Jump to content

User talk:Ched/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Neutral opinion

Hi Dave. To be honest I probably won't have time to look for a few days. — Ched :  ?  05:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot NG

It's a really bad idea to block that bot given the number of vandalistic edits it reverts every single minute. Furthermore, you left autoblock on, which means that potentially all the bot operators and every single other bot on cluenet (including several archival bots) are now autoblocked. I've undone the block, since ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) does not appear to be making any more false positives than usual. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey if someone can get a handle on this that's great - if you want to unblock and keep an eye on it please do. I agree we want to "FIX" this .. but we don't want it chasing of folks if it's broken either. I'll leave it up to you RE .. whatever you think is best is fine by me. — Ched :  ?  20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason to suggest the bot is operating outside of what is approved by the BAG? We know it catches some false positives, it's the nature of an ANN - which is explained on the bot's user page - the level of FPs that is acceptable was adjusted before approval for BAG sign-off. Right now it's not doing anything worth of a block in my opinion. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Reaper Eternal seems to be on top of it now, so I'm fine with that. I just didn't want Little skynet there to go around falsely accusing folks of vandalism and chasing off real people. But since I'm utterly ridicolous and clueless by putting "people" ahead of "bots" - then I'm content to walk away and let you folks handle it. — Ched :  ?  21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Subst please

Ched, thank you for the barnstar, did you see my reply? Please start over and subst the template, it's getting a little embarrassing the way it says "I, Darwinbish, would like to present you". Nobody else can fix it, y'know, that wouldn't get it to say your name. Oh, and right now, see how it says User:MelbourneStar would like to present me!! (No, they sure wouldn't, they think I'm a vandal.) You see the principle? That's how {{REVISIONUSER}} works, it puts the name of the person who wrote the last "revision" on the page. These templates are too clever for their own good. darwinbish BITE ☠ 11:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC).

The sock is correct, Nobody can fix it and did. NE Ent 11:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
[Db snorts at "the sock", and thanks NE in her own inimitable way. ] So why didn't Nobody keep a proper watch on my interesting and charming page, and fix it weeks ago? "Fewer than 30 watchers"[1]—mortifying! 'shonen has 476! I'm being ignored here! Just get your act together, everybody! darwinbish BITE ☠ 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
That's cause User:Bishonen is an awesome knows-the-wiki-rules-but-puts-people-first admin and you're an attention seeking ... er ... walking smoking fish?? Jester of the court (sock) 15:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
[With icy menace] Attention seeking, walking, smoking, biting. darwinbish BITE ☠ 16:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
  • Hi there little Darwinbish - sorry about that ,whole "subst" thing, I just never really got the full measure of "templates" and such, so I guess I kinda screwed it up. (consensus may be that I'm doing that from time to time.) Thank you very much Ent. for fixing that for the little Ms. 'Shonen's family member. It took me just a bit to work up the energy to actually pop open my "wiki" page this morning, so I'm glad you were able to help her out. Hope I have the gender correct there .. I think Darwinbish is a "she" and DarwinFish is a "he" - but perhaps I have that one backwards as well. (No idea on User:Bishapod, and haven't seen that family member around in ages.) Anyway - I saw that my email said I had a talk page message to respond to, but I'm glad it got resolved. Hope everyone has a great morning/day/evening/night. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hah, you don't seem to be the only one missing Bishapod.[2] [3] Coincidentally, that was about gender, too.:-) He's frantically busy sewing fishapod plushies for Tex's new baby, see recent events on my awesome talk and db's talk also. You're sounding a little down, Ched. Can't blame you really (hope you saw this, at least, also PumpkinSky's post.) Bishonen | talk 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC).
rrawwrRRR ... Master miss much lately. Have to clean off watchlist moar better. See things that make him feel better today though. He have appointments over next few days .. may be offline a bit, but he happy to have good people around him. Glad little stupid is staying busy though. He disappointed that steward say such things too; but know that there no use in crying about it. 'Zilla #2 must make rounds now .. have words with little ankle bitter. — ChedZILLA 16:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Request

Sorry to bother you. Could you please take a look at User talk:Avario87 and Talk:Grace Jones? I am approaching burnout with a user who has done just about everything it is possible to do wrong. I have been editing the article so blocking isn't an option, even if that is called for; it probably isn't. Some (outreach/mentoring/firm advice/I don't know what) would be very much appreciated, by me if not by Avario87. Thank you for anything you can do. --John (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, (was playing around with my little pet dino for a couple minutes). Just had a real quick look - and yep, I'll have a talk with him tonight. (East Coast USA time). Have to run, but will think about the wording and drop him a "final" thought tonight. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  17:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for anything you can do. --John (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day!


ZappaOMati is wishing you a Happy Memorial Day! On this day, we recognize our fellow countrymen who have fought our nation's battles for the past several hundred years, protecting our freedom and safety. We remember those who paid the ultimate price and we support those who continue to willingly sacrifice their safety for the sake of their country. Happy Memorial Day!

Share this message by adding {{subst:Memorial Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

RfA

I have decided to take you up on your nomination offer. Please note that this will be my second RfA and that Go Phightins! will co-nom. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout  ?  16:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I just had a very quick look, and will drop you an email this weekend. I wasn't aware of the previous RfA either. For the moment, I would say to not rush anything. — Ched :  ?  17:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Ched. Please check your e-mail – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the e-mail is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

92.41.237.161 (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

TY - I got it. I'll follow-up further this weekend as time permits. — Ched :  ?  17:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Calm Voices

While I understand and appreciate your attempt to provide a calm voice for the whole KW saga, I suspect it's doomed to failure. Honestly, I think it's that witch-burning climate that drives more people off than any single editor's actions. I know it's damned near had that effect on me. It's far easier to ignore one random voice than it is a baying mob. Intothatdarkness 14:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm going to have to agree with you Into. I could easily write a wall of text here with my thoughts, but suffice to say that I do lament the loss of Kiefer's writing skills to the project; although that does seem to put me in the minority. Perhaps in the fall once the various schools re-open a calmer atmosphere will return to Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be accurate to mark Wikipedia is not a playground as historical though, or perhaps "obsolete" would be the most accurate designation. Oh well, as I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to be terribly active at the moment, perhaps it's best that I stop without further comment; but yes, I do agree with your observations. — Ched :  ?  18:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. All I'll add at this point is that closed societies need enemies. During one of the many MF tempests I remember asking who was going to be next. That may have just been decided. Hopefully you've got a relaxing and enjoyable summer ahead of you! There are far better things to be doing than playing a fiddle around here. I suspect I'll get sucked into another article or two (the history coverage here in some subjects is awful), but there are better things I could be doing with my time. And as far as I'm concerned you're still one of the good guys here. Take care. Intothatdarkness 18:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I award you the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar for the thoughtful comment you left on Dennis Brown's talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Adjwilley; although some may consider it idle ramblings of an old fool.. :) — Ched :  ?  11:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
No such thing. Besides, the competition for "ramblings of fools" is pretty damned high here. Not sure I'd want to mix it up there. Intothatdarkness 13:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL .. I probably shouldn't say anything - or at least I shouldn't say what I'm thinking. :-D — Ched :  ?  14:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Heh. It is what it is, although the talk on Dennis' page about the number of military and former-military here did get me thinking about some things in terms of culture norms and behavior on wiki. Not a good thing, especially given some of the shifts in US military culture over the past 10-15 years, but it does track with some of the things I've seen. Intothatdarkness 14:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't say I'd ever really considered the "military" angle much, although I think it's a point that's worth considering. I would say that of the 3 I've communicated with: TParis, Coffee, and Jennevica - I've found myself pleased with my interactions with those folks. There's likely a few others I've interacted with who are or were military - and I'm simply not aware of their personal elements. — Ched :  ?  14:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
It's an interesting question, really, since each service in its own way has a distinct culture that then blends into an overall culture. There have also been some (in my view not especially healthy) shifts in American society that can aggravate the less-desirable parts of American military culture. Dennis points to the idea of service, which does exist for some of them. But there's also a certain blinkered outlook that can grow up around it. Interesting if you're into group dynamics, but potentially problematic here. Intothatdarkness 15:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A kiss for you!

