia. Keep it up! Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's no bacon barstar, but it will work. Keep up the good work CoM.--kelapstick (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Culture gap

Well, it is not what I would call an article yet, but I did find some interesting reading. The present headings are a combination of whatever came to mind while opening far too many tabs with potential sources and scanning the relevant categories. I may not come back to this until the weekend, but have far too many ideas to just abandon it. Feel free to contribute or gut it or whatever if you have a good idea for where such an article should go. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's strange to me that you and Kelapstick use sandboxes. It takes all the excitement and drama out of working against the imminent speedy deletion nominations and other tagging. Okay, now that I've made comments I'm going to read the article. I'm impressed that you worked on it. I've been trying to get Drmies to do something useful for months now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I mainly use sandboxes so I have time to get it up to the 1,500 character minimum for DYK within 5 days of putting it in the mainspace, it allows me to procrastinate, which I have been putting off recently.--kelapstick (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Did I read this correctly? You've been putting off procrastination? Drmies (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You sound surprised?--kelapstick (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the see also section go before the references? I always thought so. Where did you come up with all the see alsos? Impressive. People argue against that section of late, but I think it's great to have a nice area of useful links. Why is WOJB a see also? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, fixed it. There is an Annotated article useful as a cheatsheet for that sort of thing. Using an open sandbox saves me the trouble of fixing everything myself - if I am going to have to deal with edit conflicts, I might as well take advantage of other people's lack of laziness. And the extensive See also is partly also a list of vaguely relevant articles I ran across while mining the current 'pedia. Probably most of those should be converted into links and used in the body. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cabal-approved tipple

Did you know about this use of bacon? Bongomatic 07:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

woooooohoooooooooo!

I'm in love! Drmies (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• One responder: "I am deeply offended by the way this post is objectifying bacon. You are treating bacon as nothing more than a piece of meat." Drmies (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Check out small additions to chocolate covered bacon and a fairly big one (you'll love it--it's cultural) to bacon. OK, time for beer and cheetos! Drmies (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • So, I'm trying to save Just David from deletion--after an hour and a half of going through, reading, and adding references, I start reading the book, and guess what happens on p. 1: "It was June now, and the ashes lay cold on the hearth; but from the tiny lean-to in the rear came the smell and the sputter of bacon sizzling over a blaze." Right on! Drmies (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Cornichon

A gnom

Don’t pick this one!

Good question, they might. Warrington (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Day after day, day after day,

We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.

Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,

Nor any drop to drink.

(The Ancient Mariner)

And a little stardust...

		The Food and Drink Barnstar
		I wanted to give you this first! Don't forget to sign it with four tildes! OK, Warrington (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Where were you? I was missing you... Warrington (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

• TheJazzFan (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
• Stevewunder (talk · contribs) and Kjaer (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
• SteveWolfer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Snowded (talk · contribs) and Idag (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
• Brushcherry (talk · contribs) is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wow. Glad I stayed out of this serious business! Eh...congrats? Drmies (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Alexis Grace and Alexis Grace (singer)

There were no problems with sourcing and references with these two. There were five solid ones for a basic one paragraph stub. The problem is we have people who wanted it deleted anyway, and forum-shopped until they found the right admin, at the right time, to delete it, and protect it from re-creation come-what-may. The problem is the admin-based (instead of writer-based) culture that has developed here. It leads to those who love only to write leaving, which I am in the process of doing. I'm sick of this already. H₂O Shipper 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bacon...

...is for bold people: see Bacon bits, Bacon Salt, and Baconnaise. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done. Forced mergers is how the banking crisis should be handled... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Or the auto industry, now Chrysler is saying they will pull out of Canada if they don't get a bail out...--kelapstick (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, someone put Baconnaise back. Well, it's still in the Bacon article. I've asked for a reason but haven't had a response yet--maybe I'll take it to AfD and see what happens. Oh, I think one solution is obvious: nationalization. Ha! Drmies (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Baconaise is going Galt? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bacon explosion? Snickers salad?

The pot luck decision was Nova Scotia Seafood Chowder...Turned out great even though all the seafood (except for the shrimp) was either canned or prepackaged...surprisingly fresh seafood is not something that is easy to come by here on a Sunday...--kelapstick (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That was not one of the discussed options. I was actually wondering the other night what you went with, but I forgot to ask. The wife nixed pizza-ghetti and glorified rice? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Once the Quebec pizza was off the table I quit trying to be original, she wanted to go back to her maritime roots, apparently my Upper Canadian contribution was store bought buns. --kelapstick (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. Glad you had a good time and were well fed. There's always next time... McGangBang with bacon poutine chili fries? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Kinesiology tape

The actual name of the tape invented by Dr. Kase is "Kinesio Tape" not "Kinesiology tape," hence my changes to the wording. I think the name of the article should be changed to reflect this. That was also my reasoning behind linking the company's website. There's obviously some good info on there even though I didn't cite it for obvious reasons. I'm brand new to wikipedia so I definitely appreciate the help. --Jake455 (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Kinesiology tape and therapeutic tape. That's how it is referred to in most of the sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so articles promoting a particular trademark or product are discouraged as spam (advertisements). If you want to note that he invented a particular type of kinesiology tape and have a source that would be fine. I think he invented the tape and there are various kinds, Kinesio Tape being one. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A more accurate statement would be that there are different types of elastic therapeutic tape which you've already included. The tape Kase invented and the tape that was donated to the olympics was Kinesio Tape. The article is discussing these two things and I think the title should reflect that.--Jake455 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

An article title about one trademarked brand would be too narrow. Are you suggesting elastic therapeutic tape is a better title? I am willing to consider it, but I think Kinesiology tape seems like a good title. Why would we title an article about the subject based on one brand? Wouldn't that be like like calling the tissue article Kleenex? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also call your attention to this [4]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think elastic therapeutic tape would be better. Maybe reroute searches for Kinesio Tape, Kinesiology tape, etc to this article? I'm sure there's a way to do that, but as I said I'm new to this. In my experience with similar tapes, the generic term is elastic therapeutic tape. I think Kinesiology tape is refering to tape made by Kinesio... just a misunderstanding of the name.--Jake455 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest proposing your move idea and the reasons on the article's talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You may have seen that I actually voted to keep the original article, after despamming. Jake, one doesn't have to be a regular on Wikipedia to know when something is PR and when it's not. This article tries to have it both ways--encyclopedic ("kinesiology tape") and PR ("Kinesio tape"). I don't think that'll ever work here. The funny thing is, "Kinesio tape" has a lot of hits on Google News, which is why I voted keep--there may be more meat here than in Bacon Salt, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ChildofMidnight. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See alsos

Lol, thanks for the see-alsos. -Axmann8 (Talk) 05:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Post of the day

[5] ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean you have?--kelapstick (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No way. There are no criticisms. None. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good! Keep it that way! Haha, the local Fox channel reported on a demonstration in Cincinnati, people complaining about too much government, too little freedom, and about how our money was being wasted--and I agree. We should put all our money on a C-130 and disperse it, one half over Wall Street and one half over Iraq. BTW, CoM, I saw your "comment" on that AfD, and I've left a request for Big Brother at WP:ANI to look into your behavior. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's been the budget plan so far, plus another trillion or two of borrowed money (our credit is good right?)to spend on Afghanistan (what is the game plan there again?) plus road paving, and fun energy schemes. No irony in spending money on pork barrel paving projects and fantasy energy schemes. Isn't that what worked so well for Detroit and Chicago (albeit on a much smaller scale)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What you should do is write a book called Criticism of Barack Obama, then ensure it becomes notable enough to pass WP:BOOK, then there would be no problem with the aforementioned link being a redirect. And since you would have become so good at writing notable books, you should also write a book called Main Page, and have it become more notable than the actual main page of Wikipedia, then the main page would have to be moved to Main Page (Wikipedia page). That would be fun, and probably make you a lot of money.--kelapstick (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I Can't believe I did that

I just at the last Golden Oreo and didn't take a picture, than realized there is no Golden Oreo page, nor is there a picture of a Golden Oreo at Oreo. --kelapstick (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And to top it all off McGangBang has been deleted! Where is the justice, if only there were bacon on it, than there would be a noble cause for the bacon cabal, which as far as I can tell has four people in it now.--kelapstick (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that a casino in Elko? I don't care for the name, but the McChicken inside a doublecheeseburger strikes me as an excellent concept. Innovation is alive and well in America!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Could be, I wouldn't know, but I imagine they have a Nugget, since every town has at least one (except for this one oddly enough), I actually pass 3 on my way home from Reno...The Golden Nugget in Carson City has a pretty good seafood buffet once a week (Friday or Sunday, I forget, only went once).

Also Terrible's, they own half of everything here, from casinos (Reno and Las Vegas, and who knows where else) to gas stations (they own 66% of all gas stations in this town), I think they derive their name from the quality of their coffee...--kelapstick (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you "ate" the last Golden Oreo or you were "at" it? Because if you were at a cookie, you need to follow Nancy Reagan's advice... and if it's a casino, you should be home making cookie salad [[6]]. The arguments for keeping the G Dub criticism article and against a B.O. criticism article are pretty funny. Opposite conclusions from the same editors.

I'm still fascinated by the pizza pizza burger (a burger inbetween two pizzas, did you see that picture?). I used to go to Burger Heaven in New York City where they make a delicious pizza-burger and the nice waitress would make me a custom coffee shake (blended the beans intro a vanilla shake). Even as a child I was a food pioneer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I hope you noticed my consistency--delete it all, I say. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I did just eat the last Golden Oreo (my poor typing/spelling is coinciding with an increase in Corona consumption, resulting in a dramatic decrease in mainspace edits...thank god) , I am glad I gave you so much to think about. We had a place in New Liskeard, Ontario called Burgers and More (or B&M Burger), they had 60 different types of burgers, my favorite was the Hawaiian burger, pineapple and sweet and sour sauce.--kelapstick (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds horrible. I guess after growing up on pop tarts with ketchup, pizza-ghetti and poutine you'll eat just about anything? Get this man a prosciutto and buffala mozzerella sandwich from Sal's stat!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Edit Conflict Barnstar
		Because I have never had so many edit conflicts with anybody in my two years at Wikipedia, I award the Edit Conflict Barnstar.--kelapstick (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I also know how much you like those little Icons in warning templates too...enjoy.--kelapstick (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling dizzy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ninja Miners?

Ninja Miners...Found this while category sorting...--kelapstick (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Barney Frank Talk page

Thanks for reverting my revision. I thought maybe I was wrong in removing it; I automatically removed it because what the guy said was so vile, in an article that usually works, but I didn't see that it was a talk page. I try not to delete from talk pages, especially if I'm not involved in the article, so I reverted it, but now I see that statement didn't really have a place there. Just felt the need to explain because I know it might have looked odd that I put back something so horrible.--Susan118 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I understood and it made perfect sense. Your edit summaries are far superior to mine, "tweak" doesn't say a whole lot. :) Thanks for your good efforts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's about time that you had some good efforts COM. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been told it's the thought that counts and I really took it to heart. Thanks for your holiday greetings. I'm wearing green! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day!!!=

Go ahead, green it up!

Once again, it's that time of year where all you other people get to pretend you're Irish and feel as awesome as us real Irish do every other day of the year. So, relish it while it lasts! Happy Saint Partrick's Day! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa...

