Jump to content

User talk:ChildofMidnight: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Sky Attacker (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 376: Line 376:


In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is accepted when it is not.--[[User:Sky Attacker|Sky Attacker]] ([[User talk:Sky Attacker|talk]]) 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is accepted when it is not.--[[User:Sky Attacker|Sky Attacker]] ([[User talk:Sky Attacker|talk]]) 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

:The policies on edit warring and 3RR are fairly clear and I've copied and posted the entire section that the blocking admin said he based his decision on after numerous editors questioned his inappropriate and policy violating actions and he finally commented here on my talk page as he should have done initially. There was no violation, even the person who filed the ANI report itself notes this. Furthermore:
:*The blocking Admin failed to engage in any discussion.
:*The blocking Admin failed to issue any warnings.
:*The blocking Admin failed to post a notice of the block.
:*The blocking Admin failed to discuss his reasoning and the specifics of why he blocked me hours after the last of my 2 reverts over the course of 24 hours when the policies clearly state that a block should only be done for ongoing dispute or disuption, saying it would be a waste of his time. Yes there were also 2 reverts the day before, and there was also discussion involved and there was no ongoing disruption, there was just another series of ANI reports about unrelated content from an abusive editor who has been engaged in refactoring and a long term smear campaign to harass me and malign my work here.

Read the policies and guidelines and don't come here making bogus insinuations.

We're dealing with clear vandalism and abuse by Wikidemon who has made a series of ANI reports in order to win content disputes as is prohibited by policies and guidelines and who has been repeatedly engaged in "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". That's from the first line of the [[WP:VANDALISM]] policy. Many of the Admins here like to point to policy, but they don't seem to bother reading it or understanding what it actually says.

All of my edits and actions here are in good faith and to improve the encyclopedia. All my discussions are here on Wiki not some Admin only chat channel.

An Admin who would block without discussion or warning and without even bothering to provide a notice (let alone any diffs), and then state that editors should "Remember that 'policy' is descriptive of current community practice, not prescriptive and binding" is obviously either incompetent, a hypocrite or wholly without integrity, as are those Admins who stand by and allow him to openly engage in this type of behavior.

That you've chosen to side with those violating our policies and guidelines, misrepresenting them, and openly expressing their disrespect for what they term "red tape" doesn't speak highly for your judgement or integrity.

Obviously I can't stop any member of our army of Admins from issuing inappropriate blocks on my account, but I will not remain silent while ongoing disruption, capital V vandalism, and abuse continues to occur. I've provided numerous diffs of obvious personal attacks and other clear policy violations, but those who have powerful friends are well protected. I hope that there are enough editors on here with integrity to put a stop to the ongoing abuse, but obviously there are many powerful editors who are very misguided and who brazenly refuse to abide and respect our policies and guidelines. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight#top|talk]]) 22:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:30, 8 May 2009

Quote of the month: "Wikipedia is censored." --ChildofMidnight

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

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)[reply]

It was about time you had one of these

The Surreal Barnstar
For special merits in Dragon breeding.

Irony

Irony!

Steely

Steely!
Even Steelier!

Goldie!

Goldie!

Hi

:)

talkback

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

If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either comment, advise, or contribute. I think something like this should have been done a while ago so as to help stop the bickering at AfDs. I might set it as an essay. What thinkest thou?

Yeah but how do you really feel?

Interesting suggestion, I am guessing that tact isn't their strong suit.--kelapstick (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That list is fairly awesome. Drmies is actually considered the godmother of Dutch rock! ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, and as it happens I am in a TERRIFIC mood today since I've been listening to the Godfather of Soul in the car--baby baby baby! I just noticed that the Occult Bookkeeper had changed that redirect to point to the honorific article, and I changed it back to JB. That was the right move, wasn't it? And BTW CoM, thanks, but that's too much honor. That title goes to Herman Brood, and I'll find (or fabricate) the reference to prove it. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Stone Creek Jamboree

Updated DYK query On April 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stone Creek Jamboree, 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.

rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow CoM, you did it again--made a DYK out of nothing! Congrats! (And by "nothing" I mean here the hunch that something is interesting. WP can use such curiosity.) Your partner in crime and part-time tag-along, Drmies (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Cool Beans! Thanks for pointing out where I needed some citations, I really do appreciate it. I put the ones in that you pointed out and will continue to look for more. I think my biggest problem is my familiarity with the subject, so much I just know and consider common knowledge, thanks. You are a very big help in all this. Unfortunately this will be the last night I will have to spend a lot of time on this for quit a while. I was hoping to get the article substantially standing on it’s own by now. I have deliberately left the tag at the top of the page stating that more citations are needed in the hope that others would join in the editing of the page. A few have, but not with the type of citations and quotes needed to make this a viable document. I thank you for the attention you have given this project. Later, Akbikerpoet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akbikerpoet (talkcontribs) 07:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New DYK?

I have the hook ready, but I need to expand Long Wong's (now there's a double entendre for you) and Dead Hot Workshop...--kelapstick (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Looks like I am getting Long Wong's on to the main page on my own, what do you think of this hook?[reply]

Dead Hot Workshop

Created by Kelapstick (talk). Self nom at 15:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--kelapstick (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know The Refreshments (not personally), they are pretty awesome, and I know some songs by the Gin Blossoms as they are the most popular. In one of the Refreshments songs on Fizzy Fuzzy Big & Buzzy they say "We could all wear ripped up cloths and pretend we were Dead Hot Workshop", that is where I heard of them, I don't know anything they sing...--kelapstick (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Long Swong is funnier than Long Wong's, but that's just me...

While we're on the topic, did you know...

Five Tango Sensations

Created by Drmies (talk). Self nom at 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And did you know...

Created by Drmies (talk). Self nom at 19:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Child, the Kronos Quartet, baby! It won't flip-flop on you! Drmies (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Child, do you really think they'd fall over that? Anyone who knows tango knows that...yeah, verifiability, not truth, I know. But did you click to his article? That lead says it all. I dunno, I'm going to let it stand for now, out of deference to him. You know I saw him, twice, in the Netherlands--it was amazing. But thanks for the suggestion, and we'll see what the folks at DYK think. Oh, did you see Blofeld's proposed DYK? ... that in 2001, Dutch musician and artist Herman Brood committed suicide by jumping from the roof of the Amsterdam Hilton Hotel? Ha! Drmies (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always like something random in DYK hooks so people can learn something. I've never heard of that instrument. Would he be a legend or legendary? No difference? I saw the other hook and I wanted to put the date at the end: that Dutch musician and artist Herman Brood committed suicide by jumping from the roof of the Amsterdam Hilton Hotel in 2001? Good articles and hooks though. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't learning something, why would it be in as a DYK? It would be a "You know".--kelapstick (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...You know that Kelapstick is planning to bum around the house again this weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or chasing a two year old (who just learned to colour on the coffee table) around the house, it is also hard to update using my iPod, which is what I use for the internet at home these days. Oh and I will be looking at houses on Saturday, looks like we might be moving a little closer to Reno. --kelapstick (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...You know that someone has stirred controversy with a massive multi-nom hook at DYK for April 25? Reno seems to be pretty happening. Some good mountain biking up there too. Go Wolfpack? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's awesome. I think they should dedicate the whole DYK update to that. Reno is pretty nice, I am staying at Harrah's next Friday, my dad came down for a visit and will fly out the next day, so we are catching an Aces game the night before. I hope to make it to a few Wolfpack games this fall, I was on the field the other day at a charity walk.--kelapstick (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, that was amazing. That should make the main page just for sheer effort. And I only had to read it twice to get the grammar! (But I've had a few cocktails.) You know what's funny--this afternoon I was thinking about nominating a dab page for DYK, and got to thinking about what would be involved with that. Hey, so you noticed the Herman Brood Hook? Big-time Blofeld found the Dutch connection also, and after the Amsterdam Hilton Hotel now turned his attention to creating stubs for every single Dutch movie ever made. Woohoo! Drmies (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the beverage in question?