And I award you a wikikiss for your timely appearance here. Hope you're doing well! Bishonen | talk 11:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC).

Oh my - just when I thought I had gotten too old to blush. I ... I .... I have no idea what to say. — Ched :  ?  11:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
LOL at your edit summary. Bishzilla blushes in her massive way (bright blue, you may recollect), twirls girlishly, and giggles. Bishonen | talk 12:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
rrawrrRRR ... <reticently> Me like Ms. Shonen's "bright blue's". :) — ChedZILLA 12:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this too private to add my dangerous blushing? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
A most superb award indeed Gerda. — Ched :  ?  09:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
(blushing again) not what I wanted to say ;) accent on: every time I blushed the precious editor who made me blush was gone within a week, - it seemed like I missed a farewell, afterwards. I just had to update another article I created after the subject died, Hugh Maguire, RIP, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Fladrif block evasion

Hi, Ched. FYI, Fladrif has evaded his block by using 75.7.198.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but Dennis Brown already took care of it. I just wanted to let you know, since you have previously blocked Fladrif indefinitely back in April 2013. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sjones. Always a sad day when a former editor resorts to not only socking, but vandalism as well: (link) — Ched :  ?  09:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Ched, are you planning to close the ANI thread Ubiwit opened? I've been busy with RL work commitments and haven't been able to contribute diffs, etc. before this morning. I think you should know that I believe Ubikwit is Dylan Flaherty who was indef blocked back in 2010. User:Izauze was blocked for being the sockmaster, but he later denied it and was unblocked. If what Izauze claims is true, then I think Ubikwit is Dylan evading his block. I don't know if a Checkuser can go back that far, but Checkuser evidence isn't necessarily the only evidence needed, correct? I can point to behaviours that are identical. Collecting diffs would take a couple of hours or so. Let me know. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Since I've already made several comments in that thread - I'm a bit reluctant to close it myself. If they are active, perhaps User:Dennis Brown, User:Drmies, User: Kim Dent-Brown, User:Writ Keeper, User:Sjones23 or one of the other active editors on that page would consider closing this thread. I don't know if there's any more constructive input to be had on that, but I don't think I should be the one to make the call. As far as "sock" issues go, to be painfully honest - I am very weak in that area. I would suspect someone active at WP:SPI would be more able to give you a knowledgeable answer to that problem.
Going back to the "closing" issues - I'd also like to see this thread reach a conclusion. While I am still very much concerned about it being an ongoing problem, it doesn't appear that the community is quite able to deal with or offer a solution yet. I suspect that is one that will end up in the Arbs hands before long, although I fear there will be a lot of discontent when it happens. But that is an issue aside from what you're asking about. Anyway - as I said, as much as I agree the first mentioned thread has reached a conclusion, I don't feel comfortable in closing that on my own. If you are correct in the socking issues, I'd say it would be best to ask at the SPI areas. — Ched :  ?  15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I was asking about the closing because I think it's important to present more evidence at the ANI. Ubikwit's behaviours are problematic. Bringing the ANI thread is symptomatic of that. The behaviours with Dylan Flaherty are identical in unusual ways. The community should be aware of the similarities, at least. I will look into the WP:SPI. I've never gone there but my impression has been that it's simply a Checkuser run. I don't believe they're interested if a checkuser can't be effective because of time restraints. Regarding that other thread, I'm always amazed at how admins are able to sort issues like that. So much time is involved in just the learning curve on a dispute. Good luck with it. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
OH, I thought you wanted the thread to be closed. By all means if you have something to add to the discussion, please feel free to do so. Yes you are correct that Checkuser is not to be used in a fishing sense, but if "behavior" can be firmly established, then often one of the CU folks will be willing to consider it. I'm not familiar with Dylan Flaherty, but if he was blocked in 2010, then any CU data would be considered stale - in which case the "behavior" is all that they will have to go on for the most part. While they may geolocate and be able to confirm certain data which may support things - an IP address and other technical data alone would not be a great cause to block. — Ched :  ?  16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I will take some time now and gather a few things for the ANI. I posted there after your reply here because I didn't want to interfere if the plan was to close it. Sometimes least said is best, but in this case I think some more information would be useful for the community. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Ched, I can't find the ANI thread that Ubikwit brought. It seems to have mercifully disappeared, but I'd like to see what became of it. I checked the newest archive and didn't see it but that could be I'm using the wrong name for it. Any help would be appreciated. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll look tomorrow. Waaaayyyy past my bedtime .. and I do have a quick comment to make elsewhere. — Ched :  ?  06:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Is this considered to be a personal attack? PantherLeapord (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Most certainly not. It is just a warning, users should beware certain editors on this site. It makes no representation regarding the user. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.. must be imagining the passage "BEWARE USER:KUDPUNG - DO NOT LET YOUR OPINION BE CENSORED"... PantherLeapord (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I've said it once and i'll say it again. It makes no representation about the user so it is not a personal attack. A warning is not an attack. ★★RetroLord★★ 05:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You really have got to drop your vendetta against Kudpung, one of our most trusted admins. Because the community generally agreed that he was not censoring you, accusing him of otherwise after that is considered another personal attack. Given our prior interactions, it's not a good idea for me to say this, but while I like that you're helping with the GA process, this kind of thing will earn you a block of some kind, sooner or later, and I'd much rather have you do the reviews I know you like to do.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I do indeed see some issues here, but as there appears to be a lull in the storm at the moment I'll not throw any fuel to the fire. Hopefully some of the advice to a fairly new editor will be taken on board, as I would imagine that patience with some administrators is wearing a bit thin. I think there's some valuable concepts in the Jasper Deng post above - hopefully that will be a signpost to the way forward. — Ched :  ?  11:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It's probably a PA of a kind. It's certainly a clear demonstration of a total lack of of maturity and if he wants himself to look completely silly he's welcome to keep it there because it serves more as a warning to all about his attitude than it does about mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