...someone brought the hammer down! I think he's got them all covered. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lá Fhéile Pádraig sona duit

I saw your quip about "O'Bama" and thought I should wish you lá Fhéile Pádraig sona duit (Happy St. Patrick's Day) as well. The joke in Massachusetts this year is that the Irish are dominating local politics. Not only do we have Kerry and Kennedy as senators, but we have O'Bamagh in the White House and our governor is named "Patrick". --Boston (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Boston. Much appreciated. Diversity is great because we get to celebrate all these holidays and enjoy all the quirks and humorous cultural eccentricities of these cultures getting mixed together at close quarters. The backgrounds and cultures is certainly cause for celebration and good times.

Is the big dig still going on? Because April Fool's day is coming up... Oh and, the Red Sox suck. :) Erin go bragh! ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• See my Red Sox comments here - --Boston (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Fenway is terrific. Nice to have a park in the city like that. Yankee Stadium and Shea are in the middle of nowhere. Speaking of Boston, the Celtics are aight. I like teams that play defense, and Paul Pierce is the man. Some good matchups coming up to be sure. Dallas, LA, and LeBron are all good teams. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

Child, Thank you for your great comments and continued support on my talk page. I look forward to working with you more soon. It is always a pleasure to read your comments. Ikip (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you back? Thanks for your kind words. Make sure not to get mixed up in any nonsense. Otherwise you'll end up like me, grumpy with a big bald spot. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the midwest, but

Check out this dessert. You'll like it. Bongomatic 14:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I want to switch the photos. I think my favorite thing about Wikipedia is all the random stuff that gets articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved your WP:RFAR comment

[7] I took the liberty of assuming you were commenting on the Obama, not the Myth RFAR. --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks G. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Creating a new section in a talk page

Hi. When creating a new section in a talk page (or in a large existing article), please do not format it yourself (==XXXX==), because in the edit history this will read as though you are amending and/or responding to the section immediately above. Instead, click the "new section" tab at the top of the page, write your headline in the Subject/headline field (minus formatting, eg ==) and then write your addition in the main field. In this way, your section will appear independently of the section before it, and editors are alerted to the creation of a new section to which they may wish to respond; alternately they will know they do not have to check it if they are specifically monitoring the previous section on that page. Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I usually try to modify the edit summary. But I will consider your method for future use. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. If you note the edit history of Talk:Barack Obama, you will see that your revision [8] is listed in the history as being a response to the previous section, "Teleprompter", when in fact your intention was to create a new section, "Withdrawal from Iraq". Not only does it appear this way in the history but, more importantly, it appears this way in an editor's watchlist for as long as yours is the most recent edit. Abrazame (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. I should have changed the edit summary to new section, or noted the topic I was discussing instead of leaving the old section mention and using the "comment" notation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

CoM, there is a "New section" or "+" (depending on your settings) at the top of talk pages. If you use this, rather than edit, it asks you for the name of the new section, and you don't even need to use an edit summary—it creates one automatically ("new section: xxxx"). So this is the preferred way of creating a new section. Bongomatic 22:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Mentor!

What should I take from the Arbcom decision? I was kinda of sarcastic flippant jerk, but didn't really do anything wrong? That's my take on it. Espionage Lucy spy ring Battle of Heavenfield and Guaraní Aquifer are areas where i have attempted to expand my horizons, but alas, Espionage would find me in the same situation as the ayn rand page, multiple editors with their own opinions etc. I have no knowledge of the lucy spy ring or the [Battle of Heavenfield]]. The Guarani Aquifer i did edit. Basically because i thought its 2009 and we dont need any George Bush conspiracies anymore. he is out of office.

the lucy spy ring and the battle of heavenfield seem to be poorly sourced. but i have no reason to doubt the article or the authors motivations. both are articles listed for need of improvement. short of becoming an expert on these topics how can i improve on them? neither topic has any comment on the talk page, which leads me to believe no one cares about the lucy spy ring or the battle of heavenfield. Perhaps they don't even exist and some 16 year old made it up to be be funny. Perhaps they are very serious topics with certain historians who are serious wikipedians. I don't know.

I have no knowledge of the guarani aquifer. i just thought it was odd that a geographic region entry would include a random USA hegemony reference. That is my POV, whoever put the usa hegemony reference in...that was his/her POV. But the problem is, no one cares about george bush's land purchases in the guarani aquifer or the guarani aquifer itself. i have no reason to doubt, nor am i particaly concerned, that george bush owns large tracts of land in the guarani aquifer, i just dont see how it is relevent in an article about an aquifer.

People tend to quote wikipedia policies in all their arguments. My problem is they all use the same thing...you violated POV...you violated that...you violated this first...you violated the other thing before i violated the other thing.

Per ARBCOM, i am continuing working with a mentor. i took the comments to heart and want to become a a non sarcastic flippant jerk. Brushcherry (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) brushcherry

If you can stay away from political topics you will have a lot more fun. Focus on topics you enjoy: foods? sports? hobbies? Search for topics. Use Wikipedia as a way to learn about subjects that interest you. Then you can look up sources, read them, and bits based on them, thus making us all smarter and the world a better place. The political topic are just an endless frustration. Months over the word philosopher for someone who developed a philosophy and is discussed extensively as one and who wrote books on the subject. Groan. Don't get me started. Best to just move on... ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Killing Me

I usually respond on my own talk page, but I was going to open up a dialogue with you anyway. Chocolate-covered bacon was fun to make. I will admit I needed a glass of wine before I dare tried it. Let's say I ate it all. See, I like when maple syrup sort of falls on my bacon. But the chocolate on bacon? Only a true culinary expert could understand! LOL. Some expert am I. You know how a peanut-butter cup sort of tastes different then each of its two ingredients? That's how the bacon was.

Thanks for the ideas - I try to keep fit, so I think I will work on the salad. Last night (PST), I was looking over sauerkraut candy. I read several articles, but they do not agree as to if it really contains the named ingredient. Also, yeah, I took Belgian waffle out of its redirect 'status' this morning. I see a pattern here. ^Law _shoot! 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Extremism debate

I'm glad someone is sticking to the issues at hand. It's really strange how people fail to see the difference between a non-notable article and a notable article with POV issues. Please keep an eye on the article after the deletion debate if you wish to help resolve the article issues. Thank you. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandboxes???

I saw one of these at MinExpo International this year

I saw Cookie salad, don't tell me you are using sandboxes now, what is the world coming to?--kelapstick (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I used a sandbox it's true. I wasn't sure about whether the sources would be strong enough. But clearly I was wrong. The subject is critical and notable as all get-out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I expanded and DYK'd Ninja Miners...I liked your latest edit to the Drudge Report, good compromise.--kelapstick (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to compromise. But when you deal with fanaticism, there's not much that can be done. It would be most appropriate to note that bit at the end of the opening paragraph. The changes back and forth now extend to an article on Encyclopedia Britanica, which is rather amusing. I'm thinking that makes it not so much a reliable source? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you calling me a "fanatic"? ► RATEL ◄ 09:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And my Cortez Gold Mine hook passed (even with the off-line source), but they didn't use the awesome picture (see right). I have to get the bottom worked into an article somehow...--kelapstick (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was admiring your photos. The cattle guard is gorgeous and I could almost make out the field being watered. That equpiment photo (at right) is even more awesome, but the person may have been too small to see in a DYK photo. I think that's what happened to the Polkagris photo. Just didn't work that small. I'm not sure what happened to the clams casino story. I think I got robbed. Must have been one of these communists taking away credit for my hard earned work in favor of some news article. What an outrage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ninja miner got approved...wow that is the fastest that I have ever had a DYK checked off. It was the truck picture that I wanted in the Cortez DYK, they actually had one of those set up in the Las Vegas Convention Center if you can believe it (I think that make of truck is currently the largest in the world), actually they had a couple that size, and that shovel below (the one I actually took the picture of), they had about 5 of them in there.--kelapstick (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama article

You have twice added content to the Barack Obama article[9][10] a statement about the passage of a particular piece of legislation. The matter was objected to in an edit summary as being of minor importance / relevance. You are aware of Obama article probation, discussed Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation, by which disputed additions should be discussed on the talk page rather than reverted back into the article. I will revert the section to restore the article to its prior state - please feel free to discuss the matter on the article talk page. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue of balance and criticism has been extensively discussed on the talk page, and has included discussion of the need for the content included in the bit I added. It was neutrally worded and sourced to a New York Times article entirely about the subject. My other edit reverted the removal of details on a key vote. If you don't think it's relevant you are welcome to explain why on the talk page. Wikipedia isn't censored and if you continue to remove sourced content I will have to report your diffs to Arbcom. Please don't post on my talk page except to call my attention to a discussion elsewhere. You have a history of harassing me and I'd like it to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your efforts in rescuing the Devendra Prabhudesai article from deletion. Owe you one :) Cheers --Srikeit 07:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Deletion discussion is not over... see [11] ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you enjoy working on Alan Scott (blacksmith)?

Then help out with Marvin Sutton! Bongomatic 10:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Moonshine is more Drmies' thing. I try to stick with brick oven pizza and food. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Question on AfD - Poochandi

Poochandi is an imaginary character. Its name is usually taken to scare children; like when they refuse to eat or bathe... :) Commonly used in Tamil Nadu and in southern parts of Kerala. Paalappoo (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't heard the song. Don't think Poochandi needs a separate article; it can be added to the "Analogues in other cultures" section of bogeyman as it has the same connotations of bogeyman. Ummakki or umbakki is the word otherwise used in Kerala (Malayalam language). Paalappoo (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

B-ball

Thanks for keeping me posted! I was busy grilling, and I made homemade enchilada sauce. Can't wait for dinner tomorrow. Now I'm going to see what's happening at AfD. You having a good weekend? Drmies (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Marvin Sutton

Hi CoM

What do you mean by "weakly established"? Notability is defined to be:

• significant coverage—numerous full-length articles and documentaries about the subject
• in reliable sources—those articles are by, inter alia, The Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, Gourmet Magazine, and the Biography Channel—in some cases, not just reliable sources, but "sources of record"
• that are independent of the subject—no suggestion that any of the above is linked to the subject

Like it or not (I don't), that is the definition of notability. How is this subject's satisfaction of it weak (compared to topics we know and love that, say, have recipes in regional cookbooks, but not news coverage in national outlets)? I would say that its claim of notability (per the guideline) is stronger than the vast majority of articles that pass AfD.

Bongomatic 02:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

More sources over a longer period of time would be better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Obituaries in sources such as the Wall Street Journal usually indicate notability of an entire life. This guy has for example far more widespread reporting on him than Alan Scott did, and has received coverage for far longer than Bacon Explosion. Bongomatic 00:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, what can I say. I have very high standards. Some other "editors" have endorsed as a keep more strongly, so it looks a good bet to survive. But your enthusiasm for lawbreaking is cause for concern. Bacon is legal in most states. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not in any sharia or kosher states, though. And (at least with the former) those are becoming increasingly relevant. There oughtta be a law against some kindsa laws. Bongomatic 02:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Irfan Yusuf

Have initiated the discussion you refer to, would welcome your input about what changes you identify as controversial so we can work them through. Some of them I suspect aren't that controversial at all, like a reference to his higher educational qualifications, so it would be great if you could point out what the problems are as they are not that apparent to me. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Would really welcome your review of the article as it currently stands, have added a few more references and sentences that bring it up to date. Cheers, --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I can stand before the great COM...