Otherwise I can't see how you're qualified to say whether it does or does not taste like urine. 98.238.188.211 (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Except that content is based on citations to reliable sources, and a popular soda that tastes like urine seems highly unlikely. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me with a source stating that it tastes like bubblegum? 98.238.188.211 (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bottle_and_glass_of_inca_kola.jpg to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weewee.JPG Notice something? 98.238.188.211 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon.com's product description [1]. Also, ingredients are sweeteners, so it stand to reason it tastes sweet rather than acidic like urine. There's also [2], [3] puts it in cream soda category, ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.limelife.com/blog-entry/Would-You-Drink-Cow-Urine-Soda/2528.html Cow urine soda... 98.238.188.211 (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If and when those plans go forward I think a Cow urine soda article would be a great addition. As far as the urine like color of cream sodas, I think there are descriptions that are less negatively associated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CoM, if you have a minute, come by my place and have some Inca Kola...there's plenty of room! Drmies (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to reading (not drinking) cow urine soda.kelapstick (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I should smite this IP for blasphemy against the sacred Inca Kola. LOL. bibliomaniac15 03:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Steamed clams

Updated DYK query On May 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steamed clams, 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.

thx Victuallers (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please remember that A7 explicitely excludes schools as a subject it can be applied to. Regards SoWhy 08:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, boy...

...I was fixin' to "borrow" your welcome template, but heck, that's too many pixels. Hey, I saw your user page got roughed up too--at least I got a nice anti-bush picture, which is better than an oversized piece of bacon. You doin' alright? Been staying out of trouble? Or is it like how Falstaff makes fun of Worcester in 1 Henry IV (5.1.28), "Rebellion lay in his way, and he found it"? Drmies (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Truth (painting)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Truth (painting), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truth (painting). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Newross (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that you wanted to prod St. Dunstan Elementary School? If so please add that reason or I will delete the prod template. T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to remove my proposal to delete because I didn't provide a reason then shouldn't you provide a reason besides my not providing a reason? I mean why should it NOT be deleted? Or do you just willy nilly delete deletions? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this article is a stub. Just because it does not have sources, does not mean it's not notable. T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the consensus that high schools are generally notable but that lower schools aren't unless they satify the general notability guidelines? Why not just remove the prod if you think it is or may be notable? Some text outside the infobox would be nice. But it doesn't worry me any if people want to keep it. It doesn't make the encyclopedia worse, but if that school is notable I think every elementary middle and lower school is too. Right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than deletion it should probably be redirected to Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, similar to the way that Brookmede Public School redirects to Peel District School Board. --kelapstick (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure sure Kelapstick, just stroll in with all kinds of sensible suggestions. Why not just redirect? I'll tell you why. I already came up with a perfectly good reason for my prod. So if you wanted to redirect you should have done so sooner. Isn't that right? And so what if it does get redirected. What then? Should we just start "merging" content where appropriate? It's all well and good to take the easy way out all the time, but then what will I have to argue about on my talk page? And all this while notable content that's well sourced is hanging on by a thread at AfD? And after I've gone to the trouble of giving that info box a speedy nom AND now a prod? Hey have you seen the ripped jeans article? What do you think? Merge? Redirect? Can we at least argue about it some first? Thanks. When is your move date? I nominate Mies, Dr. to help you pack everything up and load it onto the U-Haul. Hire people to do the work for you especially if you can get someone else to pay for it. That's my suggestion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to consider my conflict of interest since I went through the Peel District School Board up until grade 9....The content shouldn't be merged, as there is not content in the article that falls outside of the scope of a school directory, which is something that Wikipedia is not. Anyone who is looking for the information provided about St. Dunstan on Wikipedia is better off looking at the school website. Needless to say the prod tag has been removed, so you either have to take it to AfD, slap on a proposed merge or be bold (which is difficult for you I know), and just redirect it. If you put it up for AfD I suggest you post it at WP:CWNB. --kelapstick (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some muthafrucker removed my prod tag? AFTER I added a reason??? When will the madness stop!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may like this

I created another "food list" today, List of salads inspired by your association (?) with "interesting" + weird _ unusual (and never heard of) salads like snickers salad, or Watergate salad. Were you born and raised in the Midwest like Minnesota, Michigan or Wisconsin? I think so. (what is my point for this visit? Please expand contents on the list. :))--Caspian blue 21:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do like that list article. Very nice! I will see what I can do. Thanks for the note. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected your userpage for three days. Let me know if you would prefer it unprotected. LadyofShalott 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the consideration. Looking at the page for the picture that was posted it says something about "copyright by ....", so I'm not sure how it's allowed. Where's Nvcomalist when I need him? Although it was a nice doorway. I wonder what it means...??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I doubt there's a significance to that particular door, but threats like that are in no way, shape, or form tolerable. LadyofShalott 04:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not very nice. Especially when I'm such a sweet and wonderful person. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...And now this page is semi-protected for three days as well. LadyofShalott 04:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puppemaster?