👍 Like PantherLeapord (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I do have some thoughts on a few things, but it may take some time before I'm able to articulate them. — Ched :  ?  14:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, a couple thoughts. While I find items such as this and this somewhat unsettling, I am encouraged by the posts and how they were received by RL which were placed today by User:Spartaz and User:Bwilkins. I'm hesitant to use the word "maturity", but I've seen an abundance of "wiki-inexperience" over the last few months. And while I find it increasingly easy to be the old "get off my lawn, and turn down that damned music" type of guy - I do think it's important to remember that these new/young editors are indeed the future of Wikipedia (for better or worse). It is difficult to continually hear how "mean", "unfair", "unjust" and "abusive" administrators are; but perhaps with a bit of patience and guidance they will grow to be sturdy and valuable to the project. I know it's easy to say "I've seen this before, let's skip to the end result" - but perhaps that's not always best. For me? I'll try to continue my path of Desiderata and the Seven virtues (although that "Chastity" one I've never been particularly good at.) I know I've failed many times and acted with a lack of temperance, but I try to learn and improve with each failure. Oh well, I seem to have drifted off on some sort of soapbox sermon - so I'll leave it at that. Hopefully things can be guided back to a more placid atmosphere; because I do think in the end there are some good things to be gained from all those involved. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

LNC

Ched, could you please finish your AFD closure? The tag is still on the article; there's a process for that, but since I'm not an admin, I'm unaware of all the steps you must do to get the tag off the article and recorded in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note - I'll remove the tag now. — Ched :  ?  19:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Further to that; if the talk page already has an {{Article History}}, you shouldn't add another, but instead add parameters to the existing one, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Redrose64 for your help. I've also been in contact at User talk:Paul Erik on proper procedure as this is not a common task for me to perform. In an effort to curtail drama and disruption, I took the leap - so I do thank everyone for their help in this. — Ched :  ?  21:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A nit

Hi, Ched, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, you said, "given the current tone here" and you linked "here". However, the link is circular and points right back to the case itself. Did you want to link somewhere else or just not link at all? I was going to "fix" it, but then I thought I might do something you didn't intend, so here I am. Truly a minor issue, but I like minor issues - so much less drama. :-) Hope you're well. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant to point (with a permalink to the current version) and to the Arb comment section. If you end up fixing it before I get to it then that's fine. Thanks Bbb .. I do appreciate the heads up and the help. — Ched :  ?  09:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting comments at that Arb stuff by the way, Ched. Intothatdarkness 13:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Into .. how's life treating you? Good I hope. Re: "that Arb stuff" .. thanks(???). All I'll say is that I knew going in that any time I try to see all sides of a disagreement I run the very real risk of alienating all sides as well. Oh well - I gotta be me. Also, I missed it at first, but User:Bbb23, re: the typo? Claim WP:ENGVAR .. works for me. Now - with all that's going on, I grow rather tired of the childishness here (none of you folks) .. so I'm off to spend time in real life. If wiki doesn't self-destruct before I get back, perhaps I'll post again in the future. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  15:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I honestly think that's better than going in and trying to accommodate all sides, which accomplishes exactly nothing. I know that's often confused with being wise, but is it really wisdom or reciting platitudes? But I suspect that's just me. PS brings up some legitimate concerns, IMO, but we'll see what happens. In any case, RL is much better. Do enjoy yourself! Intothatdarkness 16:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Philosophical tangent

Yo, Ched, I saw your comment on ANI and responded snarkily, of course. But now I'm thinking about it seriously, and I wonder. It seems to me that our job really is just to protect editors, and not to protect articles. I see it as being along the lines of "ANI doesn't decide content" and the like: we don't rule on content matters while wearing our admin hats. The point is that our job as admins is to protect the editors so that they can then go on to protect the articles free from disruption. Of course, the line does get blurry, particularly in the case of edit-warring and the like where both "sides" are in the wrong. And there's really not much of a difference in practice. But that's kinda the approach I take to all things admin: my job is to protect the people, so that they are then free to protect the articles. Your thoughts? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm .. that's not a concept I had considered. I had always felt that only admins could block vandals and protect articles from a technical stand-point ... but I do like your line of thinking. It certainly narrows that vast void between "admin" vs. "editor". Very good ... I'm going to let that rattle around in my head for a bit. ... now off to see the snark ... lol. :) — Ched :  ?  15:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Have attempted to start discussion here regarding page protection and being involved [4]. An eventual RfC may be useful to clarify this issue as different admins seem to have different opinions on what is and is not appropriate. Appreciate your input.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool - thanks for the note Doc., .. I'll definitely throw my two cents in there (perhaps not until tomorrow .. but I'll be over). Appreciate the note. — Ched :  ?  20:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice: Important FYI

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/two-surveys-rank-pittsburgh-among-smartest-populations-in-country-693126/

— Ched :  ?  21:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The country they refer to is the USA, mind you ;) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Wait - hang on. Something exists OUTSIDE of the USA? I say [citation needed] :) — Ched :  ?  21:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Happiness is a warm puppy