So, I finally made it on to WP:DYKSTATS. Saturday Morning Watchmen got 7,100 views, nothing close to Bacon Explosion's 40,500, but still something, and I'll take it! Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Drmies Penguin eating story did pretty well too. Of course you guys are lucky that Clams casino was never included because of the most inexcusable and outrageous discriminatory bias. Will people dig K-schtick's mining stories??? Isn't part of being a Ninja miner that no one sees you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Pointless ANI report

Whatever. The sources were all discredited, so the point is moot. The newer sources are better, but it still won't be enough to save this ludicrous POV fork. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You've continued to argue that it's okay to remove lists of sources from AfD discussions. As soon as you accept that this behavior is totally inappropriate, particularly as the nominator, the issue will be moot. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The lists of news organs (they were not sources, BTW) was not appropriate. The mistake I made was deleting the list, but I still think the list shouldn't have been there in the first place. Anyway, arguing with you about this is serving no useful purpose, since it is clear your motivation to perpetuate this discussion is just to piss me off. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My motivation is to make sure you understand that listing sources is exactly the type of discussion that is appropriate at AfD and to make sure that you don't engage in the type of disruptive editing you've done recently in the future. You've continued up to this point to argue that it is appropriate to remove discussion of sources (including lists of sources) from AfD discussions, so the issue has remained unresolved. You've now been told by several editors besides me that you're wrong. Your last post here seems to indicate that you may finally have gotten the message. I hope so. Wikipedia takes some getting used to, but Respecting other editors and the discussion process is very important. Making personal attacks is always inappropriate, and changing or deleting the comments of others is almost always inappropriate unless the vanadalism or inappropriateness of the comments is clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you would both return to your respective corners and, for the time being, do your level best to avoid one another. I've marked the AN/I report by ChildofMidnight as resolved and I hope that concludes the matter. Regardless of what Scjessey thought of the list on the AfD, it was not appropriate to delete that content which is acceptable for an AfD discussion. At the same time it was really not that big of a deal, and certainly was not a topic warranting a thread on AN/I (I, like most admins, am skeptical of those who run to AN/I at the slightest issue or disagreement). ChildofMidnight, as an editor who signed up here last November, you might think twice before making statements like "Wikipedia takes some getting used to" to a contributor who's been here since 2005 and with whom you are in a disagreement. That will rarely go over well and only serves to possibly inflame the situation. And Scjessey, while you of course have every write to delete stuff from your talk page the edit summary here is obviously unhelpful and only serves to possibly antagonize.

So, again, please try to avoid engaging one another directly for the time being and if you must do so comment only on content/encyclopedia issues and not the behavior of the other.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. This editor has been highly confrontational and uncivil with me, so I've tried to avoid them and get neutral involvement. I thought the other editor joined in January, but I must have had them confused with someone else. It's hard to believe an editor since 2005 wouldn't know how AfD worked, but maybe they forgot. I disagree with you that disrupting contentious AfD's, making personal attacks and arguing that refactoring is okay are minor. But to each their own. Have a happy every day. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the list from the AfD was, I said, "really not that big of a deal" which is all I said. Personal attacks certainly are a big deal and of course I did not say otherwise because I didn't say anything about personal attacks. My overall point was that, in making an AN/I report about a fairly small issue, or in making an inflammatory edit summary as Scjessey did, the dispute inevitably gets escalated which is not useful. I'm not interested in whose fault it was or who is "right" since no one is really "in trouble" so to speak, I just want the dispute to be de-escalated. Therefore I'd like to see both of you avoid any sort of actions that might provoke the other, and the best way to do that is by avoiding contact when possible. I'm glad you agree with that and hope Scjessey will as well (actually I'll drop a note on his talk page about this now).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I "ran" to ANI to get neutral third party involvement rather than revert this editor's disruptive actions myself because the last time I had cause to interact with them I left a courteous note about a personal attack this editor made on someone else and they reacted in a confrontational, argumentative and uncivil manner, insisting that they were in the right. So I don't think a nice note or a reversion would have worked well in this situation. In my opinion the pattern of their improper, argumentative and aggresive behavior speaks for itself. They've shown that they don't respond well to suggestions, so there is a need for impartial third-party involvement. Let's also remember that they had every opportunity to revert themselves and to correct their error in judgement, but chose to argue instead. Assuming good faith is all well and good, but sometimes when an experienced editor acts maliciously and refuses to take responsibility for their improper actions, they need to be told they're wrong and not to do it again. I could have told them what I think of their actions and behavior or I could have engaged in an edit war over their disruptive edits, but I chose to get assistance from neutral parties in the hopes that they might get the message that they need to shape up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Clams casino

On March 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clams casino, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Bongomatic 08:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Another win for bacon. ^Law _shoot! 09:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And casinos.--kelapstick (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And clams. No more Silence of the Clams.

Hey Child, I've been given this plaque too, for too measly little edits--you're giving me too much credit. Congratulations! Drmies (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the hook should have been ...that the house advantage of clams casino is 3½ percent?--kelapstick (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm clicking on it a bunch of times, will this help its stats? I don't want bacon to ever come in second to history, mining, or comic book stories... Penguins are big, so if we lose to that I can understand. :) Thanks all for your kind words, encouragement, and bad jokes. I couldn't get the hook just right, but hopefully a lot of Italian Americans will want to know more about Narragansett, Rhode Island's signature dish... ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing should come before bacon, remember the founding principle of the Bacon Cabal is "Thou shalt have no cabals before the bacon cabal, unless it is used to further advance the agenda of the Bacon Cabal."--kelapstick (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Amen. Does anyone have any bacon dishes left to do? We may have to look internationally... All I can find are novelties: [12] and [13] and [14] and [15]. And bacon seems to be gaining in respect [16]. "It is a little-known fact that if bacon were provided free to every man, woman and child on the planet — not for a limited time, but in perpetuity —wars would stop, the global economic crisis would cease and the tragedy of environmental despoliation would suddenly come to an end[17]." There is a development called "Bacon Camp" that is worth keeping an eye on. Apparently it's a smorgasbord of all things bacon, but it's not quite established enough. Just found this story [18]. Hallelujah! ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, did you see this? This is the guy who reversed my merge of Baconnaise into Bacon. I asked him for his reasons, knowing there couldn't be many good ones, and I think I was right. What do you think? And what can I do? Drmies (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with them. I think it's okay as a short stubby article. If it's merged in it should be into its own section with a redirect to that section. As this wasn't done with bacon salt and... what was the other thing??? it makes the information hard to find I'm all about access and inclusion. What's the advantage of merging it? Isn't bacon already pretty long? Did you get my bacon in popular culture proposal and my DYK hook proposal for that mountain you've been toiling on? Does the hook need to be modified to note it's a ski resort now? Details schmetails. Oh well. I bet you're sorry you asked me. I can't tell you how happy that makes me. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What I feel problematic about

Your accusation against Ronz is a blatant personal attack as itself. I do think that Ronz strictly abides by the wiki rule, so your accusation is way beyond the line. So even if I want to respect your opinion, your lecturing to me about "what is problematic in my comment" is a bit of irony. I consider you're "generally" a fair editor.(except the recent Obama fiasco) However, your support for Badagnani's hyper disruptive behaviors is just cuddling him or condoning him to make more personal attacks to editors in good standing. His shenanigans and accusations make hard to cooperate together peacefully. I've witnessed his 3RR violation a lot (more than 5 times), but some of them were not reported. Well, if I made a 3RR report him yesterday, he'd not be editing at this time. I've given him many chances to re-think about himself, but well, none can't stop him. Some editors are considering filing a RFCU on him and admins even suggested to do so, so well, let's see.--Caspian blue 19:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I respect your opinion. But I don't think rule quoting in that kind of demeaning way to an experienced editor is very courteous. A note would have been fine, although there's nothing really in the comment worth noting. Maybe a "can we please try to be more collegial?" would have been okay. I haven't commented specifically on any of Bad's edits, so I don't know how you can say I support them.

As far as the "Obama fiasco" you'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about his getting elected? That's very POV. Ha ha ha, ONLY KIDDING! I don't think I've been unfair at all, but I'm willing to listen to opinions to the contrary, but can you be specific as to where you think I'm unfair? Is it your opinion that there are no controversies or criticisms that are notable? YOu don't think it's worth including news coverage that is unfavorable as well as all the glowing accolades and spin? Because I don't agree with that. And I think that the Barack Obama article is very unbalanced and the censoring of details (like any mention of Wright) that weren't positive was disruptive and against policy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to argue with you about the disruptive editor any more. You only have encountered him on a handful of articles unlike me.

As for the Obama fiasco, honestly speaking, your frequent filing to ANI on Obama related matters does not look good and just is highly likely to loose your credibility as an editor. Those complaints are petty small "questions" that could be dealt enough within relevant articles or AFD or with users first. I don't know whether you're republican or not (I hope not thought), I can see Obama probation things almost every day on ANI.--Caspian blue 20:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate filing ANI reports. But when there is clearly malicious behavior sometimes it's necessary. I do so with the greatest reluctance because I'm familiar with how such reports are handled and the tendency to attack the person making the report. But I also have respect for the integrity and principles of Wikipedia, so when I see editors disregarding fundamental guidelines or gaming the system I try to expose it. I agree with you that doing so is not in my interest, but I'm principled to a fault. :) Whatever one's political beliefs, standing up for the inclusion of notable material from all viewpoints is important. Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a discussion has already started. I'm happy to refactor my comments so they don't come off as a "a preachy and demeaning attack", however, I don't believe anything in my comments justify such a label. Quite ironic that my comments are about WP:BATTLE. Still, feel free to demonstrate it was all in good faith by providing some specific details on what in my comments justify such a label. --Ronz (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Ronz. I think a refactor is a good idea (I don't see any good coming from the comment in question). You and Badagnani both edit in good faith, you just disagree and are approaching the situation from different perspectives. Both parties are committed to their opinions on what is appropriate. Ronz, you have a rather strict interpretation of policy, and he has a rather strict adherence to other policies and principles such as IAR that favor focusing on what's best for the encyclopedia and including content that is useful, rather than worrying about technicalities. I haven't offered my opinion on the specific disputes involved because I don't think my views will be appreciated or considered impartial by all sides, so I don't think my opinion will be helpful to resolving the matter. I'm sorry to see the frustration on all sides. Getting caught up in conflicts stinks and it's frustrating. But I hope all those involved can treat each other respectfully and seek to work out a compromise. I don't see any good coming from templating and telling one another how wrong they are on policy. There's a difference of opinion over how policy applies. Some how the content disputes need to get worked out. If I can be any help let me know. Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. Re: "I don't see any good coming from templating and telling one another how wrong they are on policy." I didn't use a template. I didn't tell him how he was wrong. I didn't even tell him he was wrong. I just pointed out that others are not wrong in making certain edits. So now we're clear on what I didn't do. What did I do that you feel justifies being called "a preachy and demeaning attack"? --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I was sloppy in expressing myself, but what I was trying to say was that the communication struck me as being equivalent to a templating. It's hard for me to imagine what good you thought would come of lecturing Badagnanai that editor on wp:battlefield. It just seems provocative, unhelpful and preachy to me.

