User talk:ChildofMidnight

Wiel Arets

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

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

Awards

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

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

References

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

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

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)

It was about time you had one of these

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For special merits in Dragon breeding.

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)

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)

Barney Frank lede

Why did you remove this [1], without moving it? Bearian (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My preferred version is along these lines [2] 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)

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)

Obama article

You have twice added content to the Barack Obama article[3][4] 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 [5] 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: [6] and [7] and [8] and [9]. And bacon seems to be gaining in respect [10]. "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[11]." 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 [12]. 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 [13]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Irony

Steely

Steely!

Even Steelier!

Goldie!

Goldie!

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 [14]. 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)

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)

Drudge report

Per your edit,[15] which I am reproducing here because it does not belong on the articlte talk page:

Describing the good faith comments of inexperienced editors as rants violates several guidelines including the one about personal attacks Wikidemon. Please try to focus on the content issues he has brought up instead of soap boxing. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You just restored a clearly inappropriate conversation to the talk page. Do not make wild accusations against me, and do not use article talk pages to complain about other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 02:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)