Puppy kisses for Ched! — Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear • WOOF • 23:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks puppy ...sorry I'm not in a mood to chat, but being called a troll leaves me feeling a bit unwelcome. — Ched :  ?  00:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    • You worry too much. People here don't "know" you, don't put so much stock into random name calling and ad hominem. Seriously, Ched, people are always more rude online than in real life. Except me, of course. I'm a total ass in real life ;-) Quit taking that kind of stuff so seriously. It's empty words, meant to push your buttons. Don't empower others and give them control over you by taking them to heart. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Dennis. I could pontificate on much, but really it's all cool. I'm old, I'm tired, and I understand more than I have a right to. I've never been good at playing Internet games. I am who I am, and I'm good with that. It's not so much a matter of "worry", but more a sadness. You, Bish, PS, Bbb, Crisco, Mark A. NYB, Risker, Roger, Writ K, LHvU, Eric, Drmies, Gerda, Law, Lara, Worm, ... hell the list is FAR to long. I've been one of the really lucky ones. User:Iridescent has clued me up in so many ways that I will NEVER be able to repay the favor. And the absolute best is User:Pedro which has only ONE person better ... User:Huntster .. and you're getting into demigod territory there. So no ... I have absolutely NO right to worry, be upset, or mad. It's a matter of needing to step back for a bit. I try to see all sides; and that means that I'm often on the outs with all sides. That's cool. I get it. I understand. But I'm getting into tl;dr areas here ... so I'm good. Just need to step back a bit. I made an effort, and it didn't work out as well as I hoped. No problem. All good here, As "Arnold" would say ,, "I'll be back" — Ched :  ?  02:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem is Dennis, people shouldn't be like that and we shouldn't have to worry or not worry about it. PumpkinSky talk 02:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
That is fine, but we don't have control over what others say. We only have control over how serious we take stuff like that. For rude comments, at some point you have to just consider the source. If a stranger calls me an asshole (It happens here often enough) why SHOULD I care? It doesn't reflect poorly on me, it reflects poorly on them. I mean if you, or Ched, or Kudpung called me an asshole, it might bug me a little, but not enough to overreact. But if it came from some random kid, why the hell would I even bother to care? I'm not here to be loved, I'm here to help the reader get free, neutral and accurate information. I'm telling you, the proper application of "I don't care what strangers think" really reduces stress. That is what makes it so easy for me to stay calm while others are upset: I don't give strangers the power to manipulate my emotional state. That is also why it is easy to stay focused on the merits of a discussion and try to find a solution. I dunno. Once you quit caring what strangers think about you personally, the rest is pretty easy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 03:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm also old , and of a rather conservative ilk in many things, so much of what Ched says applies to me too. Thing is, we are often baited into situations by immature users, and some mature ones who have an ax to grind. Interesting is, however, that yesterday in RL, I had a wansinn altercation with a customer who just refused to understand how wrong he was. I retorted by threating to pull my people out and let him find another firm to finish his project. The cool thing is however, that because we are both adults (and well over 60), in less than 20 minutes we were smiling and enjoying a cool beer together. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's relatively few Wikipedia editors now that you can have that relaxed, thoughtful, over-60 chat with. I had dinner with one of them last month. Expecting most editors to be over 60 is pushing it a little! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Who is pushing anything like that? - diffs please. That said, if you've met as many Wikipedians (a couple of hundred) and had dinner with as many as I have, it would not escape your notice that the vast majority of them who are keen enough to go to meet-ups and conferences, and are not afraid to reveal their real identities and no longer be strangers and get things done, are at least in their 40s - and some are even in their 80s! Those who are not (well most of them) at least think, act, and speak as responsible, mature adults, and even if opinions differ, it's a pleasure to share their company. Meeting in person does wonders - it's a shame that it's not possible for the vast majority of editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the cohort of responsible and mature editors, those who as you put it "get things done", are largely in their final years. It's possible that the perceived upsurge in immaturity is actually caused by a demographical change in the editorship resulting from great numbers of such editors dying of old age. I learned only yesterday that one such pillar of the community has not much longer to be with us. (He has asked that a fuss not be made while he still clings to life, though.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
You may have something useful to say in this post, but for me it gets lost in inappropriate/makes-me-cringe comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Not a problem - perhaps you weren't its target audience. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
IT'S A PUPPY!!! — Huntster (t @ c) 03:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
AND A GIANT LIZARD .. rrawrrRR. Master having girly type company soon. He may be in much better mood after a week with her. I talk to him. He listen to me. Not always do what I say .. but he listen. He have much good advice to read here too. — ChedZILLA 13:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • sigh. Master say I bad. He say talk about girl company is OTT TMI. I not understand silly letters, but his tone not happy about what I post. He did get very happy when he see User:Kudpung make talk about "cold beer" .. Master LIKE cold beer. He say if Kudpung ever in Pittsburgh PA (USA) .. that they should get together. I prolly not invited though. :( Master did say that after next week I kin haz keyboard to work on old NASCAR articles too. Maybe work with User:Huntster on some science stuff too. Hi little Huntster - master always say nice things about you - me not sure why though. Maybe I kin work on some military hero stuff with little User:PumpkinSky too. Me like your little puppy PS .. he nice. I not have watchlist .. but will find things when we get back. — ChedZILLA 13:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Me either. :) — Ched :  ?  03:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Ideas

I have quickly drafted this. It is in no way definitive, but the effort is to keep it very simple and on track. You are welcome to develop this further on its talk page or tweak the draft until such times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to RfC space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sweet. I'll definitely get involved with that if it has legs. I'll be away from wiki next week, but will contribute what I can to it. — Ched :  ?  03:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflicts, etc.

I meant to respond but it was gone when I logged in later. I didn't want to give the impression that I was being snarky but was a little rushed and trying to gather the diffs you'd asked for & then I couldn't post them. Anyway, I don't know what the solution is to that kind of situation, but it's gone now. I'm not sure that's the right solution either once a thread has been started, but not really for me to say. Anyway, just wanted you to know. Victoria (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I also was a little rushed (after being "out" for hours), so I thought to do with it what I would do on my talk was the easiest solution, - sorry if it seems not "right". Eventually there will be an archive, the page is "under construction". My suggestion: if you want to have the question answered there, raise it again. - I try to get away from the burden of a past that hurt many people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What happened?

huh?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

He's super pissed about the crappy visual editor. Can't say that I blame him. It was even more poorly tested than most of their "improvements". PumpkinSky talk 00:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, PS, as usual, I'm not paying much attention to this stuff unless it interferes with something I'm doing (it started doing that just a little while ago). But what does that have to do with mean and nasty?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual editor

Hey Ched, regarding the Visual Editor, there are two options if you don't care for it (which I am guessing you don't). First you can go to "edit source" which edits the page the old way (no funny business involved). The second is you can just turn it off by adding importScript('User:Matma_Rex/VE_killer.js'); to User:Ched/common.js. Personally I don't mind it, and have been messing with it a bit, and I like that it is easy to move from VE to old school, but that's just me. Let me know if you need anything, you know how to get a hold of me. I had been talking to Ironholds about it, and unfortunately there is not way to turn it off via preferences as of yet. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:Visual Editor says you can "enable" it, implying that if you don't, it won't be implemented, but I see nothing in my preferences for that. In any event, I don't have a /common.js. I do have a /vector.js. Can I add the script to that, or do I have to create a /common.js?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I hate it. It obviously was tested very poorly, but that's normal for wiki "improvements". PumpkinSky talk 01:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