Eugene started an RFC, so if you think opining on how terrible that editor is, I guess that's the way to do it. I find it an ironic approach since the text of the nomination is itself pointy and attacking, which is what the editor in question is being accused of. Conflict on Wikipedia isn't fun and I have no idea how to deal with editors who are entrenched in their position and unwilling to compromise. It happens all the time. I'm generally happy to compromise, but there are editors here and sometimes groups of editors, who are agenda driven and fanatical. The editor you're dealing with can be very frustrating and difficult to work with, but there's no question they are here to improve the encyclopedia and to improve content, and there's no question that working with them is more useful than working against them. They are a bit fanatical in their dedication to doing what they think is best for the encyclopedia, but in my experience the obstinance can be worked around and an agreement worked out. If a consensus of editors decides their behavior warrants punishment or sanctioning, so be it. That's how things work here. I don't judge you for doing anything you think is necessary or appropriate as far as additional involvement or scrutiny, but I am trying to point out that there is a process in place for resolving the content dispute and that increasing the level of confrontation and spreading it will increase the level of confrontation and spread it. That's my two cents. I'm not that familiar with the specifics of this dispute, but I sympathize generallt with Badagnani's frustration when editors make wholesale deletions. It happens a lot, and it take a lot more time to build and cite than to remove stuff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for having wasted your time. I can only conclude from the discussion above was that you failed to follow WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:BATTLE yourself in labeling my comments "a preachy and demeaning attack". If you're unable to follow your own advise, and unable to follow Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines, then it's best to keep your feelings about others' behavior to yourself. --Ronz (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Time is all I got. If you think a presonal attack is the same as describing someone's edit and approach as being preachy and aggresive, I don't think you understand policy very well. If you don't want my input I certainly understand. The difference between templating someone, and referring to a bunch of policy pages as a way to criticize them is not very substantively different. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

--Ronz (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I love trout! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff

Please do not add possible WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR violations to the Bernard Madoff article again. Please see the talk page for an explanation why those edits are inappropriate. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit in question [19]. If someone wants to comment on why his Dad being a plumber named Zorro, or saying he grew up in a Jewish household instead of saying he had Jewish parents is a BLP, SYNTH, UNDUE, and NOR violation, please do so on the article talk page. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Already done. The issue is the implication that the parents' stock issues have a bearing on the son's behavior. Please read the talk discussion. -- Avi (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Complex edits are sometimes difficult to sort out, but I didn't see a specific statement blaming Bernie's actions on his parents. I am reluctant to support wholesale deletion of referenced content where clarifications and modifications would best serve the encyclopedia. In my experience, many editors will remove controversial material instead of fixing it and making sure it's NPOV. I'm not saying you do that, but I do think your templating me and accusing me of every violation in the rule book instead of trying to work out my specific issues regarding the content changes wasn't the best possible approach. But I could have done more to communicate my reasoning also to be sure. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, CoM. Firstly, once again look carefully, I did not template you, that is pure handwritten text 8-) . Secondly, you may not have seen that Furtiveadmirer was trying to do exactly that, please read his talk page comments. Lastly, your recent edits were actually rather good, nice job! -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to be using the term "templating" loosely. Is there a short form for "policy pushing" or a"ccusing another editor of violating all kinds of policies"? Anyway, I knew where you were coming from. I don't like when my edits get reverted either. Sometimes it takes a bit to work through things and I have no doubt that while we approach things differently we're working for the same end: better articles. Why was the intro of that article chopped down so much? Is it discussed on the talk page? I guess I need to read it all more carefully, but it's not really the most interesting subject to me. I just like to see the most notable and interesting stuff included, rather than objected to on technical grounds. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RALPH "ZORRO" MADOFF

You are a good man!! I love your bi-lateral thinking with both hemispheres. Two many left hemisphere thinkers here. thanx for your support. too many chiefs, not enough indians. in fact, bernie learned everything he knew from his father: he put everything in his wife's name!!

Furtive admirer (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. Make sure to use reliable sources and neutral encyclopedic content, whatever your personal opinions. Thanks for the nice note. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The messenger, Nasi, is interviewed in two articles, one of which is the WSJ which is still for subscription only. give it a few days for free publication. also in new york magazine. now that he is printed, others will come forward. give it a few days...after all, he did use the initial "Z" on his RE documents. by the way, "gibralter" is a tax free haven, and Picard has hired attorneys there to locate funds. everything has significance....

Furtive admirer (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The Law

As you can see, I am a child of midnight as well. Actually, a child of 2am, apparently. And I wouldn't be so quick to think the law wins, the only law I know is taxation. However, in that case, yeah, the law does win. :P ^Law _shoot! 08:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Woodman's of Essex

The sign

The clams

This might be up your alley, I am looking at the clambake to go...How's next weekend sound?--kelapstick (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ha, I was bored, and only stopped because I accidentally closed the Google-tab. There's more to be found, and more work to be done on the article, but I was able to do enough to remove the tags. Oh, next weekend I'm on the road, so maybe the week after? Drmies (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, I smell a DYK in the making...--kelapstick (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we need you to order the deluxe bucket, ASAP for a photo. Tell the wife it's an emergency. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, I'm at a convention! No wife! I'll be in my hotel room if you need me, reading Dante. I added a bunch of books to the article; you can easily expand the list. I was hoping to find something a bit deeper than just the mention of how great it was, but I didn't get past page two of that search, just to add titles for notability purposes. The clambake-to-go section still needs to be (re)written. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

uploading now--kelapstick (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And this--kelapstick (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is another source about the invention of the deep fried clam, rather than the company site. Unfortunately I am tied up today/tomorrow and won't be able to work it or the pictures in. Pictures aren't showing but, but are in the flickr bot queue.--kelapstick (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually had time to tweak that part, and add the source, could we get enough to make Lawrence Woodman 1,500 characters to have a double DYK? At a minimum we should have a stub so we can include him in the Hook.--kelapstick (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How's this for the hook:

Woodman's of Essex, Lawrence Woodman

• ... that Lawrence "Chubby" Woodman is credited with inventing deep fried clams in 1916 at his clam shack that became Woodman's of Essex (sign pictured)?

Created by Dviator18 (talk), kelapstick (talk), Drmies (talk), and ChildofMidnight (talk). Self nom at 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to use the clam pictures but the DYK size doesn't do it justice.--kelapstick (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? A picture of a sign may not cut it. Isn't there a fried clam picture we can use? Maybe it's okay actually. I don't know. It looks okay to me with my sharpened hook...ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice revised hook, swap the clam picture in and see, those are actual calms from Woodman's--kelapstick (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Get someone to photo shop it. Lighten it and crop. Thanks. :) The sign is okay actually as long as they use it. I want to do an article on steamed clams/ steamers... And Drmies and I are going to be working on the critical Bacon in popular culture article soon... ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We are doube DYKd...behold...How is that for collaboration. And no bacon! Sometimes SPAs aren't necessarily a bad thing.--kelapstick (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarity

Please don't refactor others' comments like this; it's petty. I should think you can do better than ad hominem, ChildofMidnight. Skomorokh 20:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bless you Skomorokh, that was a clear cut clarification not a refactoring. Please assume that I act only and always in good of faith. And are you sure you're not confusing petty with funny? Have I mentioned that the title on that thread is a clear violation of policies regarding civility not to mention the stricter rules for an article on probation or whatever that kind of thing is called? Also, I think your use of ad hominem is a bit loose, but I'm not fluent in Latin so I'll have to check with Drmies when he gets back from his conference. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting thy self into trouble again, hmm? Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I was accused of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:Edit warring, WP:POV, WP:BLP, WP:personal attacks and was slapped with a trout, so it's rather an improvement. Things are looking up! What are you up to Scaps? Anything exciting? My real concern is that my jokes aren't funnier, and my response to Skomorokh comes off as snarky. But nobody is perfect all the time!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"vandalism" accusation against Scjessey

Hi ChildofMidnight,

it is one thing that you are inserting your sentence a ninth(!) time even though it had been removed by several other users and there is a clear lack of consensus for it.

It is quite another thing to accuse another editor in good standing of "vandalism" just because their opinion differs from yours. You might want to consider the advice at Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility (end of that section).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

His edit summary says "Reword and clarify", but his edit deleted the entire sentence, all of it. It's a clear case of vandalism. That editor has chosen to follow me to several articles and to troll and bait me with disruptive editing practices. I've tried to show the utmost restraint and patience, but I suggest you take it to a responsible and impartial admin so they can point him in a more useful direction. I also request you not make false accusations against me. I have tried to carefully word the addition and have taken into account the concerns of other editors, as my edit and edit summary show. I also invited editors to reword and clarify the sentence if I didn't get it right. If you choose to take an aggresive and dishonest approach with me that doesn't speak highly of you. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the first sentence of Wikipedia:Vandalism to see why this was not "a clear case of vandalism" - Scjessey obviously thought the article would be better off without the sentence, so it wasn't a deliberate attempt to damage the article. (Btw, I had interpreted his edit summary as demanding that you "Reword and clarify" your sentence yourself instead of letting others do it, so I think this is a misunderstanding.)

I do not know Scjessey's other interactions with you, and I have no interest to dispute or confirm your description, but even if it is accurate it would not advisable to loose one's temper like in this case.

In my view you haven't addressed the WP:UNDUE concern, but let's keep the content debate connected to the article.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Irony

You said yesterday that if anyone in dispute says to you or others something advisable, you consider it an unhelpful and preachy lecture from bad faith or "snide personal attack". You know you're not far from neutral party in this situation, and why you constantly lectured me for the disruptive editor's position? If your goal is to make me angrier after his personal attacks, well you're done very good jobs. I've respected you as a fair editor, but I don't know you at all.--Caspian blue 06:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are assuming I'm impartial because I don't agree with you on this issue, or on the photograph? But I often disagree with Badagnani, and if it was the other way around I would let him know what I thought. I tried to do so respectfully, but if it pleases you I will refrain from commenting further in regards to your dispute with him. I do my best not to take any "side" when making a suggestion like that regarding a dispute in which I'm not really involved, and I was just offering my opinion and perspective. My attachment to the brain freeze article is slight, although I find the dispute interesting and asked a couple of editors I trust for their thoughts on the issues involved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also I did not tell you to please read and familiarize yourself with XYZ policy, which I think is rather pretentious. I tried to let you know what I thought in a respectful comment and wasn't intending to lecture you. Anyway, good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

More frankly saying, I've known you're "not" impartial when it comes to Badagnani. (I know your defending for him when he even harassed AFD nominators and demanded to block them) However except recent cases, I did not care it because those are not directly related to me. I have tried to think of you and him separately because you're writing interesting articles with reliable sources. I think you're too much assuming good faith on him even if he did wrong and anyone were against him while assuming bad faith on several editors in dispute with him. For your information, I was you for a long time as defending Badagnani from other editors. You could be changed at any time if you realize that your good faith does not serve him good. If you feel that he exploits your good-faith helping and constantly nags you to do something for him to satisfy his "broad" curiosity, well, I can draw the future picture. Even though he accused me numerously, and made a bogus file to ANI (ironically for justifying his original research), I did not make an official complaints against him. But well, he is the one cutting the thin string between use. Recovery is too late.--Caspian blue 07:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bezgovo cvrtje