I encourage you to submit a WP:SSP case, especially if you have any clue who the puppetmaster might be. LadyofShalott 04:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Daedalus already filed one. How's that for fast action! Daedalus is good, wow. It got declined for not enough vandalism. :) Maybe there's enough now? I'm no expert on these things. But if someone has an issue with a content dispute or whatever they should just come out and discuss it. I have had some stalking by another user of late, so it could possibly be related... I haven't really dealt with this kind of thing before. Aren't I just supposed to ignore? Oh well. At least no one's hounding me over my copy-editing? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see now. Oh well. LadyofShalott 04:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lock All Your Doors for 3 accounts. If you see more, please add them. Its an obvious sock. --DougsTech (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what it is. Seems like some ritual in the northern part of India. Maybe I can ask friends and confirm. I know about mouthfreshners which have sugar crystals in it. But this seems to be something else. Paalappoo (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it for me. I hope all is well with you. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure to confirm stuff from this part of the world. Shall get back tomorrow. BTW, its past midnight here.. Paalappoo (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's always midnight somewhere... What a crazy world. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little past high noon here and sunny. I'm going to venture outside... Wish me luck! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed your last message yesterday... Couldn't find anyone who knows about Sugar balls, though I had the pleasure of making people laugh...

Its a pleasant sunny evening here... :) Paalappoo (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think people give laddu when they fall in love. Laddus are given on happy occassions, including the birth of a child. The writing in Hindi in the article is "Cheeni Genden", which literally means "sugar balls". (cheeni - sugar, gend - ball, genden the plural of gend) Paalappoo (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Saurus

Just a quick question on your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nissan Saurus. Did you have a merge target in mind? I didn't see a logical one. (My first instinct was merge, and I only nom'd it for deletion after I couldn't find a target). Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Fab. I don't really see a good target. It would have to be merged/ mentioned a few places. Really what it needs are cites for where the content came from, but I see it was created by an SPA. But based on the article it seems notable, so the problem is really verifiability? I'll have a look and see if I can find anything... ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the gsearch I saw lots of blogs and fora, but nothing solid. *sigh* I was sure a gnews search would have turned up something -- the auto industry is really good at press for concept cars. I sincerely wish you luck on a search -- I'd always rather reference and expand than delete if the subject truly is notable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added what I could. See what you think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've got WP:V licked with those (I had seen a couple of them in my search), but I can't we've got WP:N in hand. Of course, being a car made in '87, there might be a ton of dead tree sources out there that haven't been scanned. Where to find them is always the bugbear.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's enough to justify it's existence as an article. You could merge in Nissan Saurus Jr.. Oooh and look I just found this [4]. Can you add that for me? :) There's also this [5]. Not sure what it is exactly, but it seems relevant (or maybe just redundant of the Jr. article?). And this [6] and this [7].ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you realize the second source you listed above is a wiki and the third source is a Wikipedia mirror?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of those sites had cool pictures. :) And there's one in a foreign language so it might say something interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued unwillingness to discuss

I just read your reply that you deleted and I'm afraid it didn't answer either of my questions. Let me rephrase them:

  1. How can you claim "consensus" in your edit summary if there has been no discussion of any kind?
  2. Since you have been unable to justify your reversion, will you consider self-reverting?