Ha ... I clicked "edit" on this thread and actually got a window I'm familiar with. I looked at Visual Editor a few weeks back and laughed .. I thought there was no way any fool would try to roll that out. I was wrong. I've been busy IRL .. but just turned on my computer and pulled up a page and saw a typo ... so I thought I'd fix it ... WHOOOAAA ... Nope ... I will not play this. It's cool. I understand progress. But I just don't wanna play the game. I hate Windows 8. I hate the websites that try to dumb down things. Now Wiki is being a "how dumb are you" site? Naaa... I have no interest in that. It's cool. We have a ton of "we hate authority" children coming in and doing nothing but raising drama levels. We have a very few admins. playing "I am the authoritah" roles ... so I'm not gonna miss much. I will not be talked down to. I will not deal with stupid. Sorry ..No. I'm not mad in the least, but I refuse to play the game. (hope this posts) — Ched :  ?  01:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm probably of more luddite mentality than you, but I think it would be a great shame if you left just because of an experiment (and it would be a great shame if you left period). You really only need to click on the tab "edit source" (to the right of "edit this page"), and everything works normally. It even works for section-editing on my screen: If I hover over the little "edit" link, "edit source" appears next to it, I can click it, and don't have to be bothered with visual editor, which I haven't figured out how to use either. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Just blame it on the women here, Ched. It's all our fault because we're so stupid. Victoria (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I think VE only works on article and user space (although I could be wrong). The one thing I like about it is that you aren't committed to it, you can easily use the old way by edit source (so really it is just clicking on a new tab). I find that for simple edits, such as changing titles or tweaking wording it is good. What I especially like is the link function, if you try to link to an article it gives you options to pipelink into it. I haven't used it much, maybe a few edits today, but from what I have seen I think that it will be an overall improvement, especially for new users. Anyway, I know you will make your own mind up on what you do, keep in touch. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Just TURN IT OFF in Prefs/Gadgets/top of Editing section, problem solved. PumpkinSky talk 01:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
They just added that option this evening. I've been using a script to bypass VE. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I tried the script, it's not perfect. The Prefs click works better. PumpkinSky talk 01:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind VE for simple text edits, but if you're trying to update citations or anything even remotely complex it sucks. I did use it some in test mode, and it didn't handle notes well there, either. The couple of times I've tried to fix or update wikilinks it's been a fucking disaster. Intothatdarkness 13:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that you can do a simple text edit there, but anything that needs markup syntax is hopeless. ANd for me, frankly, VE seems reluctant to save even a simple text edit. It's horribly slow and buggy, sometimes doesn't save at all. Montanabw(talk) 16:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I've seen that, too. I've also seen it refuse to save if the save window happens to be above, oh, an infobox, an image, or anything else it can pick up. The idea, IMO, is good. The implementation is seriously flawed. Unless the intent is to do away with citations completely. Then it's a brilliant idea. Intothatdarkness 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that about says it. VE is useful for correcting a quick typo, that's about it. Even then, I can't save it, my browser crashes. Montanabw(talk) 16:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't leave!

Ched, you're the best of editors and so many admire you so. I hope you decide to stick around. You're more appreciated than you'll ever know. My best wishes for you. ceranthor 02:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why thank you Ceranthor - very kind of you. Although, .. other than some old obscure NASCAR in 19xx stuff - I really haven't done much. I think I've done ok at some of the management aspects .. but meh, only a website. I'm sure I'll still be reading - have always done that - even in 2010 when I had like a total of 6 edits. I was really tempted to post the other day when I saw a "WP:AN notice (might have been User:Reaper Eternal who posted it). It mentioned something about VE may cause vandalism .. I was SOOOO tempted to post the following:
  • Not our problem. This post belongs on a VE board. This is an admin board. We are admins, and we block vandalism. Period. End of. Sorry. Sucks to be ya if you're using VE and get blocked because of the editing interface, suggest you contact the WMF. (Don't bother trying to talk to User:Jimbo Wales as he has banned ALL editors from his talk page and any posts will be removed.)

Hey - I heard WMF hasn't stuffed that VE crap down the throats of the simple.wikipedia ... so may go over there when I get back. Anyway, I appreciate the kind words - and wish you the very best. (and thanks to anyone who fixed my own talk page back to "real" wiki editing where I get a "real" window to work in.) Cheers. — Ched :  ?  11:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Telling it like it is Barnstar

Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
For always cutting through the wiki crap and telling it like it really is. We always know where Ched stands. GO CHED GO! PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Great to see you back editing again! It worries me when you leave, each time I wonder if it means the universe is unravelling or if there's just not enough pie in the world. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Even when Ched is on break, he's always here, watching us.PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
That's pretty scary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Why? I think it's neat. PumpkinSky talk 22:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Since you're a combined fruit/sky god, you would! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course! PumpkinSky talk 22:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Glad you know that a pumpkin is, scientifically speaking, a fruit. Specifically speaking, a berry/drupe; not a vegetable. And strictly speaking a strawberry is not a berry.PumpkinSky talk 23:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • "back"? Gee, that makes me sound like such a diva. Actually I will be returning home by mid-week. And yes, I am quite concerned/frustrated/unhappy about MANY things on wiki at the moment - hopefully there will be changes for the good in the future though. I certainly won't be "back" at any regular efforts or article work before the kids go back to school in the fall. (I am self aware that I don't have the patience for the petulant, rebel against authority teenish type of complaints I see so often) I'm also concerned that some of the complaints may well have a solid basis in fact too - so call me hypocritical or just being able to see both sides - IDK. But thank you for the kind thoughts Demi - I appreciate the sentiments. — Ched :  ?  13:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC) (and PS is correct, I do read - even when I'm not editing).

Arbitration case request

Hi Ched, I've done some preliminary formatting for your case request. However I need you to add any other parties to the request, and the diff of the notice you left them so they know they've been named in a case request. Also if you could add in some of the RfCs you mentioned, perhaps the big ones which didn't work (etc) and/or which relate to infoboxes as a whole rather that one specific type. If you need any help feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ched, please add courtesy notes on the talk pages of all of the people that you name in your case request; re:[5] section 4. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I did post notes for the ones that *I* added: [6], [7], and [8]. I haven't looked at the others pages as I didn't add them. — Ched :  ?  13:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
While Gerda clearly by virtue of her response has been informed - please also inform Nikki and Andy Babbett. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

RfAr comment re Gerda

Hi there, Are you certain that Gerda is German? I thought she was Austrian.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken then, and I've not met her so I suppose only she can answer that. — Ched :  ?  19:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Gerda ist ganz bestimmt ein Deutscherin, nicht ein Oesterreicherin.PumpkinSky talk 19:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Eine kleine Ahnung. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Ich bin eine Deutsche. It doesn't matter. The Austrians also speak German. Nationality doesn't matter. The first content question here was asked by Michael Bednarek, here. Or, as a friend has in his edit notice: “The only real nation is humanity”. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like :) — Ched :  ?  21:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Ich bin ein Krapfen? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
We can only wish it wouldn't matter. We won't live that long. Try telling passport control nationality doesn't matter;=) PumpkinSky talk 21:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I should avoid the obvious link. — Ched :  ?  21:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
She has two characteristics, at least, in common with most German-speakers. She is polite, and her English is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for mistaking my confusion for yours. ;-)--Peter cohen (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR Question