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bezgovo cvrtje. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Signing in hopes this will some day archive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Attention cabal members

Bacon in popular culture is live. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And now there is a merge...doh!--kelapstick (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Bacon in popular culture is not as culturally important to food and drink and the United States as we may have originally thought. if there ever were a Wikiproject Bacon I think that it may top the list there...--kelapstick (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And have you tried out refTools yet, it is a pretty slick way to add citations/references. It's under gadgets in preferences.--kelapstick (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I enabled a bunch of stuff (except for all the goodies I can't use because my browser is part of big brother Microsoft's empire). Where is this ref tool now that it's enabled? I don't really see any changes. I thought I added a clock too, I'm not sure why since I already have on on my toolbar, but I can't find it either. Hmmm... Technology is wondrous and mysterious indeed. As far as ratings go, have you ever tried trusting movie reviews? Only history will be the true judge of bacon in popular culture's enormous importance and signifance to humanity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The clock is handy since I don't know how to convert PDT to UTC time, so you can tell how long ago people made changes, I tried the Wikiedit and wasn't impressed, if you look at tool bar when you are editing (where the button for your signature is, on the far right there are two more buttons <ref /ref> and {{ cite }}. if you want to add "just a ref" click the ref one, if you want to use a citation template use the cite one, it will bring up some buttons to select the type, and gives you places to enter title author ref name etc. It automatically enters the accessdate too, which is nice, I used google chrome, which allows me to use twinkle too, don't know what works and what doesn't with Microshaft.--kelapstick (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

My removal from List of emerging technologies that you reverted

I apologize for the lack of an edit summary, even the automatic one from undo; I've recently returned from a three-and-a-half year wikibreak, and hadn't known that undoing a string of multiple edits doesn't provide a default summary like undoing a single edit does.

Regardless, a look through Special:Contributions/Nirogard should provide ample justification for my initial reversion: while less blatant than the spam he added to dozens of other articles, the entry on List of emerging technologies is still obvious self-promotion when taken in context of his other edits. If it is to remain in the article, it should make at least a pretense of neutrality (for starters, linking to the actual technology instead of to a startup trying to sell it), and someone without a transparent financial interest in the company being touted can add it. —Korath (Talk) 13:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No worries. I looked at that user's contribution a bit afterwards, so I figured that was the reason, but it wasn't clear cut to me. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Toolbar

I don't see a toolbar... ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Above where you edit there is a B I Ab globe large A etc.--kelapstick (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh right on. Thanks. I see it now. A bunch of icons in a row. Very cool. I will try it out, but I worry that Bongo and Drmies won't have anything to complain about if I start using ref templates. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sure they will find something.--kelapstick (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

--GedUK  17:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied and posted DRV here [20]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of edit summary

Forgot to mention I started a talk section on the info with Annette Bongiorno. Soxwon (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied there. Thanks for the note Soxwon. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Red meat article

Thanks for combining same items - sorry, I hadn't seen the duplication. Bob98133 (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese

Glad you found a photo. The holiday is Tết. Bánh chưng are also eaten then. Badagnani (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Comment

Thank you. --Noodle snacks (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Madoff Investment Scandal disruptions

Since we appear to be on the same frequency, please review the history page of the madoff investment scandal page and see if Soxwon (talk)) 's perpetual deletions are warranted. he trails me to different pages all over this website. always deletes never adds facts, like a critical journalism professor. (Sidney Poitier in "To Sir with love") i just reverted his deletions again. he removes facts that are strategic inferences to bernie's motives to "keep the secrets in the family". i think they are relevant. you obviously are respected here and people back off after you make recommendations. thanx.

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that my response will be useful at this time (I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I don't want to add fuel to the fire). I'm glad you think I'm respected and that people follow my recomendations. If only it were so... :) Good luck. I'm watching that page and will try to offer my two cents where I think it will be useful. A short statement on the talk page of why you think that content should be included might be a good start if it hasn't been done already. Good luck. You'll need it. :) Also, I suggest putting something on your userpage so your signature isn't red. Red signatures are like red meat to the lions and raw chicken to the gators here. They love noobs, they taste like chicken. I also recommend working on non-controversial subjects like hobbies, or books or whatever. It's a lot more fun and will keep you saner longer on here.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you change the red on the user page? what does red mean? what color should it be? I am a bit relentless and as long as i have some free time will not stop adding to madoff. all these pirates do is delete, not add. they are the lost boys. i am tinkerbell, trying to maintain some organization! nagle wants to delete the Ralph Madoff page, which i wrote is ok with me, but avi keeps deleting that info on the Bernie Madoff page, which is truly where it belongs. please read notes on avi's talk page.

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Check out the Personal life section. the philanthropy facts are repeated exactly as in the lead. delete one of them for condensation.

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Annette Bongiomo

What should be clarified about this section? I wrote it. Her husband's salary and retirement,( especially if either of them held a Madoff account) are inadequate for her lifestyle in Boca Raton. (where I live) The daily beast/reuters also has an article by an eyewitness employee who saw the payroll computer list and confirmed outrageous salaries.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52J4IF20090320. also, bernie took care of his long loyal staff as if they were family. Annette was not directly mentioned in this article, just an inference of a personal secretary so i did not reference it. it probably was "loveable" treatment, at first, but evolved into employer loyalty as well as avoiding self-incrimination. i didn't include it to imply hush money, just a very needy and insecure employer.

(my opinion: bernie madoff may actually be a type of person, who as a child was chronically disappointed and vowed to please everyone. this ponzi motive may really have been an insatiable desire to be revered for his "ability" to satisfy others, and subsequently receive the admiration and self-respect he couldn't give himself because his parents never did either. his philanthropy and generosity toward others was an addiction. the very thing he needed most--respect and admiration-- is the very thing he could never attain because he was innately dishonest. it may even be a bad "gene".)

Furtive admirer (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Aloe Vera with honey drink.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aloe Vera with honey drink.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC) --— neuro^{(talk)(review)} 17:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User page

How do you do that with your contents box on your user page? Michael Cheng 22:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but as I'm technologically incompetent, I assure you that I haven't set up any special functionality anywhere on my userpage or the content box. The appearance of anything special or noteworthy is purely coincidental. Please let me know if I haven't answered your question and I will try again. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

MySpace an RS now?

Is MySpace now a reliable source that can be used to establish notability now? Why didn't anyone tell me?--kelapstick (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks okay to me except the Myspace profile is set to private :( so it's not very useful as a citation. Also the record company doesn't have a lot of Myspace friends. How many Myspace friends do you need before you're considered notable? I think 23 isn't enough, but maybe if they're really really close friends? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you need 45 Myspace friends to be considered notable. I want to take it to AfD, but I would rather redirect it to Lillix (per WP:MUSIC) since he was a guitarist for them and that is about the only quasi notable thing that he did. Thoughts?--kelapstick (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Be BOLD. Bongomatic 03:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bold is good. You can redirect, speedy, or put us all through an AfD. I support whatever you decide. Use the force. I think the main thing is to handle the poor misguided dreamer with kid gloves and to let them know that the subject needs substantial coverage in reliable independent sources like newpapers, magazine and books. You can quote me on that. And for the REALLY tough ones you can always count on Bongo. He has "steely" nerves for that kind thing. What's on tap for this weekend? Will you be whipping up some cookie salad? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I took bongos advice, was bold and redirected, I have been over and over telling him about the notability guidelines, WP:MUSIC and reliable sources, repeating that he has to actually read them. Anyway lets see what happens.--kelapstick (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are always a cheap. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You think I went with too many sections?--kelapstick (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You really should have logged in for this edit.--kelapstick (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Looked like a reasonable edit to me. I wanted to revert its removal, but I didn't want to get slapped with another fish or vandalism warning or whatever. I'd like to have that at the top of my user:page. Do you think it would be best as a see also, soft redirect, or For other uses... ? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Vietnamese diacritics

I'd like to recommend WinVNKey, an excellent free program that will let you type all the Vietnamese diacritics very easily (and it can also do pinyin, Spanish, French, German, and Nordic diacritics too). Just download it and I can help you set it up. It's very useful because you can even type those accents, umlauts, tildes, etc. in emails, Microsoft Word, Wikipedia, etc. Badagnani (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Macs already do those accents easily COM; just one more reason why I, and my computer, are better than you. :) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean "why I, and my computer, is better than you"? Bongomatic 11:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be "Why me and my computer are better than you". Does the Apple IIc I'm using not count as a Mac? No, you caught me. I got rid of my Apple IIc years ago. This is a deluxe 386. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, ChildofMidnight. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Wikidemon. Thank you.--Caspian blue 03:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

At least it's not about me... yet. There's still time!  :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Banh

This edit is not accurate, because the term is used to refer to a lot of other things other than cakes, such as noodles or rice paper. Can you please revise accordingly? Badagnani (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank lede

Why did you remove this [21], without moving it? Bearian (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My preferred version is along these lines [22] including the New York Times bit and alternative perspectives. The speechwriter bit definitely doesn't belong in the lead. As the other editor has insisted on removing mention of the sections discussing Frank's controversial role in the financial crisis, I don't think it's appropriate to include a very positive assessment from a single (liberal) source. I'm happy to work out a compromise that appropriately reflects the article contents and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines such as wp:lead and avoids advocacy of a particular POV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I missed the "without moving it" part of your comment. That is exacltly what I did previously. But it just gets reverted. If someone wants to add it back to an appropriate section that would be fine. The speechwriter thing is a bit of a stretch, but I'm fairly inslusionist. But as I just get reverted when I've done so it's not worth the bother. The content (sourced) I tried to add to the intro (that's discussed extensively in the article and actually meets guidelines) gets removed all together. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't. It comes off as POV and slanderish which is almost never accepted on a BLP. When looking at the sources two were opinion pieces which is also not helpful. Notable criticism is fine but it has to be NPOV and well-sourced. The only source that was reliable simply stated that Frank had supported Fanny and Freddy "all these years", not exactly a smoking gun and certainly not that notable. That reliable source seemed to have blame for all sorts of folks. There is room for notable and reliable sourced content but we have to keep it within policies including WP:Undue. -- Banjeboi 10:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So modify it to reflect what's covered in the body of the article and what's in the sources and what you think is NPOV instead of just taking it out and putting in your POV accolades. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I really didn't see it as modifiable. You may also want to consider this is a current news event and Frank is being slandered in many media outlets beyond due consideration. I'm fine with the body of the article creeping into a bit of undue material but the lede needs to overview his whole life and career. This financial crisis is not solely Frank's fault not his responsibility to fix it. If you look at President Bush's article you will likely see similar concerns raised but done so neutrally and in portion per wp:Undue. -- Banjeboi 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, childofmidnight. Just because 2 opinions were friendly to him doesn't make it right to put it in the lead paragraph no matter how well sourced. It's like me putting that the National Post said that Donald Rumsfeld was the "greatest President that never was." I know they are trying to promote him for their reasons, but this doesnt belong on Wikipedia. Thanks

Nicholas.tan (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama introduction

Please discuss further changes to the article introduction on Talk: Barack Obama - a discussion has been underway and we need to reach consensus on such changes. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy ChildofMidnight's Day!