These are fair questions, and I should expect you to answer them since you were the reverting editor. On a side note, your claims of "personal attacks" and "unacceptable behavior" are largely baseless. Since you are unwilling to have a proper discussion about this material, choosing instead to simply edit war in clear violation of the article probation, I would posit that it is you behaving unacceptably in this case. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion. You objected to the sourced bit being quoted. You were asked to alter it to your liking. Instead you removed it in its entirety, again, without any further discussion. Yes, I will consider self reverting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not unanimity, I agree with Midnight.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated

Hey, ChildofMidnight. If you have a moment, would you step in a world of Nirvana? I nominated a Chinese food article to DYK (under the name of Buddha Jumps Over the Wall), but the current title is at "Fo tiao qiang" as a result of some editors' edit warring. I want to secure my nom by moving to the intriguing but mysterious name (to readers). Would you comment at Talk:Fo_tiao_qiang#Move to where?? Thanks.--Caspian blue 00:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an ethnic dispute? That would be just the thing to spice up what's otherwise been a very quiet day for me. What do the preponderance of sources call it? I kind of hesitate to put my two cents in really. If you can believe it I'm almost out of change. But I like the name Buddha Jumps Over the Wall. Does it have anything to do with the soup? Is there a Chinese saying that people jump over walls when they're excited? What does Fo tiao qiang mean? That should be enough questions to teach you a lesson about asking for my input. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not an ethnic dispute. I just expanded the article to commemorate the Buddha's Birthday, May 2. The dish is a kind of shark's fin soup, and the Chinese name literally means "Buddha (or a Buddhist monk)" jumps over the wall" to eat the dish because of the delicious smells regardless of Buddhist restriction on food. I hope it clear things out. :D--Caspian blue 01:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. :) By the way, the pink bar to show "your page having been semi-protected" is somewhat a barometer of your popularity. :P --Caspian blue 06:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

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

Note

Hey, perhaps these sources help? Anyway, I mention your proposals at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#List_of_artists_who_have_covered_The_Beatles_2. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 08:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Balls

Nothing sweet about me, particularly after a week trying to save rather dull articles about country X/Y relations. Maybe one of the many editors who worked on Gulab jamun could help. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Stop this, now.[8] I have collapsed this utterly gratuitous personal attack. If you continue we're going back to AN/I. Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't collapse my comments. If you want to play more games at ANI go for it. But I'm allowed to piont out violations of our guidelines and the misapplication of policy pages. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't say we shouldn't use reliable sources, obviously. Please stop playing games and collaborate to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks. As I've requested of you time and again, please continue this discussion by focusing on the content on the article talk page where the discussion belongs and as is standard. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection

You know your fans are very good at filing and inflating things. Why don't you make a subsection under the file, so you can defend your position before things get out of hand. I'm reminding of sharks fin soup.--Caspian blue 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin even did not give you a warning. Scjessey is also being blocked for the same reason. If you want to request for unblock, use {{unblock}} or contact irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia-en-unblock . If you have evidence on Wikidemon, write down here. So he may be judged as well. --Caspian blue 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about being a shark. But I think there's some soup cooking and I'm in it. Hey take care Casp. ;) I'm not wasting any more time on the diffs. They're there for anyone who wants to see the bullshit and game playing with WP:NOTNEWS and wikilawyering and all that other shit that's been going on for far too long. The rules are arbitrary. These jokers are off on some IRC channel deciding what to do. I'm not going to hold my breath for an apology. My edit history speaks for itself, and I stand by it. I'm not perfect, but I edit in good faith. I'm happy to compromise and to work collegially and collaboratively with anyone who edits here in good faith and makes an effort to abide by guidelines. I'm always willing to stand up to censorship and dishonesty and hypocrisy and it's worth it to me to stand up for Wikipedia's guidelines and against vandalism and abuse in all its forms. Wikidemon's actions are a disgrace. Period. His actions speak for themselves. What makes it more disgusting is that not one of these Admins tells him to stop. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you to "collect" as many diffs as you can get for the ArbCom case. --Caspian blue 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hey. Because of your edit warring at the Presidency of Barack Obama article, you've been blocked (not by me). Edit-warring on an article group on probation that's in an arbcom case you're a party to.. well, that wasn't the best move, and it is something I'm going to look at while writing up the proposed decision. Wizardman 02:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article history it looks like I have two edits on it in the last 24 hours. And I also tried to discuss it on the talk page and there wasn't a single content focused comment. There were just the usual attacks on me as an editor. It's funny how personal attacks are okay, but I'm being blocked for this supposed edit warring. It's a joke. The guy files an ANI report and makes personal attacks in it. Nobody says shit. Take that into account in your findings. Waste of time. I knew I shouldn't have bothered with those diffs. It's like the report I filed yesterday with clear personal attacks on another editor. If a guy has buddies in high places they slide through. Doesn't matter what the policies are. Shame on y'all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new quote of the day: "Edit-warring is edit-warring, regardless of how many times you revert". I'd like to see where that is on the policy page. It looks to me like it says "to prevent further disruption" but the Admins involved don't care to follow policy apparently. Maybe it's on the same page that says Admins don't have to give warnings? There was a dispute, editors refused to engage in discussion and made a series of accusations and attacks on another editor. That editor is now blocked. Brought to you by your friendly Admins. LMAO. It's arbitrary. Personal attacks too, it is a personal attack if someone they don't like says something they don't like, and it isn't if it's Wikidemon making the latest round of false accusations and trying to block good faith editors who are trying to include notable content he doesn't agree with. Notice the Admin didn't even bother to leave a note on my page? But some people can violate policy and courtesy and some can't. According to WP:NOTNEWS we can no longer cite newspaper and magazine articles that these editors disagree with. Fantastic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually an entire section dedicated to that. — Werdna • talk 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with people like you is you throw around policy acronyms but (apparently) don't read the actual policies. Here's what it says:
    • Not an entitlement
    • The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.
    • The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.