It isn't clear to me what you want the ArbCom to do about the Infobox issue. (I am not an arbitrator, but I know that they will want to know what they are being asked to do.) I suggest that you add to your statement something on proposed remedies. The ArbCom can ban users. It does not appear that you are asking them to ban anyone. The ArbCom can topic-ban users. Do you want them to topic-ban any users from creating or discussing infoboxes? The ArbCom can impose discretionary sanctions, which would allow uninvolved administrators to intervene to resolve disputes about infoboxes. That might be reasonable. If so, I suggest that you say so. The ArbCom can impose interaction bans, which would forbid particular users from responding to other users whom they dislike. Are you asking for that? Please say what remedies you are asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns Robert, and you are not the first to make this suggestion. Still, rather than attempting to "poison the well" so to speak, I'd rather the Arbs look at past discussions and decide if they are willing to tackle the situation without any preconceived ideas of sanctions. While I do have concerns about 1.) An administrator edit warring. 2.) WP:OWN issues. 3.) Edit stalking., and 4.) WP:LOCALCONSENSUS as it pertains to our projects; I would prefer to present those items in an evidence stage where due weight can be given to individual posts rather than simply the "views" that user:x needs to be banned. I have given this a great deal of thought, and eagerly await any further thoughts from the committee. Perhaps I will make a suggestion shortly, but I suspect I am also close to my 500 word limit. I do appreciate your kind note though, and will continue to think about possible suggestions as ways forward. — Ched :  ?  12:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

Hi Ched, I see that you have Ezra Pound added to your list of evidence for the infobox RfAR, [9]. I'm curious why you chose that particular page? I'd prefer a reply on my page, and forgive me in advance if I'm slow in responding - am dealing with some intermittent health problems that keep me from editing on some days. Thanks. (formerly Truthkeeper88 now Victoria (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Victoria. Just sorting through links and discussions is all. I'll be going through a bunch more over the next few days, so there's nothing special on that one. — Ched :  ?  12:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

block request

{{adminhelp}} ... could a kind passing admin. please block me for maybe 8-10 hours? It's a preventive thing. See, I'm kinda pissed about many things on wiki - and if I actually say what I'm thinking, well, it would be a bad thing. I'm also about to indulge myself in a bit of alcohol, and I can get a bit nasty when I do that. So just to prevent me being a drain on the projects resources, I think a block would be a good thing. I'll turn the computer off now, but I know that in a bit I'd be tempted to turn it on again and make some very unkind comments. thanks, your ever present "wp:diva" - — Ched :  ?  22:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't block you, but I'll raise a glass with you, Ched! Intothatdarkness 22:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
10 hours it is - no e-mails allowed, no editing talk page. Stay safe.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
We'll miss you. Be safe, dude. ceranthor 22:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hahahahaha! Now I can say whatsoever I like on this page and Ched and Chedzilla can't have no comeback! … Wait. Chedzilla! I'm gonna block that durn sock, too! Not much use blocking Ched and leaving Chedzilla on a drunken rampage! darwinbish BITE ☠ 22:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC).

Perhaps he cannot reply, but then his talk page stalkers can. I hope this was just a little humor because, to take advantage of a block in this manner (requested or not) seems rather inappropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh...what? Take advantage? Did you read Ched's request above? "I'm also about to indulge myself in a bit of alcohol, and I can get a bit nasty when I do that. ... I'll turn the computer off now, but I know that in a bit I'd be tempted to turn it on again and make some very unkind comments. thanks." I'm assuming he simply forgot to mention, or to think of, User:Chedzilla. If Ched's pissed about many things, Chedzilla's pissed, too, and if Ched indulges, Chedzilla indulges, through their shared circulation. Darwinbish may have put it in her own inimitable way (which Ched's quite used to, indeed they're good friends), but yes, I've blocked Chedzilla for ten hours. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC).
I just hope that while Ched is pissed at Wikipedia and pissed otherwise, he writes down all the things he would have said had he not been blocked and then tell us - hypothetically of course - what it was. 10 hours from now the truth may be revealed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Ched did not ask for email and talk page blockage. He probably wants that part undone.PumpkinSky talk 01:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that he cares. 10 hours is short enough that he won't be missing any crucial emails. ceranthor 01:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't take any bets on that. PumpkinSky talk 01:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps just restore Chedzilla's email access. Then, anyone with really important emails for Ched, in the next few hours, can just send them to Chedzilla. Chedzilla can consider whether the issue requires waking Ched or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Ehh, well, I just modified the block to allow e-mail anyway, just in case of an emergency. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • first I want to thank Mark A for allowing me to speak. As far as the "Chedzilla" account goes .,, lol ... but "hell hath no fury" .....

Ron .. thank you for the block ... but you fucked up big time buddy. I didn't ask for my talk page to be blocked ... I didn't ask for my email to be be blocked. You fucked up buddy. Not that I don't care ... I appreciate the the thought. Let me ask ... did it somehow feel good to click on that block button? Did it in some way make you feel powerful? I know I baited someone into this. — Ched :  ?  03:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. ceranthor 04:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a note for future reference: looks like it's a bit of a pity I was asleep during the above exchanges, since people (including Ched? and what about Chedzilla?) worried for nothing about the e-mail aspect. Having e-mail blocked does not prevent a person from receiving wikipedia e-mail (why should it?). I know this, I've tested it. And I hope it doesn't need saying that nothing technical that anybody can do on Wikipedia will prevent a blocked person from sending e-mail to addresses they already know (how could it?). Ched, not to mention Chedzilla, could have e-mailed anybody they'd ever received e-mail from, at any time. (That would include Darwinbish, I think.) Bishonen | talk 09:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
Thank you Ms. Shonen, your words of wisdom are always appreciated. — Ched :  ?  18:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I apply the same rules as User:Reaper Eternal/Block Requests. Blocking talk and e-mail stops unblock requests - this block was designed to be a full 10 hours with no way of changing - it was only 10 hours after all, unlikely to cause any issues. Did it make me fell good, no I felt a little sad that you thought it was so necessary, and FWIW you are the 1303th person I have blocked.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ron, and thanks for stopping back. I do apologize for my snark last night, and while I don't often see the need to remove talk and email, I do understand once I thought it through. Sorry as well for putting you in a tough position, but I knew it was possible for me to behave poorly given the circumstances. Best, — Ched :  ?  18:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
When ya give up the car keys, Ched, we make sure to confiscate the ones to the pickup also! LOL! But are you safely back in the saddl now? (Mixed metaphor unintentional, but both are transportation, at least...) video here Montanabw(talk) 19:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It was good to get away, and nope, I wasn't driving. I rode with a friend, even though the band was within walking distance. Great link by the way - thank you. I'll take the weekend and try to sort things out here, and hopefully things will look better afterwards. It is a wonderful feeling to know that I have so many great folks that care. — Ched :  ?  19:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
How it works in Morriston: [10] Martinevans123 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