ChildofMidnight has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as ChildofMidnight's day! For your DYKs on the most artery-clogging foods on the planet, enjoy being the Star of the day, ChildofMidnight! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

This is great news indeed and cause for massive celebration. I've taken the liberty of reposting this fantastic news as many places as I could think of so that others can share in the good news. Thanks very much. You are very kind. Enjoy my day. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I will be sure to celebrate in your honour today!--kelapstick (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And remember, there's no U in my honor. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The people who pay me can't convert me, so the people who don't pay me will not be able to either! Keep up the good work and good luck getting Bacon mania past the merge discussion.--kelapstick (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! And I'll just have you know that, as far as I am concerned, every day is CoM day. Later, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tala maanam

All I know about this term is that it has something to do with Vaastu, which is about building design. Sorry to say that I don't know what it really means. Paalappoo (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete account

Wondering what this article is all about. From the author's talk page, it seems a previous article on the same subject was deleted. I feel this too has to be either deleted or moved. Paalappoo (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• It was actually an article on Display Magazine, an article that had been—and has again been—speedily deleted as advertising. I moved it and speedy requested the resulting redirect. Bongomatic 02:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of liqueurs

Could you please refactor your comment here. I'm happy to clarify exactly what needs refactoring, if it isn't clear. However, I'm hoping that your comments were just made in the heat of a moment. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking Ronz, but no. I'm happy with my comment. If you think it's inappropriate in some way feel free to report it at the appropriate notice board. I will be refactoring your retitling of my comment which is a clear violation of policy. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, on all accounts. Too bad, because there are a few points worth discussing, but I rather the entire comment be ignored. --Ronz (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that GT's comment should be ignored, or better yet removed. The provocative title is bad enough in and of itself. Maybe you can mention to him/her how inappropriate it is to use an article discussion page in that way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Given GT's extreme patience, I think it's understandable. It's editors jumping in that I feel need to be ignored. --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Ronz, but "editors jumping in" is what Wikipedia is all about. Not always efficient or pleasing to everyone, but that's by design. Bongomatic 02:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jumping in with comments that don't belong, or require heavy refactoring to meet basic behavioral policies and guidelines is not what Wikipedia is about at all. In fact, it's specifically what Wikipedia is not --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Xôi

It must be a weird one, because we've got almost all of the normal ones at Xôi. The Vietnamese are wont to creating new varieties of all their foods, however. Badagnani (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned a free software program that will allow you to type all the diacritics, both Vietnamese and for any other language (very helpful when asking editors to look up etymologies)--did you want to set that up? I'll be happy to help you. Badagnani (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Articleworthy?

Hey old friend! My latest abomination: I Get That a Lot Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me DC. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Batu Hijau mine

See if you can get some pictures for the Batu Hijau mine. That is if you can pry yourself away from baconian controversies. Cheerios.--kelapstick (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

you may have to fly there.--kelapstick (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bike rides

Hey CoM, can you find a way to merge this information into The Strand (bicycle path)? I don't know this stuff well enough and don't have time to learn. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Would you like me to fold your laundry also?  :) Only kidding. First you went after running and now biking. Soon we will be stuck on our couches eating bacon. A perfect world? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I only run if I am being chased.--kelapstick (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We had grits this morning, so I had to fry some bacon too, that's mandatory. I hope to finish this batch soon so I can get to the Niman Ranch, which is really tasty (and preferable for covering with chocolate). And thanks, but no thanks--I'm very picky about how my laundry is folded, and I don't approve of the American way (with the front of the t-shirt facing out, so to speak). On running, I'm with you, Kelapstick. Well, far behind you, probably. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware of this.--kelapstick (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. Is that a specifically Canadian capability? (You know I've never met either a Canadian or a chicken?) Drmies (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bacon and tomato sandwich for lunch, and yes we can turn into chickens at will. You've never met a Canadian? So I guess there is no way you can refute that statement!--kelapstick (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama is a Democrat

Thanks for adding an extra voice into stating the NPOV obvious on Obama's political positions page.  EJNOGARB  17:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re...

...this, thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Woodman's of Essex and Lawrence Woodman

On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Woodman's of Essex, 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.

On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lawrence Woodman, 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.

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Woohoo! Congratulations! Thanks for letting me play! Drmies (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Tobacky

I've rephrase (hopefully) to give preference to the article rather than original synthesis. The article and the quoted bit mentions the promise and the "breaking" of the promise so hopefully all are satisfied. Grsz¹¹ 02:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Thanks for the note. I saw today that calls to tobacco help lines are supposedly increasing. On the other hand, taxes on cigarettes are a big revenue source for Government.  :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And if it's going to healthcare, is there really a downside? It's one of those double-ended swords. You raise the hell out of the tax but hope they still steal or else it's pointless. Of course, I can't really see any significant drop in use forthcoming. Grsz¹¹ 02:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bacon cabal news

Bacon mania strikes wikipedia??? [23] ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! You the man! Drmies (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

<mr burns>Excellent</mr burns>--kelapstick (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And Turbaconducken...can there be such a thing, me hopes so.--kelapstick (talk) 03:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

:)

I found this in Kelapstick's sandbox... User:Kelapstick/Sandbox5 ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC) ‎

I am two steps ahead of you, I had it watched just in case you decided to do something like this, first time hearing the phrase though, help yourself to using it though, I do have a lot on the go there, but a couple are maintenance though. Feel free to expand Dead Hot Workshop in Sandbox 2.--kelapstick (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

...that`s crazy talk!--kelapstick (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking notability for turbaconducken and BaconToday is a "work in progress". Should I take one of them live just for fun? Think of the good times we've had at Bacon mania!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys are sick, AND you're making me hungry. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mies, Dr., do you call the veggie imitation fakon, facon bacon (is it trademarked?) or facon? Is it a notable subject for its own article? I fear that the Vegans and kosher forces may be allied against us. I think we need to offer more in the way of alternatives. There is after all turkey bacon. Also can you have a look on the bacon mania talk page and see if you can make sense of the Shakespearean bacon mania connection. It has something to do with a conspiracy theorist having trichinosis of the brain, as I recall. But that's more your area of expertise. I found a good Weekly World News source for Turbaconducken. I wonder how much more will be needed to establish notability??? So many trials and tribulations. Isn't there a way to grease the gears, so to speak...??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Don't know if you're stalking my edits, or you saw my not on Alansohn's page, but thank you for improving the articles I've worked on recently. Bongomatic 08:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bacon

Noting your apparent love of things bacony, I thought you would appreciate this product. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed comments Obama talk page

I just noticed you removed some comments of mine.[24] First, that is wrong and you need to stop now. You are an experienced editor, who has been warned many times, and are well familiar with dispute resolution procedures - contributing in an arbitration on this very matter. I will reinsert them, but given the disruption I think we should simply close the discussion. If you mess with this anymore we are going straight to AN/I and given your history you are probably asking for a topic ban. You have a history of harassing me and disrupting articles I am editing. You need to stop. Wikidemon (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC) - striking comments re-added by ChildofMidnight after I deleted them. Wikidemon (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comments were inappropriate. That article is on probation and your soap boxing and personal attacks had nothing to do with article content and were totally inappropriate, as is your continuing to post here despite being asked repeatedly not to do so. I'm not interested in your trolling and future comments will be removed. Please abide by the guidelines for article talk pages and behavior. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

AN/I report

Courtesy notice: I have filed an AN/I report here in attempt to deal with a discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, in which you have been involved, that I believe needs some administrative intervention. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic resolution

Is that the proper way to cite Wikipedia articles; the way that guy did? Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Grundle

I encourage you to retract this personal attack, amongst others. It just takes a simple reading of WP:3RR to understand that three reverts are not a requirement for an edit-warring block. Grundle was and has been edit-warring across multiple articles, a particularly disruptive offense. Nish was well within his authority to block Grundle, as he is well aware that what he was doing was wrong. Please try and keep your POV out of the issue and encourage him to contribute constructively, rather than encouraging his accusations. Grsz¹¹ 04:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Grsz, wasn't it you who suggested that he add that content to the Presidential article instead of the policy article? I don't remember the details, but he didn't violate 3RR and was making a discussed and suggested edit. It's a totally bogus block and as I recall it came hours after the fact when the editor wasn'te ven around any more. "Edit warring across numerous articles"? That's a load of bull. That admin has refused to provide diffs, refused to explain, and it's a bogus block. Such is life. I appreciate your note, and as my message was received by its intended recipient (the aggrieved editor and not the Admin involved) I am happy to remove the bit you object to. Thanks for the note. I would appreciate it if you would ask those making personal attacks against me on the Obama talk page to refactor. Consistency is important. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a personal attack. But you have my permission to remove whatever bit you object to. Have a nice evening. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't my suggestion, but I do recall it. He was warring at both Political positions of and Presidency of Barack Obama - the multiple articles I was referring to. Grsz¹¹ 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet the example we both recall was him discussing and following a suggestion made by his adversaries, which I think was the last edit he made. This is what he was blocked for, hours after the fact? Come on. The block was lousy, the unsupported personal attack contained in it worse, and the refusal to explain the block unacceptable. Shit happens. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I wasn't around for all the boring details, I'm just here to look at all the pieces after. The way I look at it, he's lucky he hadn't been blocked earlier. This was a long time coming and hopefully will open his eyes - I think I said something to that effect on his page. Cheers, Grsz¹¹ 04:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So when you're reverting his edits it's okay, but when he's trying to add sourced information it's edit warring? I find that interpretation of the rules a bit of a stretch.  :) I'm always especially appreciative when someone reverting my edits is good enough to warn me about edit warring. Awfully generous of them I'd say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA is a two-way street. I made a mild comment regarding Grundle gaming 3RR (note that "gaming" was not why I blocked Grundle) and you accused me of violating WP:NPA. In response to the block, you said I should be blocked for misconduct and referred to the editors in opposition (me included, I presume) as "slime". Cut the bullshit and clean up your act instead of resorting to petty name calling and unfounded accusations. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You violated the guidelines on assuming good faith, you made a personal attack, you made an unusual block where you acknowledge there wasn't a violation of 3RR, and you didn't properly investigate to see the editor was discussing the changes and was following a suggestion made on the article discussion page. You refused to explain your block and refused to provide diffs. Not a very impressive performance. We all make mistakes. When they're pointed out to us we need to fix them. It's unfortunate you aren't willing to take accountability for yours. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Bacon dishes

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:Pork dishes]]
[[Category:Hypothetical second category]]

I've added at least one parent to the category. I invite you to check my work for accuracy and completeness.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It ain't bacon... but it does deal with a sort of ham:

Please take a look and advise: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Bill Oberst Jr. Thank you., Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I like your tweak. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Whit Cunliffe

If you could take some time out of your busy schedule of annoying the liberal elite, I would appreciate your looking into this guy, see if you can find anything (my quick search pulled up nothing)...--kelapstick (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You needed a source to add this. Sat like that for over a month...I wonder how many people saw that in that period of time...--kelapstick (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well isn't that "dandy". Sunny here today, but supposed to cool off later this week. I saw somewhere that sunspot activity is at a cyclical low. I hope it's warm enough where you and Mies, Dr. are. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Muchos gracias for your work. It was cool this weekend, and the alfalfa watering systems were covered with ice this morning (along with about 100 feet (30.48 m) of field on either side of them), but it should warm up today. Well I have to get back to pretending to be a geologist. --kelapstick (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Frank