You're in the wrong. Period. And by the way the second paragraph states "Administrators may block contributors in response to persistent edit warring, to prevent further disruption." When was the last revert on that article? Where is the ongoing disruption? The unrelated and bogus ANI report by an abusive editor? Don't make up bullshit and come here pretending you abided by policy. You didn't. I'll let you find the policy page about providing warnings okay? Think of it as an easter egg hunt. Maybe try reading it after you find it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you can go look for another policy and see if you can get that one to apply in some way. Have fun! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not intending on wasting my time playing a game of nomic with you, policy describes rather than dictates community practice. I blocked you for edit-warring and I stand by the block. It is apparent that any discussion between the two of us will be fruitless, due to our differing approaches to the role of hard and fast "rules" and "policy", perhaps because of our different experiences with Wikipedia. If you feel my block was unjustified, I invite you to contact other administrators or use the block appeal process to seek other opinions. — Werdna • talk 03:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed we have very different philosophies. I make every effort to abide by the rules in good faith and you make up the rules as you go along. You don't want to "waste your time" discussing your block? Then give up the bit. You are totally unfit to be an Admin as your actions violate the spirit and the letter of our guidelines. If Wizardman and the other Arbcoms and Admins don't have the decency to ask you to correct your mistakes and to apologize, then they're just as bad as you are. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should use this time to reflect on your actions learn how to use {{cite}} templates! Bongomatic 05:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Capital idea Bongo! Support(learning the citation templates) --kelapstick (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another award winning Admin

When editors ask him about policies for notifying editors with warnings and block notifciations:

  • Seems pointless to me. The block message adequately explained the block. Any template left on the talk page would add nothing. Remember that "policy" is descriptive of current community practice, not prescriptive and binding. Talk-page notification seems sensible if further specifics need to be given, for reasons such as "harassment", "personal attacks". That sounds like the intent of that section, which then details that if you do not give full specifics of the reasoning behind your block, it is more difficult to explain it later on. In this case, all the necessary specifics are in the block message, and so notification seems like unnecessary red tape.