just in case you need it --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
TY Demi — Ched :  ?  14:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Your number, apparently! What's the dramah? Never mind--I'll read about it in the Signpost, if The ed17 can ever pull his head out of those articles on battleships and Frenchified American-born rappers long enough to write a juicy bit of gossip. We should form an anti-admin cabal. If I get my bit back we can make it an admin-only anti-admin cabal. I resorted to off-wiki canvassing by leaving a picture of a real barnstar on your Facebook page. I hope your Facebook tells my Facebook when your birthday is so I can leave a misogynistic message somewhere about your beautiful but aging body. Hope you're doing alright, Ched. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
No gossip and conjecture? Well, crud, that's no fun at all! Why should the rest of us even read that rag, then? (grinning, ducking, running...) Montanabw(talk) 23:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone not named Newyorkbrad needs to be the voice of reason... ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You'll have to practice a bit more, Ed. Anyone with "New York" in their user name knows that gossip and conjecture sells like hot cakes. I noticed that VE (well, EV, of course) was introduced on ze French wiki as well and wanted to give them feedback, realizing quickly enough I could do so only in unacceptable language. LessHeard vanU, I think you're acting like a diva. Real Wikipedia editors don't retire, and if they do, they don't stick around and come back and weigh in on matters. Once you're out, you're out--or, fuck you and the horse you rode out on. (Psst, nice to see you around, LessHeard vanU.) (And did anyone notice that I ended a sentence with two prepositions? Anarchy!) Drmies (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Review of navigational templates

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Review of navigational templates. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite. — Ched :  ?  09:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
At least all of us do not have to put up with Fladrif's nonsense anymore since his block back in April (he did participate in that discussion on Template talk:Bullying), and I will never be like him since I do know better than to be disruptive or be incivil in the first place. His comments directed at me did make me upset to some extent (I know about his history before he posted that comment at me, and he does not know me therefore he cannot make conclusions about me) as well as reading up on that WBB debacle at WT:BASC (in which I participated very little), but I have since gotten over that matter after he was blocked. But when someone posts unfounded accusations about me or questionable aspects on my behavior, I get a little shaky and I know personal attacks can be painful regardless of the attacker's maturity. If you see any sockpuppets of Fladrif, please let me know. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, given that Fladrif is not active here right now - then I'll avoid commenting on him. As far as "bullying" goes, that is such a very touchy subject Sjones. It is totally unacceptable; but it is also a very subjective topic. On the one hand: a very tepid remark made to a person who is sensitive and easily hurt can be inferred to be intimidating. The perception of the person receiving a comment is indeed a reality to them. On the other hand: Even a brusk and strongly worded statement to a strong and confident person can be taken as simple and honest discourse. I won't hazard an example of the former, but I would be willing to mention User:Eric Corbett as an example of the later. At one point (long ago) a comment was made about my pulling my head out of my ass - perhaps not the exact words, and indeed it may have been a much more temperate comment than how I remember it. Still, the point being, that one must know their audience. Eric and I have over the years taken the time to talk to one another, and in talking, there was listening. We may disagree on many things, but I always respect Eric's views. (and I'm of the impression that even when he disagrees with me, he respects my right to hold the thoughts I do.) Technology is a wonderful thing, but we lose much in the written word which is present in face-to-face communication: body language, tone of voice, facial expressions to name a few. A somewhat long-winded way of saying that "bullying" to one person, is simply frank and honest communication to another. We can not judge "intent" when we read another person's words. And while "bullying" is indeed a very real and terrible aspect to teh Internetz - aside from those who share real world knowledge of one another, it is something that is easily misunderstood. One HUGE concern IMO is the collective "young people" who are still growing, learning, and trying to understand the real world. They can be easily influenced, and sadly, many lack parental guidance that would benefit them in growing into adulthood and maturity. Without the proper guidance, there is a danger of real problems. I greatly admire those on wiki who give their best efforts to offer such guidance - but I often wonder if it is something beyond the abilities given the tools that we have. There is also a very real danger of motivation being misunderstood as well. One adult trying to encourage a young user on the Internet can at times be seen as improper behavior - even if that is not the intent.
Now: I know I've conflated "bullying" with wp:childprotect here, but it is an easy segue to draw. It is for this reason that I'm so hesitant to enter into many of these discussions. I do often read them, and I do admire the honest and upstanding efforts of editors such as yourself when it comes to attempting to deal with these issues. Still, for myself, I must claim inadequacy in any abilities to offer true substantial change here. I do appreciate you keeping me apprised of these topics, but I hope you can understand my reluctance to participate as well. Best.
Regarding sockpuppets, it's really not something I have much ability in. I also lack the tools WP:CU to determine even a "self disclosed" sock ... simply because the thought of it being a Joe job come to mind. — Ched :  ?  17:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I know bullying is a very touchy subject to everyone. I can understand where you're coming from. For example, I have personally dealt with sockpuppets of the disruptive user Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has been community banned since 2009 for disruption and her most recent one was caught back in April 2013) for example. At one point, I first encountered her as one of her sockpuppets, Yomiel, back in early 2011. Looking over at that Silent Hill video game discussion and the article's edit war, and seeing what she had done to Hula Hup (talk · contribs) made me lose patience and sent her to ANI, where she was blocked for edit warring on Silent Hill. She came back again, and I reported her once again, but she guilt-tripped me and Hula Hup, and Diannnaa and the later indef-banned user BelloWello tried to help her out and I apologized. However, this only gave me extra trouble Hula Hup reported her yet again at ANI and MuZemike exposed her as a sockpuppet of Fragments of Jade. Ever since that incident, as well as the incidents with Yourname in late 2011, I cannot trust sockpuppeteers nor users who disrupt the project. In fact, a few months ago, I encountered another one of FOJ's sockpuppets, an IP, but I filed an SPI on this matter and that was easily dealt with. I've blown up at users before, apologized and tried not to do things like that again, but that's what separates me from dealing with disruptive users like these. Once again, thanks for your comments and opinions on the matter and I think that they are extremely helpful. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad

You were involved in a past discussion about this user, so you may be interested in this: WP:ANI#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall being familiar with this situation. — Ched :  ?  04:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this user was suspected of being a sockpuppet or something. See also [11]

Closing SA unblock discussion

I am uninvolved and know little about the situation but, as I read the discussion I feel you made a good call. These are never easy situations and many individuals will be unhappy with the result, but I want you to know I thought your decision was very much based on the strongest arguments made.