I've reverted your recent change to Barney Frank. The lede already describes his involvement in civil rights, of which gay rights is a part; therefore, that addition was redundant. The medical weed addition was trivial, and the removal of the other thing was against overwhelming consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Civil and political rights are a class of rights and freedoms that protect individuals from the government and state power, and assure the ability to participate in the civic and political life of the state." [25] So it's too general and inaccurate to say Frank is an advocate of civil rights. It is accurate and encyclopedic to say Frank is an advocate for Gay rights and medical marijuana, major issues that are discussed extensively in the article. At the same time you and other POV pushing editors acting against guidelines continue to add a quote from Bill Clinton's speech writer to the introduction. Please stop damaging the encyclopedia according to your personal biases and respect the policies on NPOV, undue weight, and notability. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gay rights are a subset of civil rights. You have no consensus for your changes. Please stop using Wikipedia as an organ to vent your hate of the liberal majority. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Your anti-gay agenda is distrubing. I'm not sure why you want to censor Frank's lifetime of work as an advocate for gay rights, but this violates numerous wikipedia policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama

I've reverted your latest round of POV-pushing. There is an ongoing talk page discussion about this very matter, with significant concern for the "Democrat" label. It indicates party membership and/or affiliation, not political position. Democrats have a wide variety of political positions, obviously. Please consider discussing these matters on talk pages before changing articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The connection between party affiliation and political positions is obvious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No. They certainly overlap, but there is no direct correlation. That is why talk page discussion is essential, because things are not black or white in the real world. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Obama's political affiliation and party membership isn't relevant to his political positions is preposterous. I'm not sure why you continue to act against Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but your behavior is disruptive. Please don't post on my talk page. I'm not interested in conversing with you further. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-gay bias

I am not biased against the gay community, and you know this perfectly well. Removing your ill-conceived garbage from articles is not a statement about my own social position. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed your personal views are irrelevant, so you should stop removing notable content that addresses Barney Frank's work as an advocate for gay rights. Whatever personal animosity you have for gays cannot justify this attack on notable content that meets all guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You can desist now from accusing other editors, whom you apparently disagree, of harming wikipedia when they are actually working to unravel wp:soapboxing edits especially on BLPs. If you continue in this manner I will unfortunely be compelled to ask for some admin assist to minimize the disruption. -- Banjeboi 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask for Admin assistance. I am hopeful that a good faith admin will take action against edits that go against Wikipedia guidelines and the harm that these edits do to the encyclopedia. I can't say I'm especially optimistic, because Scjessey has been allowed to continue a campaign of personal attacks and improper behavior for some time now despite numerous warnings from editors and admins).

I don't hold grudges and I'm happy to assume good faith and work with any editor, whatever their opinions, but editors must abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia isn't censored. It's based on the most notable content from the best sources. I encourage you to consider carefully why you're trying to remove content that is well sourced and appropriate per guidelines. This harms the encyclopedia. I'm happy to assume good faith, but I can't see any reason other than malicious motives. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Any review of your edits on the Frank article - I haven't looked throught your other edits - will show you repeatedly added, and re-added, negative, biased and poorly sourced content on the BLP. You campaigned to remove well-sourced positive information while again working to add material against consensus and policy. Wikipedia is not a battleground so I'm unsure if you're looking for a Pyrrhic defeat or what but your energy is likely better spent contributing constructively on subjects you do approve. -- Banjeboi 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As this dispute makes clear you are simply mistaken. Barney Frank's being a leading advocate for gay rights is VERY well sourced and discussed extensively in the article body. Frank is also notable as a leading figure on the banking committee (in the minority and now the majority party). I am very happy to collaborate on NPOV language, but I've been met with wholesale reversions and personal attacks. His advocacy for medical marijuana is also quite notable and discussed in the article. I don't know how you can accuse me of violating NPOV for trying to include straightforward statements. You've reverted them and repeatedly added a quote saying he is a bipartisan bridge builder and another promotional quote about his intelligence, neither of which belongs in the introduction and the bipartisan one is contradicted by the best sources and is quite misleading. Numerous editors have tried to rectify this situation (see also the discussion on the talk page). I'm happy to work with you on improving the article. But so far your efforts aren't consistent with those of a good faith editor. I hope this will change and when the situation improves I know you will find me a very collegial and helpful editor who is happy to work with people of varying opinions and approaches as long as they respect guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First off your editing style on that article directly contradicts your statements. As has now been explained a few times. Gay rights are a part of civil rights and Frank's working on civil rights is in the lede, in fact it's one of the statements you reeatedly deleted and now a concensus has determined it should stay. Frank's role regarding the Senate finance committee is alos in the lede, I know as I put it there. It is part of another statemnet you repeatedly tried to remove and was reinserted by consensus. If you have a reliable source that contradicts he is a bipartisan bridge-builder then suggest it on the talkpage. We do a have a reliable source that he is one - again, a statement you have edit-warred to remove. His advocacy for medical marijuana doesn't seem to be that notable or even remarkable, as such it is discussed in the article and, arguably, may be considered a part of those civil rights that are mentioned in the lede. -- Banjeboi 22:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Needless to say, civil rights is a very broad concept. Campaign contributions, gun rights, the fairness doctrine, polygamy, and property rights also fall under the category of civil rights issues broadly construed. Without clarifying what is meant by the statement that Frank is a supporter of civil rights, the reader is left with an abstract and possibly misleading impression. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mechanism for sloganeering or campaigning. Frank is an advocate of gay rights, it's a major part of his life's work. He's also prominent advocate and legislator for medical marijuana. And he's also been a prominent figure on the banking committee in the minority party and now in the majority party. This content needs to be covered. Particularly in the case of gay rights, where his work is extremely prominent and notable, I can't understand why you are trying to hide or censor this content. It goes against policy and it's inappropriate. Please stop. If you check the talk page you will see that I have already provided sources that dispute a characterization of Frank as bipartisan. Frankly (no pun intended) I think this is fairly obvious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barney Frank. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added a photo that was proposed on the talk page. I have also been diligently using the talk page (as you'd see if you looked there) and have been focused on improving the article despite the personal attacks and talk page comments unrelated to article content. I'm not sure which edits you are referring to with this warning, but I'm quite certain that I haven't violated 3RR and have been scrupulous in trying to avoid edit warring. I welcome your help and input on the inappropriate reversions, inappropriate inclusions, and inexplicable censorship that's taking place in that article. There are grotesque violations of Wikipedia guidelines that shouldn't be allowed to stand. I Also think you should probably explain this warning, as it serves to feed the trolls. All of my edits have been in good faith and consistent with policy. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironically the editor making this inappropriate warning has been blocked for outing someone else. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for Admins to look into this

Hello, ChildofMidnight. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ChildofMidnight on Barney Frank BLP. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 01:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears from the comments posted in that discussion that neutral editors see your report as tendentious. It's clear that the only impropriety has been your reverting against consensus and guidelines. I hope you'll listen to the neutral editors who've weighed in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point that your behaviour has been wholly unacceptable and edit-warring unproductive. Hopefully others will see through your words to your actions. -- Banjeboi 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I haven't been edit warring and have been perfectly reasonable and willing to compromise despite great provocation for editors ignoring guidelines and refusing to work collaboratively. I'm sorry to see you've chosen to ignore the helpful comments that suggested you were in the wrong and that my edits were perfectly reasoanble. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

homosexuality edits

My main concern was the unqualified assertion that homosexuality is an orientation. It is a lot more than that. Then there were some stylistic issues, I thought you were too terse at the beginning. I did like your last change, about "the community that shares them". I was a bit rushed when I reverted, that should stay. Haiduc (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

okay, I was just trying to improve the grammar and clarify the wording. The first sentence seems to dangle that bit after the comma in a confusing way. I'm happy to address the issue of asserting it's a sexual orientation. Not sure whether to reply here or on your talk page. Thanks for your response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I goofed! The one thing I liked about your edit cannot stand, because you edited a citation, quoted from a professional source. And I still am not happy with the phrasing at the beginning. "Sometimes described?!" Please fix. Haiduc (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I reverted myself. I'm really lost as far as what the objection is. The article has a sexual orientation box on it and says "As an orientation,..." but you're saying that simplifying the wording and saying "Homosexuality is a sexual orientation..." is somehow objectionable. I think this edit is really the way to go [26]. I don't see anythign objectionable and I think the citations and complex quotes should be moved out of the lead anyway. It seems poorly written and VERY confusing to me. That's what I was trying to fix. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

thanks for your kind words. J. Van Meter (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thisiswhyyourefat.com

A tag has been placed on Thisiswhyyourefat.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mhking (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That was the fastest deletion I've ever had. Check out the article...

Thisiswhyyourefat.com is a website featuring submitted photos of gluttinous foods. The blog is subtitled "where dreams become heart attacks," and has been covered by newspapers in the United States and France.

It was started by Richard Blakeley, 20, an employee of Gawker Media's eponymous flagship blog and his girlfriend ­Jessica Amason, 27, who works for the AOL blog Urlesque. In just over a month since its inception the website has garnered an "astonishing" 10 million page views and its creators are "in talks to create a book version and exploring TV development deals.

Highlights of the website have included the "30,000 Calorie Sandwich" made of ground beef, bacon, corn dogs, ham, pastrami, roast beef, bratwurst, Braunschweiger, turkey, fried mushrooms, with onion rings and five cheeses, served on white bread, and the Mega Mel Burger made from 1 & 1/2 pounds of beef, 1 pound of bacon, a quarter pound of cheese and fixin's)".

• • Wow! Here and gone already... Drmies (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The Vegans are on a rampage!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

References

{{uncategorized}}

How is something with an entire article about it a speedy candidate within minutes of its creation? Oh well. It will be back... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome!

I'm glad you put the mugshot of Bill Gates back into his article. When I originally uploaded the image, I put it as the main picture at the beginning of the article, but someone else removed it. There's actually a different section of the article that talks about his mugshot, so if you moved the image there, it might have a better chance of not getting deleted. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Grundle. I meant to look yesterday to see if it was you who uploaded it, but I got distracted. :) Kudos! It's a very cool shot. I didn't see a better spot for it, but if there is one by all means go for it. I think it works okay as a depiction of a young B.G. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the image to the section of the article that talks about his mugshot. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Sloths spend their time lazily swinging around in the trees in warm and jungly parts of the world. Dragons and trolls live in caves in cold mountains, sometimes emerging to wreak havoc. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the dragon. I have seen the snow-covered mountains it lives in. Hitchhiking down from the Klagenfurt tunnel many years ago I got a ride from a hippie couple with a baby in a flower-decorated Volkswagen van who were heading for Katmandu. They offered to take me along but when we reached Liubliana I made the conservative or sloth-like choice and headed back west. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if I had chosen the other fork. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

All set!