Beautiful. This joker doesn't understand policy, refuses to follow it, and is running around blocking people when it isn't appropriate and goes against the guidelines and policy pages that he only knows the acronyms to. Somebody give him a barnstar. Where's Baseball Bugs when I need him??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point to where you found this quote, and/or the source? You know how we feel about references on Wikipedia. I'd be more than interested to be informed on the source of this. And yes, you have to tell me, or else it's not valid. Keegantalk 04:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Apologies, found it :) Keegantalk 04:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Admin's talk page. How's that for cojones. This joker blocks me for an arbitrary interpretation not supported anywhere in any policy or guideline, and meanwhile, confronted by his multiple violations of policy, he says he doesn't have to obey any of our policies because they're all just guidelines and not binding on him or her. I think it's especially cool that one of our illustrious Arbcoms is involved. One might think they would try to get the situation corrected and to show some respect for a long term good faith editor dealing with an abusive administrator who is brazen and open about his or her disregard for policy. But that hope would be misplaced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Werdna has now stated that it's too much trouble for him to explain himself and that when it comes to abiding our rules about warnings and notifications: "'policy' is descriptive of current community practice, not prescriptive and binding." He should be banned or at least stripped of his bit. If you want to block Scjessey it should for all his personal attacks and other policy violations, but this block is a joke. Arbitrary bullshit like this is why so many editors have so little respect for the hypocritical and incompetent Admins who get away this kind of nonsense and for their compatriots who stand by them. Disgraceful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody unblock Scjessey already

The only violations here were done by user:Werdna, an Admin, who has stated clearly that he thinks it's appropriate to ignore guidelines he doesn't care for or can't be bothered respecting (and Wikidemon, whose long term abuse of Wikipedia is well documented but ignored by Admins).

Werdna has now stated that it's too much trouble for him to explain himself and that when it comes to abiding our rules about warnings and notifications: "'policy' is descriptive of current community practice, not prescriptive and binding." He should be banned or at least stripped of his bit. If you want to block Scjessey it should for all his personal attacks and other policy violations, but this block is a joke. Arbitrary bullshit like this is why so many editors have so little respect for the hypocritical and incompetent Admins who get away this kind of nonsense and for their compatriots who stand by them. Disgraceful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nobody unblock S. The night is very old, why don't you take a rest of the day? And read this.....--Caspian blue 04:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I've read that bullshit too. I'll bet the blocking Admin hasn't and wouldn't understand it if they did. Basically says the deck is stacked against you but if you humble yourself and admit that you did wrong even if you didn't that it's possible some Admin will unblock you even though the odds are stacked against you. Fuck that. This block should be oversighted and the Admin stripped of his bit. Alternatively he could unblock and apologize. But fat chance of that happening. Anything less is inappropriate and I'm not going to be a party to any kind of charade over this bullshit. If Admins can't be bothered to follow the rules, can't be bothered to act respectfully, can't be bothered to communicate and show restraint in solving disputes, and can't be bothered to enforce the guidelines when they're clearly being violated, then that's on them. I do my best. And when I make mistakes I try to fix them. I can't control how others excercise their values and judgement or lack there of. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a nice picture, to remind us of the happy place

Oh say can't you see..?
That reminds me of the Spinal Tap clip on the same page as a sign language video of how to say bacon I saw today and thought of notifying you about. It seemed sort of trivial in the end so I refrained. But what an exciting day! Bacon mania came to an end. One of the most abusive and sleazy Wikipedia editors managed to get me blocked with an abusive report full of personal attacks and false accusations after he refactored to add an unrelated matter that some admin with an itchy trigger finger, who I've never come across before, decided to issue a couple blocks for based on an imaginary policy violation even though there was scant edit warring and no disruption. But the unique take on policy, it applies arbitrarily to others and not at all to them, is a classic.
I did manage to create a couple articles. Although you my friend got me in trouble with Shallots, another Admin who seems to have a half full/ half empty glass of integrity (I'll leave it up to you which way you choose to view it) after I tried to copy one of your massive citation templates for an article titled bacon mania that was used in the bacon mania article into the Heather Lauer article, only to find out, after wrestling with a not in the citation template and trying to figure out why it showed up in the source on google news... that the cite wasn't in fact to the bacon mania article called bacon mania but was simply the ref name you gave to some OTHER article. I actually remember thinking it was confusing when we were working on that article but I guess I was too lazy or confused at the time to fix it. So of course you tripped me up as usual. But it's okay. I mostly forgive you. And of course I'm more encouraged than ever to use my highly advanced referencing technique... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake? I'm taking that to AN/I right now, m-er-f-er! Hey I'm sorry about that--but yeah, these names are picked somewhat haphazardly and things may get confusing (esp. for others) if more references are added that also need names. Pardon me. Mea culpa. Maybe listening to some Roy Buchanan will put you in a forgiving mood. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crickey. Kronos Quartet discography is FA status? When it rains it pours. Whoever is behind that obscenity should ban hammered. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Morgan

Since I think you are still blocked I will bring this reply up here, a Mitch Morgan is bourbon whiskey with fried bacon as a garnish. See this source from J-D's Down Home Enterprises.