Have a cupcake. -- (Amadscientist)Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 04:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mark .. it's greatly appreciated. — Ched :  ?  04:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
No cupcakes for you, Ched--bad for the old cholesterol. Thanks for the close. Let's hope it won't have a sequel. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
That cupcake has no calories and no cholesterol...since its just an image file. ;-)--Mark Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 05:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

SA Unblock question

May I ask why my input was apparently not considered? I don't have a issue with your decision, but you listed those opposed to the unblock without listing me. GregJackP Boomer! 10:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake I guess. Sorry. It wasn't intentional. — Ched :  ?  10:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My recent RfA

I should have said thanks for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem Buster .. sorry it didn't go better for you. — Ched :  ?  16:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Restoration

It appears that you got confused: I can't see that the latest contents of this talk page is archived anywhere.—Kww(talk) 08:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments on your talkpage certainly are not of no value --Rschen7754 08:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Support that, you are a source of inspiration, Ched. Take all the time out that you need, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well. :) John Cline (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Take care of yourself. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Best wishes

Your comments on your talkpage certainly are not of no value --Rschen7754 08:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Support that, you are a source of inspiration, Ched. Take all the time out that you need, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well. :) John Cline (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Take care of yourself. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your many contributions to Wikipedia and best of luck in your future endeavors. NE Ent 12:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope its a rest which all should take every now and then. Your sane Wikipedia voice is so needed.(olive (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC))
The light is always left on for Ched. PumpkinSky talk 15:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like per all of the above! Montanabw(talk) 20:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. Good luck. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know in this particular case, but I have gathered that Ched was unhappy with a number of things that had been going on here, and had been for some time. Frankly, this is a hell of a loss. Intothatdarkness 14:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hey buddy. I think we know each other pretty well and I'm really gutted to see this, but I know what WP can be like. I do hope that you're ok and will come back some day. You have my phone number and I do hope you keep in touch. All the best mate, hope to see you back here soon. I will miss you. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 12:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I already miss your voice of reason; take some time off, but please come back soon - why does it always have to be the best editors who leave in situations like this? Go Phightins! 02:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


Some clarification.

First - thank you so much folks - your kind thoughts are dear to my heart and I appreciate them beyond belief. Granted that it is obvious that I've become increasingly frustrated with the stupidity and lack of true leadership on Wikipedia; but that is not the sole or primary reason for my actions. I chose the middle of the night on Sunday of a holiday weekend to simply delete my page and talk, thinking that it would be the quiet way out ... obviously that didn't quite work out the way I intended. While I failed miserably in my efforts on the infobox case, I do ask for forgiveness. Days after I filed, I was presented with some real life situations which I was not expecting. Now, with real life situations I must understand that my emotions were driving how I was and am thinking. I know that I'm not able to be fully objective and at times I even have difficulty being civil to some.

To be honest, I likely would not have posted anything but for the most honorable User:Bishzilla. It's likely not a secret that Chedzilla has a certain attachment to the luscious lizard. OK ... Yea ... I think the world of Bish. Anyway .... my lack of participation is not solely out of anger or frustration with the Wikipedia project. It's a self-awareness that I'm not currently able to be objective, spend the time to research all aspects of a dispute, and offer a solution that is fair to all sides. For that reason I've scrambled my admin. account and put it on a thumbdrive.

For now I just won't be able to be on the Internet (or Wiki) for 4 or 5 hours a day. If I am online, and I see a typo, I'll fix it. I will do my best to find my way back to you folks, but it may take some time. Let's not make a big deal of it, and everyone go create some great content. Best to all. (BTW - Bish has full authority to archive and manage my pages as she sees best. Others (PS, Gerda, Montanabw, Iridescent, etc.) are also free to manage things as they feel best) — ChedZILLA 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for trusting in me, - you are a model for assuming good faith. Even a tiny bit of your presence makes this project better. I confess that I felt sick - a third time here - when I saw your pages in red, but - as I said in my first email to you (remember?): recovery in progress ;) - I hope that can be said for your real life as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Ched, I think I speak for many when I say we'd rather have you fixing occasional typos when you feel inclined to do so rather than your total departure from Wikipedia. I find it helps me return to activities that first brought me to edit on WP...fixing links, categorizing, rewriting awkward sentences, wikignome stuff. Leave the drama to other people and do as much as you want so that it is enjoyable. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes closed

An arbitration case regarding behaviour around the use of Infoboxes in several articles has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from adding, or discussing the addition or removal of, infoboxes.
  2. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) is admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
  3. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from: adding or deleting infoboxes; restoring an infobox that has been deleted; or making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article. They may participate in wider policy discussions regarding infoboxes with no restriction, and include infoboxes in new articles which they create.
  4. Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs) is admonished for treating Wikipedia as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.
  5. Smerus (talk · contribs) is reminded to conduct himself in a civil manner.
  6. All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.
  7. The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 00:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion


Post-game recap
Clearly a shutout victory for the anti-infobox crowd.
  • Anti-infobox: 2 (Two) (Andy, Gerda)
  • Pro-infobox: 0 (Zero)
Some thoughts:
  • Clearly it helps to have an administrator on your side who is willing to violate core principle and policy. (stalking: a.k.a. wp:hound, wp:battle and wp:ew) Further: said administrator will not be sanctioned for said violations.
  • Apparently when it benefits one POV, any arb whose not currently active can have all their input invalidated and struck.
  • Obviously wp:battle only applies to the losing side of a discussion.
  • Wikiprojects may violate wp:own
  • While the "remedy" says: "The Arbitration Committee recommends that a well-publicized community discussion be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article." Clearly this was offered as tongue-in-cheek humor, sarcasm, a hypothetical, or as some sort of cruel humor. I say this for two reasons:
  1. Of two of the most supportive of infoxboxes, a) one person has been banned from discussing the topic even in the most general forms, and b) a second person is limited to only two (2) comments per discussion.
  2. When presented with page to introduce the discussion, it was made clear on the PD talk page that the RfC was not actually wanted at this time.
In closing I'll simply say that Charles Lutwidge Dodgson fans are surely enjoying the story told in this affair. I have now followed through and stuck this out to its conclusion. Hopefully should I return in a day or three the powers that be won't object to me archiving and blanking this page. I wish all those who continue to toil in Wonderland the very best. — ChedZILLA 10:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
A very astute summary, oh wise and powerful descendant of mighty reptilian overlords. Change some of the names and I'd say it could apply to a wider number of the cases that have come before that body. Just as articles that have no editorial oversight (in the real sense of the word editor, not the craptastic construct they use here) will quickly sink to the lowest common denominator of the contributors or information, what passes for Wikipedia's ultimate dispute resolution center will function (or not) based on which element of the shadow bureaucracies happens to hold the most sway at any given time. At the very least Arbs listed as inactive at the start of a case should NOT be able to comment on it at any point during the proceedings. But the Supreme Peoples' Tribunal has spoken. That is all. I must congratulate you on your decision (for it seems to be one) to step away from the madness. The "take a break and return" faction, sadly, just encourages the mayhem. Intothatdarkness 14:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
O wise and powerless Ched, please don't blank this page full of insight. See my view also, and remember that I can keep singing better with your support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hang in there Ched and his reptilian friend. If you guys bail, then it will be left to the rest of us to cling to sanity with our fingertips! Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

empty chair

— The candles you have lit will not wane. WE cannot replace you but will do our best 'till you return.

```Buster Seven Talk 18:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ched/Archive_29&oldid=1151016144"