Sorry about that. It had already been tagged as a speedy and it looked at first glimpse like just another NN website. Thank you SO much for asking so nicely. It's my pleasure to correct my error. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no worries. It's always exciting creating articles and I should probably use a sandbox. But I kind of love the adrenaline rush and the race against time I guess.  :) Thanks PMD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame you. I just did a short article and I still find myself looking over my shoulder; the online refs are thin at best, but it did warrant a rather interesting article in TRAINS Magazine back in 2003. I honestly apologize for not looking to see who had written your article in the meantime. I was in "whack-a-mole" mode and just tagging and bagging. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries PM. I appreciate your help and am going to try to add some more refs to see if I can "beef it up" so to speak... ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Eh..."gluttonous" means "given to gluttony"--not a quality a food item can have, which is why I had changed that. Hate to be an English teacher here, but I am. Later! Drmies (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining sir. I wasn't sure on if or why it had been worded that way, but my trusty Dictionary(.com) indicates you are 100% correct. Is there a better word to use to describe food that it gastrinomically decadent? My concern was the unsourced implication that the website is for gluttons. But it may just be for rubbernecking. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't come up with anything either, which is why I rephrased it the way I did, introducing a value judgment in the process. One would think there ought to be an adjective to describe these foods--but maybe they've exceeded the limits of our language. Leave it out altogether? "Extreme"? Drmies (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman

Honestly, I haven't looked at any of those articles, but I'm sure you're right, that they need copyediting. And I have a simple and characteristically elitist explanation for that: he's a real popular writer... PS I saw Glenn Beck compare Obama to Hitler--funny guy! I thought it was unpatriotic to criticize the president? Drmies (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Song of Wandering Aengus

by: W.B. Yeats

I went out to the hazel wood,
Because a fire was in my head,
And cut and peeled a hazel wand,
And hooked a berry to a thread;
 
And when white moths were on the wing,
And moth-like stars were flickering out,
I dropped the berry in a stream
And caught a little silver trout.
 
When I had laid it on the floor
I went to blow the fire a-flame,
But something rustled on the floor,
And some one called me by my name:
It had become a glimmering girl
With apple blossom in her hair
Who called me by my name and ran
And faded through the brightening air.
 
Though I am old with wandering
Through hollow lands and hilly lands,
I will find out where she has gone,
And kiss her lips and take her hands;
And walk among long dappled grass,
And pluck till time and times are done
The silver apples of the moon,
The golden apples of the sun.

A change of mood. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. I see you removed this. But I liked it, so I hope you don't mind that if I put it back up. It's an astonishingly lovely poem.

I am struck by the floor floor and lands lands bits. Mies, Dr. will have to explain to me why the author chose to disrupt the flow and dreamy wonder with such repetion. Perhaps a reminder that we are never totally free from our physical reality (no matter how deep our sleep or day dreams)?

I had actually thought of giving you some kind of warning template for a posting that isn't suitable for a user talk page as it isn't related to articles or whatever, but I don't know any of the warning templates so I can only give them out when I have one posted somewhere "nearby".  :)

Thanks for the poem. I especially like the change of mood bit at the end. I found it mysterious and am left wondering whether it's a reference to a change in your mood (I see the sloth is back), or if it's a change of mood for me and my page (and I have been having some struggles...), or if perhaps it has something to do with the poem itself. It worked if it was for me. I had a good laugh and a smile. That's the great thing about this system of abstract symbols with so many overlapping meanings, there's just so much room for abstraction, nuance and interpretation. Perhaps Wikipedia is just a metaphor. But for what? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't ask me what it means, or why I thought it was appropriate. You got me thinking about what kind of editor I am, why I play, and I saw you were in some daft dispute, and I had been editing articles about hollow lands and hilly lands, and for some reason that I don't understand I thought I should vandalize your talk page with a poem. Then I thought again. As for Wikipedia, Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold ... And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? Think I need to take a break. A long break. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is that from Grendel? More Yeats. A second coming. Hmmmm... Rather dark my friend. Always darkest before the dawn? A riot of color invoking a glorious new day???ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

While looking for the source of your rhymes I found this:

To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;

To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;

To defy Power, which seems omnipotent;

To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates

From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;

Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;

This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be

Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free;

This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory.

(excerpt of Prometheus Unbound by Percy Bysshe Shelley) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thnks a lot for helping with PAETEC Tower. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gary Kendall and Notability

I thought his notability was fairly well established through the number of awards he has won, but I will endeavour to be more persuasive here.

Dreadarthur (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

An article on the Maple Blues Award might be nice. That article needs citations to substantial indpendent coverage from reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to add enough to the page so that the notability caution can hopefully be removed. Would you please check to see if you agree. Many thanks in advance.

Dreadarthur (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer

There is a debate (within WP:Baseball, of which I am not a member) about the notability of baseball players if they have not played in a major league (US, China, Japan or Korea). Some editors say that anything (it may vary) from A to AAA is considered inherently notable. There is an editor who is mass creating minor league players and some of them went to AfD, some didn't. I was keeping tabs on it, but he is creating them faster than I am able to keep up (busy here these days). Anyway there was a not fully adopted policy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines that didn't include minor league players as fully professional (given the salaries at that level I would agree) and that players who had not played in a major league (listed above) need to pass the GNG in order to be considered notable enough to have a page. I agree with that, I am not a big fan of "so and so passes this policy so they are notable enough to have a page" since all content added is supposed to be reliably sourced anyway, which would allow them to pass the general notability guidelines, making that point moot. So anyway that is where I was keeping tabs of the pages that went to AfD, didn't go and new pages created, which is not current. Also (speaking of AfD) it looks like Mies, Dr. is being accused of canvasing !voters at Bacon mania by offering them uncooked bacon at an AfD...when did Wikipedia lose its sense of humour?--kelapstick (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bacon is serious. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was just dropping by to say that it became clear to me you all had seen my bribe. I apologize for "larding up the discussion," as someone phrased it. Shall I strike through the whole picture? As an act of penance, my kid and I had soft-boiled eggs for breakfast and falafel for dinner--in many ways, the opposites of bacon. And I realize (maybe you saw Aleta's talk page) that I should not have offered raw bacon, but it seemed to me that "cooked to order" would be understood. I always cook to order! (But not steak well-done, that's anathema.) Thanks to both of you for sticking up for me. When I pop my Statin tonight, I'll dedicate it to you. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you seriously plan on making good on your bribes, I wouldn't worry about striking it out. But feel free to send some bacon my way.--kelapstick (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the bacon bribe on the AfD itself was funny and was not canvassing. If he'd gone initially to my talk page and posted it, that would have been canvassing. I trust my disgusted reply to the raw bacon made it clear that I took it with the humor intended, even if some other editors did not. LadyofShalott ^Weave 01:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

important question

Do you think my edit summary in this dif is enough to add it to WP:Food and drink?--kelapstick (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any edible mushrooms down in the mine? Bats with garlic are a tasty snack as I recall from one of Crocodile Dundee's movies. What do the Ninja Turtles eat by the way? The actual turtles not the miners. I notice you didn't have time to finish up the DYK nom but have had plenty of time to save some mine article. Tsk tsk tsk. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought you already completed the DYK nom...--kelapstick (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"You better put up that hook, I am finally seeing some headway in my workload here but won't be able to be active for a while." Ummm hmmm. Priorities Kelapstick. Priorities. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a short attention spa...--kelapstick (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for looking after my user page. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

New Rochelle

In response to your query, the situation with New Rochelle relates to the fact that there is an extremely prolific sockpuppeteer who has a strong interest in New Rochelle (and also Sarah Lawrence College). This is the main user page; that user is banned, and there have almost 300 confirmed socks, plus a couple dozen suspected socks, and numerous IPs (including many open proxies). There are 18 WP:SSP cases, 15 WP:RFCU cases, and about 11 reports at WP:SPI. Much of the content added by these socks (both text and images) looks excellent at first glance, but on closer examination there are many problems. It turns out that the sourcing has been falsified to some degree -- and over time much of the material has been confirmed to be copyvio from some source that is NOT cited in the article. (I think much of the rest of the content is also copyvio material, but we have not yet run across the source.)

Over a year ago I stumbled into the case after I did a new page patrol on a New Rochelle article and tried to interact with a user who I thought was a clueless but enthusiastic newbie -- but who turned out to be a sockpuppet. I have continued to watch articles associated with the case, I have become very familiar with the "fingerprints" of the socks, and I've submitted a lot of sockpuppet reports and requested deletion of a lot of articles and images from this banned user.

The allegations that I'm behaving badly arise from the socks' practice of posting messages on talk pages complaining that they are innocent New Rochelle citizens who have been mistakenly targeted by sockpuppets and are being persecuted by specific users (I am currently the target of choice) who have erroneously identified them as sockpuppets. Recently Doncram (and to a lesser extent a couple of other users) has been taken in by these plaintive messages and has caused a lot of wikidrama aimed at ending what he perceives to be Orlady's persecution of New Rochelle. I, on the other hand, believe that all that pointless wikidrama is fulfilling the vandal's objective of disrupting Wikipedia. Contrary to Doncram's suspicion that innocent people are being targeted, some signature behaviors of the socks have not changed over the last year and each new batch of socks has been confirmed by checkuser (most of the active checkusers and several former checkusers are familiar with the case).

There's plenty of additional history of this case on various pages related to Jvolkblum and New Rochelle. --Orlady (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, no legitimate editors have been caught up in the case. There were a couple times when I was surprised that a checkuser process (sweeping for sleepers) had identified a particular user as a sock (because I had previously determined that the user was probably legitimate), but subsequently I found that some of their edits were characteristic of the Jvolkblum product. Doncram is particularly sympathetic to User:Erin cali70; the first time checkuser was run on Erin cali70, the result was negative, but a later checkuser process came back as "confirmed", and recently when I did a cleanup of Leland Castle (an Erin cali70 creation) I was convinced that I was looking at the work of Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bacon mania

On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bacon mania, 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) 07:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That is so great! Congrats CoM. I don't know if you use Facebook or not, but bacon is completely the rage on there as well. I'm such an ego maniac because I look at the article just to see my bacon on my Target plate. ^Law _shoot! 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Law. Thanks for the comment and for your photos. Anyone who is willing to undertake the risks involved in making and eating something as dangerous as Snickers salad, just so Wikipedia's article can be properly illustrated, is a true hero. Bacon mania's a survival (so far) of our stringent article vetting process is a ray of sunshine and induces hopefulness that the reign of oppression and the terror of censorship may finally be ending for bacon lovers across the land.

I'm rooting for you in your Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Law, but I'm hesitant to weigh in for fear that my influence might do more to sway voters against you rather than for you (the association and company you keep argument). But I think you're a terrific editor with just the right approach and the reasonable demeanor and good judgement to be a sensational Admin. A lot of people will tell you that my roaming free here is a clear indicator that we need more Admins to do the work required to keep Wikipedia safe for children and small animals, and I couldn't agree more. We need some Law around these parts. In fact, I don't think Drmies even wants to be an Admin, but he's thinking of running just so he can block me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't ego maniac an article? Yesterday I discovered there's no rubbernecking on Wikipedia (it's just a redirect) and now this! ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Egomania redirects to egotism. LadyofShalott ^Weave 18:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am an expert on ego mania and the maniacs who practice it. I think it's well worth an article. Any ideas on whose visage to use for illustration purposes? :)