I've been blocked? With no warning and no notice from the blocking administrator? Shocking! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just laid out a challenge at Mies, Dr's page, get eight bacon articles DYK worthy simultaneously, and have a whole bacon DYK update...thoughts?--kelapstick (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You and the Dr. should be blocked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right.--kelapstick (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To do

Sugar balls. Delete or remove the bit about gifting. Create Modak which seems to be legitimate and interesting and doesn't have an article. [9] and [10]. Or better yet, redirect Modak (sweet rice flour dumplings) to Indian sweets, add the info there, and redirect Sweet balls there too (although I hven't seen that terminology used so even as a redirect it's not especially useful). Namaste. This source says Modak is a type of karanji (links ot dumpling). Thi site says Karanji are quite similar to ‘modaks’, but have the shape of the 4th day moon.[11] And this source says any food offered to the Gods is a [[prasad]. Modak also appears to be a fairly common surname related to the "Modak (sweet dealer)"? Hmmm... The plot thickens! This says they symbolize Mahabodhi or Supreme wisdom. So it makes sense I'd be working on them... And it's strange people aren't offering me food all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should Hollywood Palladium be added to Streamline Modern article? Mention Johnnies to Minnaert. List of sources removed/ censored? BRC? Khalidi evidence. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and edits upon the rejected statement. Such an action is disruptive to Wikipedia. Thinking one has a valid point does not confer the right to act like it is accepted when it is not.--Sky Attacker (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policies on edit warring and 3RR are fairly clear and I've copied and posted the entire section that the blocking admin said he based his decision on after numerous editors questioned his inappropriate and policy violating actions and he finally commented here on my talk page as he should have done initially. There was no violation, even the person who filed the ANI report itself notes this. Furthermore:
  • The blocking Admin failed to engage in any discussion.
  • The blocking Admin failed to issue any warnings.
  • The blocking Admin failed to post a notice of the block.
  • The blocking Admin failed to discuss his reasoning and the specifics of why he blocked me hours after the last of my 2 reverts over the course of 24 hours when the policies clearly state that a block should only be done for ongoing dispute or disuption, saying it would be a waste of his time. Yes there were also 2 reverts the day before, and there was also discussion involved and there was no ongoing disruption, there was just another series of ANI reports about unrelated content from an abusive editor who has been engaged in refactoring and a long term smear campaign to harass me and malign my work here.

Read the policies and guidelines and don't come here making bogus insinuations.

We're dealing with clear vandalism and abuse by Wikidemon who has made a series of ANI reports in order to win content disputes as is prohibited by policies and guidelines and who has been repeatedly engaged in "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". That's from the first line of the WP:VANDALISM policy. Many of the Admins here like to point to policy, but they don't seem to bother reading it or understanding what it actually says.

All of my edits and actions here are in good faith and to improve the encyclopedia. All my discussions are here on Wiki not some Admin only chat channel.

An Admin who would block without discussion or warning and without even bothering to provide a notice (let alone any diffs), and then state that editors should "Remember that 'policy' is descriptive of current community practice, not prescriptive and binding" is obviously either incompetent, a hypocrite or wholly without integrity, as are those Admins who stand by and allow him to openly engage in this type of behavior.

That you've chosen to side with those violating our policies and guidelines, misrepresenting them, and openly expressing their disrespect for what they term "red tape" doesn't speak highly for your judgement or integrity.

Obviously I can't stop any member of our army of Admins from issuing inappropriate blocks on my account, but I will not remain silent while ongoing disruption, capital V vandalism, and abuse continues to occur. I've provided numerous diffs of obvious personal attacks and other clear policy violations, but those who have powerful friends are well protected. I hope that there are enough editors on here with integrity to put a stop to the ongoing abuse, but obviously there are many powerful editors who are very misguided and who brazenly refuse to abide and respect our policies and guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]